Sending top shelf ventilators made by a Russian firm under U.S. sanctions? I wonder if
this is some sort of ironic Russian humor, besides being a bridge-building gesture, of
course. If it's a troll, we richly deserve it, IMHO.
Remind me again why we are not working collegially with this talented nation of
Russia.
I will give you 100% TrueUkrainian (the new plucky "democratic" friends of the Great West,
remember?) answer - of course not!
As everybody knows (tm), Russian help is not just useless, but promotes this dreadful,
aggressive "Russki Mir", that stands for everything wrong, compared to the bright* genderless
globalist and eco-friendly progressive future.
Western countries and their populations, that have become the subject of the brutal and
aggressive Russian humanitarian help (that's Italy and US of A) in order to maintain
ideological integrity and robust correct-think, have to adopt a few simple measures, already
tried and tested by the great patriots of the Ukraine:
1) Ask any Russian doctor and member of the medical personnel, that might try to treat
you, about their attitude towards Putin, war in Syria and to whom really belongs the Crimea
(optional for the Westerners – also ask about gays and representation quotas). If the
answer is not 156% ideologically pure, refuse to be treated by such violent satrap of the
Regime!
2) Stage a raid on a warehouse with the medical masks from Russia, and expropriate every
single one of them! In order to prevent innocent bystanders from ever using such vile tools
of Russian propaganda in their daily life, find a new and creative way to dispose of them.
One such use is beloved by all truly patriotic members of the Ukrainian civil society (like
C14 and "UPA-UNSO") – use them to make torches for your next rally!
3) Be proactive citizen – refuse to use Russian lung ventilators! Die a free
person!
_______
*) But not too bright as not to offend epileptics.
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
You entirely miss the point that the "money" you describe is fiat currency, mostly in
digital form, which is entirely under the control of the Central Banks that have the
ability to create infinite amounts of it . Digital/paper fiat has no intrinsic value, it
is fungible by decree, because governments require that you accept this "legal tender" for
goods and services.
The ability to create infinite money provides those in charge with almost infinite power;
digital fiat currency provides the banksters with the ability to manipulate/rig all markets,
fund endless war (see All Wars are
Bankers Wars ), control the media and educational systems, etc etc. That is the hidden
function of Central Banks. As a famous Rothschild once said, "Give me control of a nation's
money and I care not who makes it's laws"
The COVID-19 pandemic very conveniently happened to come along at a time when the credit
markets were imploding, requiring the exponential growth of the fiat currencies (which had
reached the end of their always limited life-spans and had entered into a crack-up boom).
What a great excuse to openly move into producing trillions and trillions of dollars (much,
much more to come). In the US, the Treasury has essentially merged with the Federal Reserve;
the "bail outs" will be used to provide endless interest free money to the banks, which will
then loan the money to the small businesses (at 5.75% interest) being destroyed by the
shutdowns. See, the system is working!
The banks HAD to move into an exponential growth phase of its currencies in order to
prevent the collapse of the Western financial system. The growth of fiat/debt-based currency
is now similar to the exponential growth of the coronavirus. This is a hyperinflationary
event that will lead to the abandonment of the dollar as the global reserve currency.
US sidestepped OWN SANCTIONS against Russia to save American lives from Covid-19... If only it cared as much about Iranian
lives
Scott Ritter
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General
Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter
@RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer.
He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and
from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.
Russian plane with medical aid unloaded at JFK airport, United States, New York City Ruptly Follow RT on
When it comes to saving American lives, sanctions are not an
obstacle to the provision of life-saving medical equipment. Ramping up sanctions on struggling Iran is okay however which goes
to show the US price tag on human life. It was a sight that warmed the heart of even the most cynical American opponent of Vladimir
Putin's Russia -- a giant An-124 aircraft, loaded with boxes of desperately needed medical supplies, being offloaded at JFK Airport.
When President Trump spoke on the phone with his Russian counterpart on March 31, he mentioned America's need for life-saving medical
supplies, including ventilators and personal protective equipment. Two days later the AN-124 arrived in New York.
As the aircraft was being unloaded, however, it became clear that at least some of the equipment being offloaded had been delivered
in violation of existing US sanctions. Boxes clearly marked as containing Aventa-M ventilators, produced by the Ural Instrument Engineering
Plant (UPZ), could be seen. For weeks now President Trump has made an issue about the need for ventilators in the US to provide life-saving
care for stricken Americans.
There was just one problem -- the manufacturer of the Aventa-M, UPZ, is a subsidiary of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies
(KRET) which, along with its parent holding company ROSTEC, has been under US sanctions since 2014. Complicating matters further
is the fact that the shipment of medical supplies was paid in part by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a Russian sovereign
wealth fund which, like ROSTEC, was placed on the US lending blacklist in 2014 following Russia's intervention in Crimea. Half of
the Russian aid shipment was paid for by the US State Department, and the other half by RDIF.
According to a State Department spokesperson, the sanctions against RDIF do not apply to purchases of medical equipment. KRET,
however, is in the strictest SDN (Specially Designated Persons) sanctions
list , which means US citizens and permanent residents
are prohibited from doing business with it. So while the letter of the sanctions may not have been violated, the spirit certainly
has been.
One only need talk to the embattled Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, to understand the difficulty in trying to purchase
much-needed medical equipment during a global pandemic where everyone else is trying to do the same. New York has been competing
with several other states to purchase much-needed ventilators from China. "It's like being on eBay" , Cuomo recently told
the press, with 50 states bidding against one another, driving the price up. The issue became even more complicated when the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, entered the bidding war. "They big-footed us" , Cuomo said, driving the price per ventilator
up to $25,000. "We're going broke."
Cuomo estimates that New York will need upwards of 40,000 ventilators to be able to handle the influx of stricken patients when
the outbreak hits its peak. At the moment, New York has 17,000 ventilators available -- including 2,500 on order from China -- and
Cuomo doesn't expect any more. "We're on our own." Plans are in place to begin imposing a triage system to prioritize ventilator
availability if and when the current stockpile is exhausted. These plans include the issuance of an emergency waiver that permits
health care providers to take a patient off a ventilator to make it available for another patient deemed to be more "viable"
-- that is, who has a greater expectation of surviving the disease.
Cuomo's predicament is being played out around the world, in places like Italy, Spain -- and Iran, where the outbreak of coronavirus
has hit particularly hard. The difference, however, is that while the US, Italy and Spain are able to scour the global market in
search of life-saving medical supplies, Iran is not. US sanctions targeting the Iranian financial system, ostensibly imposed to prevent
"money laundering" by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command, which has been heavily sanctioned by the US over the years,
have made it virtually impossible for Iran to pay for humanitarian supplies needed to fight the coronavirus outbreak.
As bad as it is for Governor Cuomo, at least he can enter a bidding war for medical supplies. Iran can't even get its foot in
the door, and it is costing lives. Making matters worse, at a time when the international community is pleading for the US to ease
sanctions so Iran can better cope with an outbreak that is taking a life every ten minutes, the US instead doubled down, further
tightening its death grip on the Iranian economy.
The global coronavirus pandemic will eventually end, and when it does there will be an accounting for how nations behaved. Nations
like Russia and China have been repeatedly vilified in the US media for any number of reasons -- even the Russian aid shipment containing
the sanctioned ventilators has been dismissed as a "propaganda ploy." What, then, do you call the US' blatant disregard
for select human lives?
The callous indifference displayed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other officials to the suffering of the Iranian people
by increasing sanctions at a time when the situation cries out for them to be lifted in order to save lives, when contrasted to the
ease in which US sanctions on Russia are ignored when life-saving medical equipment is needed, drives home the point that, as far
as the US is concerned, human life only matters when it is an American one. That might play well among American voters (it shouldn't),
but for the rest of the world it is a clear sign that hypocrisy, not humanitarianism, is the word that will define the US going forward.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that entering a financial relationship with RDIF is prosecutable
under the US sanctions regime. In reality, RDIF is under sectoral sanctions that only apply to certain interactions, which, according
to a State Department spokesperson, do not include purchases of medical equipment. The article has been changed accordingly.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"...the intelligence agencies were warning about information derived from medical sources
in China that suggested viruses were developing that might become a pandemic, but the
politicians, most particularly those in the White House, chose to take no action. He writes
that " the Trump administration has cumulatively failed, both in taking seriously the
specific, repeated intelligence community warnings about a coronavirus outbreak and in
vigorously pursuing the nationwide response initiatives commensurate with the predicted
threat. The federal government alone has the resources and authorities to lead the relevant
public and private stakeholders to confront the foreseeable harms posed by the virus.
Unfortunately, Trump officials made a series of judgments (minimizing the hazards of
COVID-19) and decisions (refusing to act with the urgency required) that have needlessly made
Americans far less safe."
"The article cites evidence that the intelligence community was collecting disturbing
information on possibly developing pathogens in China and was, as early as January, preparing
analytical reports that detailed just what was happening while also providing insights into
how devastating the global proliferation of a highly contagious and potential lethal virus
might be. One might say that the intel guys called it right, but were ignored by the White
House, which, per Zenko, acted with "unprecedented indifference, even willful
negligence...."
@bevin #8
In January? Really? Seems like the highly paid and budgeted intelligence agencies should be
able to do a better job of predicting the nCOV threat before China instituted a shutdown on
January 23 due to its view that nCOV was a problem.
Frankly, seems more like intel agency ass covering than anything else.
Can anyone think what our society might have spent
six and a half trillion dollars on instead of 20 years of war in the Middle East for
nothing? How about the
trillion dollars per year we keep spending on the military on top of that?
Invading, dominating and remaking the Arab world to serve the interests of the American empire and
the state of
Greater Israel sounds downright quaint at this point. Iraq War II, as Senator Bernie
Sanders said in the debate a few weeks ago, while letting Joe Biden, one of its primary
proponents , off the hook for it, was "a long time ago." Actually, Senator, we still have
troops there fighting
Iraq War III 1/2 against what's left of the ISIS insurgency, and our current government
continues to threaten the launch of Iraq War IV against the very
parties we fought the last two wars for
. This would
almost certainly then lead to war with Iran.
The U.S.A. still has soldiers, marines and CIA spies in Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya,
Mali, Tunisia, Niger, Nigeria, Chad and only God and
Nick Turse know where else.
Worst of all , America under President Donald Trump is still "leading from behind" in the
war in
Yemen Barack Obama started in conspiracy with Saudi then-Deputy Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman back in 2015. This war is nothing less than a deliberate
genocide .
As Senator Rand Paul once explained to Neil Cavuto on Fox News back before he decided to
become virtually silent on the matter, if the U.S.-Saudi-UAE alliance were to succeed in
driving the Houthi regime from power in the capital city, they could end up being replaced by
AQAP or the local Muslim Brotherhood group, al-Islah. There is zero
chance that the stated goal of the war, the re-installation of former dictator Mansur
Hadi on the throne, could ever succeed. And yet the war rages on. President Trump says he's
doing it
for the money .
That's right . And he's just recently sent the
Marines to intervene in the war on behalf of our enemy-allies too.
We still have troops in Germany in the name of keeping Russia out 30 years after the end of
the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Empire, even though Germany is clearly not
afraid of Russia at all, and are instead
more worried that the U.S. and its newer allies are going to get them into a fight they do
not want. The Germans prefer to "get along with Russia," and buy natural gas from them, while
Trump's government does everything in its power to
prevent it .
America has
expanded our NATO military alliance right up to Russia's western border and continues to
threaten to include Ukraine and former-Soviet Georgia in the pact right up to the present day.
As the world's worst hawks and Russiagate Hoax
accusers have
admitted , Trump has been by far the
worst anti-Russia president since the end of the last Cold War.
Obama may have hired a bunch of
Hitler-loving Nazis to overthrow the government of Ukraine for him back in 2014, but at
least he was too afraid to send them weapons, something
Trump has done
enthusiastically , even though he was actually impeached by
the Democrats for moving a little too slowly on one of the shipments.
We still have troops in South Korea to protect against the North, even though in economic
and conventional terms the South overmatches the North by
orders of magnitude . Communism really
doesn't work . And the only reason the North even decided to make nukes is because George
W. Bush put a gun to their head and essentially made
them do it . But as Cato's
Doug Bandow says , we don't even need a new deal. The U.S. could just forget about North
Korea and it wouldn't make any difference to our security at all.
And now China. Does anyone outside of the
U.S. Navy and
Marine Corps really care whether the entire Pacific Ocean is an American lake or only
95% of it ? The "threat" of Chinese dominance in their own part of the world exists only in
the heads of hawkish American policy wonks and the Taiwanese, who should have been told a long
time ago that they are
on their own and that there's no way in the world the American people or government are
willing to trade Los Angeles and San Francisco for Taipei.
Perhaps without the U.S. superpower standing behind them, Taiwanese leaders would be more
inclined to seek a peaceful settlement with Beijing. If not, that's their problem. Not one
American in a million is willing to sacrifice their own home town in a nuclear war with China
over an island that means nothing to them. Nor should they. Nor should our government even
dream they have the authority to hand out such dangerous war guarantees to any other country in
such a reckless fashion.
And that's it. There are no other powers anywhere in the world. Certainly there are none who
threaten the American people. Our government claims they are keeping the peace, but there are
approximately two million Arabs and
Pashtuns who would disagree except that they've already been killed in our recent wars and so
are unavailable for comment.
The George W. Bush and Barack Obama eras are long over. We near the end, or half-way
point , of the Trump years, and yet our former leaders' wars rage on
.
Enough already. It is time to end the war on terrorism and end the rest of the American
empire as well . As our dear recently departed friend
Jon Basil Utley learned from his professor Carroll Quigley ,
World Empire is the last stage of a civilization before it dies . That is the tragedy. The hope
is that we can learn from history and preserve what's left of our republic and the freedom that
made it great in the first place, by abandoning our overseas "commitments" and husbanding our
resources so that we may pass down a legacy of liberty to our children.
The danger to humanity represented by the Coronavirus plague has, by stark relief, exposed
just how unnecessary and therefore criminal this entire imperial project has been . We could
have quit the empire 30 years
ago when the Cold War ended, if not long before.
We could have a perfectly normal and peaceful relationship with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Korea,
Russia, China, Yemen and any of the other nations our government likes to pretend threaten us.
And when it comes to our differences, we would then be in the position to kill
them with kindness and generosity, leading the world to liberty the only way we truly can,
voluntarily, on the global free market of ideas and results
.
That is what the world needs and the legacy the American people deserve.
I realise few will since amerikans are 100% exceptionalist right up to their last breath but
please read the best article by far on masks & respirators cleaning issues esp such ones
as 'steam' cleaning are on this link I posted earlier.
It is written by Dr John Campbell who has been writing on this virus for several months.
My brother the retired journo recommended him to me in early February, so naturally I have
been assiduous in ignoring the bloke for that reason, combined with the fact Campbell is an
englander, but he has put together an excellent piece on masks & respirators, one which
uses y'know those pesky fact things to support his statements about assorted items efficacy,
longevity and ability to be cleaned. With respirators 95% & above he recommends having
several and rotating them so that they cop 4-5 days down time which should be enough time for
the virus to kark it of its own accord.
I don't believe for a moment that will stop the continual spouting of uninformed claptrap,
but I tried.
US Politicians never forget that for the past seventy years russophobia and sinophobic
racism- both of which have deep roots in the culture- formed the bases of the ideology of
anti-communism.
The Democrats, totally discredited by the 2016 Election campaign and decades of
Clinton/Obama swings towards the right and away from the old New Deal constituencies, began
by accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians- who most of the DNC deliberately suggested,
and probably genuinely thought, were Communists.
Trump's response is now to revive the anti-Peoples Republic witch-hunts of the past to use
against the Democrats.
We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them,
attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their
lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military
adventure since 1945 - the all purpose anti-gook racism that saw them through the wars
against Japan, Korea, IndoChina and the People's Republic.
It is going to make the spectacle of two monkeys throwing shit at each other seem
positively restrained - the Democrats howling about Russia and the Republicans, reverting to
type, starting up lynch mobs against China.
There is no conspiracy, they didn't make up false documents to start a Russian investigation,
oh wait they did.. I just read that Bloomberg spent north of $500,000,000.00 to become
president and you want me to believe the Russians spent 1% of that and got better results..
You have to be a special kind of stupid.
, Trump
gave his speech on 11 March . It should come as no surprise that Putin's speech framing and
proposals were far superior to Trump's, who employed the Big Lie at the top of his speech:
"Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years, we
have the greatest economy anywhere in the world, by far.
"Our banks and financial institutions are fully capitalized and incredibly strong. Our
unemployment is at a historic low. This vast economic prosperity gives us flexibility,
reserves, and resources to handle any threat that comes our way.
"This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will
overcome together as a nation and as a world."
Absolutely nothing he said above is true and in many cases he was immediately proved wrong.
In stark contrast, Putin chose the following to begin his speech:
"By taking precautionary measures, we have been largely able to prevent the infection from
rapidly spreading and limit the incidence rate. However, we have to understand that Russia
cannot insulate itself from this threat, simply considering its geography. There are countries
along our borders that have already been seriously affected by the epidemic, which means that
in all objectivity it is impossible to stop it from spilling over into Russia.
"That said, being professional, well organised and proactive is what we can do and are
already doing. The lives and health of our citizens is our top priority .
"We have mobilised all the capabilities and resources for deploying a system of timely
prevention and treatment. I would like to specially address doctors, paramedics, nurses, staff
at hospitals, outpatient clinics, rural paramedic centres, ambulance services, and researchers:
you are at the forefront of dealing with this situation. My heartfelt gratitude to you for your
dedicated efforts." [My Emphasis]
We must also consider the numerous gaffs Trump committed prior to his speech, his earlier
gleeful gloating over China's troubles in January, and his politicizing of the crisis along
with that of Pompeo. Then there's his escalation of the illegal attacks on Iran and Venezuela
specifically, which are crimes against humanity. Yes, I readily admit my anti-Trump bias, but
I'm not blinded like those who applaud him. Putin had immediate proposals for aid to his people
that they can count on, while Trump did next to nothing by comparison. But do please read them
both and make your own determination as to which nation and leader you'd rather have during
this sort of crisis.
As a Russian I don't approve of this aid that Putin sent to Italy. That's Soviet-slyle
showmanship, when our country objectively cannot afford it. Stalin was sending grain to East
Germany, when Russia was starving. Now Putin is doing something similar.
At the very least he should have extracted some payment for it – Italy is a rich
country, has bigger GDP than Russia, and can totally pay.
@Felix Keverich I would have to disagree with you on this, my friend. Italy is famous for
being one of the most communist friendly countries in the western world. During "communism"
Italy's Fiat gave the license to build their cars to many Eastern block countries: Poland,
Yugoslavia, and yes USSR.
The original Lada was nothing else but Fiat 124 model. As a sign of gratitude the Russians
even renamed the city where the Lada was being made into Togliatti – after an Italian
communist. I think the friendship and respect between Italy and Russia goes way back, and now
the Russians are just trying to continue that tradition by helping as much as they can Italy
in these difficult times.
@Felix Keverich Soft power is much. much cheaper than hard power. Russia has been
constantly demonised in the West and a show of compassion of this magnitude reveals the lies
for what they are. It will be much more difficult to garner support for harsh measures
against Russians when people everywhere see them as being "just like us". This is especially
true of Europe whose support is very much needed by the US and it's minions like the UK,
Poland and the usual flunkies.
Why did you label Cyrano's response to you to be trolling? It was polite and sincere, I
thought.
@Felix Keverich If a Russian military gaining experience against an unknown enemy ,
isn't
that a form of payment ?
I am not a Russian , but I am sure your president knows what he is doing.
@Cyrano As a Russian I do support this action, despite it obviously will have no positive
changes in Italy's policy.
Not all Russians are like Felix (if he's really Russian, which I'm not sure).
As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up
The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator
Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'
Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly Pompous Neo-Con' by
my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should be making complaints to Ofcom (a British
bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it
off air.
1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia
Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of Russia and its leader.
How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We neocons say that demonization of Russia
and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!
RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers
There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to face the death
penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free society.
3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash
Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news breaking. Some
even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt were made. Others said that we couldn't
rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down
the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why
it must be taken off the air.
4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'
This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who opposed airstrikes
on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War coalition and has a regular weekly
show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express
their views on international affairs on television, not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle
East on deceitful grounds every couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war
'conspiracy theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs and claimed, fantastically that Bush and Blair were
making it all up.
5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives
This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the left and the right. It's
given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right, like Ron Paul. These people should not be
allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic
consensus should be allowed on TV. It's very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are
not heard.
6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links
I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an RT interviewee who
had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a link to another website which denied
the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the US.
After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow invitee had once sat
at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a
magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.
7. RT is anti-semitic
Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.
8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything
This is totally unacceptable.
9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel
This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded politicians is demonized
for voicing their opinion.
10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers
For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century" invade another country
on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading
American politician is appalling, and in a free society ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political
figure speaks is to tug one's forelock.
11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria
In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting pro-democracy rebels were actually
fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have
only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course, it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.
12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share
It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?
13. The most important reason: RT is a threat
More and more people are watching it which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal interventionists' are so worried
and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who appear on it.
The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in control of the narrative
as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!
Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much easier for us that
way.
By a clever move of the US intelligence agencies they are left without a choice as to support Trump in 2020 election is as idiotic
as to support Biden.
U.S. intelligence community, through its preferred propaganda sheet the New York Times, is
now reporting that
Russia is taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis to spread disinformation through Europe and also in the U.S.
In particular, Putin has escalated a campaign-by-innuendo to reduce confidence in the outcome of the upcoming 2020 presidential
election.
In any event, the Russians are too late as the Democratic and Republican parties' behavior has already convinced many Americans
that voting in November will be a waste of time.
As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up
The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a
patron of the Senator Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and
'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'
Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly
Pompous Neo-Con' by my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should
be making complaints to Ofcom (a British bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the
interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it off air.
1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia
Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of
Russia and its leader. How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We
neocons say that demonization of Russia and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!
RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers
There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to
face the death penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free
society.
Former CEO of HSX Holdings/Hollywood Stock Exchange and host of RT''s 'Keiser Report' Max Keiser
3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash
Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news
breaking. Some even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt
were made. Others said that we couldn't rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to
come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own
hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why it must be taken off the air.
Segment of the shot down plane
4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'
This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who
opposed airstrikes on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War
coalition and has a regular weekly show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who
support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express their views on international affairs on television,
not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle East on deceitful grounds every
couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war 'conspiracy
theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs and claimed, fantastically that Bush and Blair
were making it all up.
British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway often speaks out against western foreign policy
5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives
This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the
left and the right. It's given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right,
like Ron Paul. These people should not be allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and
should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic consensus should be allowed on TV. It's
very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are not heard.
Former Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul
6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links
I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an
RT interviewee who had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a
link to another website which denied the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the
US.
After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow
invitee had once sat at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf
Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.
7. RT is anti-semitic
Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.
8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything
This is totally unacceptable.
An elderly woman carries her belongings November 22 in Sarajevo's war shattered airport settlement.
(Reuters)
9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel
This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded
politicians is demonized for voicing their opinion.
Israel's annexed Golan Heights is hosting pop up hospitals to tend to ISIS fighters
10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers
For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century"
invade another country on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What
about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading American politician is appalling, and in a free society
ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political figure speaks is to tug one's
forelock.
11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria
In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting
pro-democracy rebels were actually fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was
obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course,
it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.
Intense shelling destroys buildings in the Damascus suburb of Jobar October 28
12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share
It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?
13. The most important reason: RT is a threat
More and more people are watching it which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal
interventionists' are so worried and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who
appear on it.
The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in
control of the narrative as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!
Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much
easier for us that way.
Just heard the orange god deliver this line at the daily CODIV-19 task force briefing. For
this fool, the military is a pile of new "stuff," He bought it, he paid for the "stuff" so, he
has created a "brand new military." What about the people who served throughout the miserably
stupid war in Iraq and the equally stupid post 2009 attempt to pacify Afghanistan, a country
that never was and never will be. Think of the money and blood that we pissed away there. Even
the Pompous one sees the necessity to withdraw our support from the wretches who run the
government there or pretend to do that. Or perhaps Trump told him to stick it to them, at long
last. Trump's experience of "military service" was his corrective enrollment at a private
military high school, but he has stated that he knows "all about it.
Someone remarked to me once that it had been a miracle that the US could create an army for
WW2. I asked him in response what sort of occupation Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton
had been involved with before the war. Shoe sales? Gas station ownership" Insurance sales?
What?
It would be tempting to think that one might vote for the Democrat. Biden the demented?
Sanders the Marxist dreamer? Cuomo the massive NY City creep egotist?
If MSM were in the business of posting facts instead of partisan hyperbole, you would think
the Dems would have run something far better than a Sanders or a Biden at this particular
juncture of history.
So did we get are handed a choice among "deplorables"; or an echo of equal deplorables.
Right now, I will continue to dance with the gal who brung me. Trump is seasoning well and
growing into the job. I would like to see what his next four years will bring. He knows the
inside game now.
Who was it who said ask a government insider to do something and you get a string of
excuses why it can't be done. Demurr to a business person who asks to get something done, and
he/she will say fine, now go find me someone who can get it done. KAG 2020.
the scenario that China and Russia become extremely hostile with each other in the near
future (possibly even distant future) is extremely unlikely
I don't believe this is as unlikely as some might think, although not in a way most would
expect. And changing demographics in the United States could be a key catalyst in such a turn
of events. To clarify, I don't think there will be an overtly anti-Russian sentiment running
through mainland China in the near future, but I could see ethnic Asian -- particularly
Chinese -- demographics in the United States turning that country against Russia, and later
the whole of Europe, as a means of deflecting away from the CCP globally and ethnic Chinese
domestically.
Much of the current anti-Russian sentiment promoted by the left is just thinly veiled
anti-white animus. A key element of coalition building is having a common enemy. The common
enemy of POC is the white American demographic. Russia is the ruling class's whipping boy, a
stand in for their white Christian domestic rivals. That's why you see racist identitarians
like the South African Trevor Noah obsessing about Russia and Putin even though neither has
anything to do with any American's living standard (and never mind the hypocrisy of having so
many autocratic non-white allies -- a fact which is strangely omitted from their rhetoric
about Russian strongmen).
When considering past conflicts, most people falsely assume there wasn't a more base
motive -- ethnic antipathy. Children in the United States, for instance, are taught that
their country entered the Second World War because Hitler was bad and the imperial Japanese
were bad. Perhaps, but that isn't really the true reason. The United States government and
significant portions of the population lobbied for entry into both world wars due mostly to
ethnic allegiances; Britain spoke English and so did an American white population descended
largely from that same group. It's not a coincidence that the most anti-war sections of the
country were also the most German. Charles Lindbergh, a noted anti-war celebrity, was German,
IIRC; Jewish activists have spent decades trying to destroy his image.
It's also probably not a coincidence that many Americans who opposed entry into these wars
were fairly recent descendants of ethnic groups with a history of anti-Anglo sentiment. FDR's
Irish ambassador, for example, to the Court of St. James's made it clear to the British Royal
Family that the American public opposed entry into the war (true, but the government was
working hard behind the scenes to make it happen). An enraged WASP FDR eventually sacked him.
In that light, it's not inconceivable to think that had the U.S. accepted 2 or 3 times the
number of German and Irish immigrants the country might have remained neutral or even joined
the Axis. In contrast, the strongest supporters of these wars were WASP celebrities,
politicians, and voting demographics.
In the present, the U.S. supports Israel mainly because it has a powerful Jewish lobby
that influences it to do so, even against its wider interests. The same is true of Cuba where
the country sacrifices its national image in order to appeal to a small demographic of Cuban
expats in southern Florida. Over in Europe, the UK -- flooded with Indian immigrants -- is
now unnaturally friendly to India, even reorienting its recent domestic culture to include
far more Indian history, subjects, and characters in shows like Dr. Who (a show that now no
longer has a traditional Christmas episode as it went POC woke). Demography is destiny, it
would seem. Immigration without assimilation is equivalent to conquest.
Polls in the United States show Asians have the most positive opinion of the Chinese
government by a fairly wide margin, and there have been numerous stories lately of Chinese
ethnics protesting in favor of the interests of that country -- against the Hong Kong
protests (Disney's Mulan actress, a nationalized American), against college events and
monuments they deem against China, and against any description of corona as a "China virus",
not that I endorse the description myself. Other demographics show a more mixed opinion.
Regardless, I expect there will continue to be a steady flow of Asian immigrants to the
United States with predictable consequences.
I think it is possible that the American system could be co-opted with a concerted effort
and repurposed to serve the interests of China, an effective coup similar to Israel's
domination of the current establishment by means of diaspora activists. A few diversity
programs, a set of prominent politicians, some money thrown around, the founding and
infiltration of a few lobby groups, and a few unscrupulous people put in charge of the
entertainment and news industries could see a situation where sympathetic Chinese ethnics
seize control. We've already seen this several times before in United States history --
protestant then catholic then Jewish. And with few common bonds or any sense of patriotism
left to deter such a thing*, this will be all the easier. Consider the recent mass arrests of
American academics found to be working for the Chinese government. It was stunning,
really.
In such an event, you'll likely see coalition building against the white demographic by
domestic Asian-led minority groups. This will also apply to alliances involving other
countries and demographics -- all in an effort to deflect from China and Asians domestically
while enhancing their power. This will involve the promotion of various propaganda and even
extend to rewriting history. The media will demonize Russia and then Europe. They'll employ
rhetoric involving colonialism and various events from European history, such as the
Inquisition, to attack Europeans and ally rival racial groups against them for personal
gain.
Jews did something similar previously; they were at the forefront of "civil rights" in the
United States and immigration reforms aimed at weakening the electoral strength of their WASP
rivals. They've also rewritten history to paint themselves and their allies as the victims of
their ethnic rival's hateful machinations -- continually digging up and exaggerating past
events. For instance (one among many), you're told as an American that anti-Semitic
Southerners murdered an innocent Jewish Leo Frank because they hated Jews for no reason. What
you won't be told (because Jewish groups have banned the book that told the tale from Amazon)
is that Jews in the South were generally well integrated and not persecuted to any real
extent. The same book I'm referencing has tables of prominent Jewish politicians in the South
and corrected much of the propaganda surrounding Frank's trial. Why would the history books
lie about such a thing? Easy, because the people who wrote them saw the trial as an
opportunity to build an inroad with the black demographic against the common enemy, white
Christians. **
Unz has an article on the Leo Frank trial if you're interested. It's worth a read. If
anything, it understates the evidence presented in the book as it is quite compelling. No
wonder Amazon banned it. BTW, the book does not promote violence, so there was no legitimate
reason to ban it other than the fact that it damaged domestic Jewish ethnic interests.
You've already seen some of this deflection in the democratic presidential primary debates
with candidate Andrew Yang, an ethnic Chinese. He claimed in the second debate that Russia
was the nation's greatest threat. That's nonsense. China in the near future will easily be
10x the strategic, economic and cultural competitor that Russia will ever be. It was an
obvious and uncomfortable deflection away from his ethnic group to another. Expect that trend
to potentially accelerate after the democrats seize permanent control of the government and
ruling class sometime after 2020. What mechanism is there to stop them?
I know Anatoly has speculated that the current China / USA rivalry is likely now
permanent, but I don't see it that way. The democrats have repeatedly signaled a willingness
to go back to business as usual. In the second democratic debate last year, nearly all the
candidates opposed trade tariffs on China and deflected away to Russia on foreign policy.
These people have one loyalty -- to their bank accounts. I expect the Democrats, spurred on
by a donor class that shares practically no loyalty to the working class, to largely reverse
the tensions Trump has ratcheted up. That means more economic policies that enrich the
corrupt ruling class to the nation's geopolitical detriment -- more outsourcing, and
particularly in critical industries that relate to national defense and the economy *** .
The Chinese could easily exploit this vulnerability to affect a coup against their main
rival. Perhaps there will be a counter-coup before 2040 or so by the American military to
prevent this, but I think that is unlikely considering just how corrupt, inept, and
politically correct it is.
*Unlike other countries quarantined under Corona, the US has seen no similar patriotic
singing or the like. A few celebrities tried creating a viral moment by posting themselves
singing a classic John Lennon song, but it was widely mocked. The media has used every
opportunity to undermine their implied ethnic enemies, the white republicans. The democrats
are busy stuffing the aid bill with giveaways to their ethnic coalition like "diversity"
requirements from companies in exchange for aid. The United States is a fragile domestic
empire filled with various groups having practically no loyalty to each other and who take
every opportunity to screw the other side over. Even in a time of relative crisis, they
couldn't come together. It will only get worse.
** For a glimpse of the future, consider the extraordinary number of holocaust movies and
books, along with media, depicting whites and their history as bad. I couldn't even begin to
list it all here. It's extraordinary, and it disproportionately comes from the usual
demographics.
*** The United States is currently beholden to China for much of its pharmaceuticals,
almost all the rare earth elements used in its tech industry, and many of the chemicals used
in its military machine -- 100% in some cases. If a war starts in the near future, the U.S.
will find that it has so many shortages that it cannot be sustained. They will lose or give
up. What will the democrats do about this? Probably nothing. Only under Trump has the U.S.
funded domestic rare earth mining efforts to create an alternate supply chain, but that
effort could easily be shelved in the next Biden administration. The man has already proved
himself corrupt over the years by receiving large amounts of corporate campaign contributions
and being connected to shady Ukraine deals.
@Divine
Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the
military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some
more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US
need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency,
further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This
all is interminged with a generalized rejection of "authoritarian" governments.
China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts
involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast
importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning
sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.
Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the
mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting
from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to
assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage
in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US(
only
20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by
immigration is
Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese
Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly
more active and influential in American
politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even
hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing
for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China
Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence
that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or
that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould
once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes
fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.
Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more
hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas
conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
@Divine
Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the
military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some
more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US
need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency,
further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This
all is intermingled with a [fake and hypocritical] generalized rejection of "authoritarian"
governments.
China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts
involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast
importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning
sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.
Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the
mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting
from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to
assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage
in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US(
only
20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by
immigration is
Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese
Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly
more active and influential in American
politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even
hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing
for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China
Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence
that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or
that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould
once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes
fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.
Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more
hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas
conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In
Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to
blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random
cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system,
despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.
It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests
about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has
been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.
Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used.
It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or
completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about
"failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin
exploited it for propaganda.
One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of
highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the
Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs
consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site.
Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more
Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".
By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance
"Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is
probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a
10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.
Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist,
perhaps?
Let's take a look at that last article ,
written by FT's Henry Foy today, and one of the more balanced (read: less PDS-afflicted)
journalists doing the Russia beat (not to mention the most prominent in the above sample,
having scored an exclusive interview
with Putin in 2019).
"The present number of patients with coronavirus will be hidden from us," said Anastasia
Vasilieva, chairman of Doctors' Alliance, a Russian lobby group affiliated with opposition
politician Alexei Navalny.
Now Foy, to his credit, at least has the journalistic integrity to acknowledge that this
doctors' group (which I have never heard of before now) is affiliated with Navalny, whose
entire shtick is to oppose everything and anything the Kremlin does.
A political tilt that its chairwoman helpfully confirms:
"The value of human life for our president is nil . . . We
don't want to admit to any pandemic," said Ms Vasilieva. "We know of hospitals that are
completely full and nurses who are asked to sew face masks from gauze."
***
But otherwise it follows the usual template on Russia COVID-19 coverage.
She claimed Moscow was instead classifying cases of the virus as pneumonia, the incidence
of which increased by almost 40 per cent in January compared with a year previously,
government data showed.
The aim here is to insinuate that there was a raging coronavirus epidemic camouflaged as the
flu from as early as January 2020.
Oh Corona, where to start.
1. Flu mortality fluctuates wildly season to season by a factor of as high as 4x . So this is a
perfectly meaningless fact from the outset.
2. Even China's epidemic only broke 1,000 cases in January 25. Where were Russians getting
infected??
3. If this was true, it is Russia, not Italy, that would be the center of the COVID-19
epidemic now -- something that would certainly be noticed, e.g. in overflowing hospitals (no
sign of that to date) or in exported cases (but that was all
China in February, and predominantly Italy, Iran, and other EU nations now). It is Britons that
Vietnam has started
barring ten days ago, not Russians.
Here's what I guess happened. People got agitated by reports from China, and were more
likely to consult doctors, producing more flu diagnoses. Even though the actual chance of
Russians having COVID-19 in January if they hadn't been to Wuhan was on the order of a
meteorite hitting them on the head.
While other foreign leaders have steeled their citizens for a long crisis and have spoken
of a "war" against the pandemic, Mr Putin has played down the threat and urged citizens to
remain calm in an effort to minimise panic -- and ensure the nationwide ballot on April 22
takes place.
"The virus is a challenge and comes at a very bad moment for him," said Tatiana Stanovaya,
founder of R. Politik, a political analyst. "Putin doesn't want to postpone and is insisting
that the referendum takes place as soon as possible . . . The
longer they wait, the more risks will appear."
The US epidemic (22k cases) is about two orders of magnitude more advanced than Russia's
(306 cases), but most states have continued to hold primaries for the Dem nomination.
And in any case Putin has allowed the possibility
that the April 22 Constitutional Referendum may be postponed. There's no indication it's a
hard, immovable date.
At the same time, Mr Putin has sought to project an image of control, continuing with his
diary of local visits and meetings with senior officials, shaking hands and never wearing a
face mask.
Although it would be nice for Putin to set a better example, this is the rule,
internationally -- not the exception. Stressing this is so petty, LOL.
"No matter what happens in the next 35 days, they have to lie, hush up, and deny. It
doesn't matter at all what really will happen to coronavirus in Russia, whether there will be
a moderate outbreak or tens of thousands are killed," said Igor Pitsyn, a doctor in
Yaroslavl, a city 250km north-east of Moscow.
"By Putin's decree all information about this is declared a state secret until April
22 . . . This 'nationwide vote' will be held at all costs."
First time I hear of this. Searching "путин
коронавирус
гостайна" doesn't produce any relevant results.
This doctor must have some very high placed sources.
Or perhaps Foy had to travel all the way to Yaroslavl to get a sufficiently juicy quote.
While officials have cited the low number as proof of the success of swiftly closing its
border with China in January and steadily cutting flights to affected countries, experts have
questioned how the country has proved far more immune than almost any other. Neighbouring
Belarus has five times more infections per capita than Russia, and France, which has roughly
half Russia's population, has more than 50 times the number of cases.
Russia doesn't have large numbers of Gastarbeiters in the EU, unlike Belarus. Our
Belorussian commenters also tell us
that there are next to no control measures in place.
But Ukraine has perhaps 20x more Gastarbeiters in the EU than Belarus, and yet 2 days ago
reported only 1/3 as many Corona cases (16 vs. 51). Which suggests where Western journalists
covering Eastern Europe should really focus their
attention .
If they, you know, cared about the Corona situation in Eastern Europe. As opposed to
promoting the US line that Russia bad and China bad.
***
Incidentally, an update on Ukraine, two days after my alarm-raising article , in
which I suggested that it's likely there's a big cluster developing undetected in Ukraine.
Even though testing in Ukraine remains extremely patchy -- even in per capita terms, its
~500 tests are two orders of magnitude lower than Russia's ~150k, or for that matter Belarus'
~16k -- the past two days have seen a surge of new cases from 16 to 41. The majority of those
cases, some 25 of them, are concentrated in Chernivtsi oblast, which also saw the death of a 33
year old woman from existing problems magnified by the coronavirus.
The unlikelihood of such a mortality profile, coupled with the flood of new cases despite
continued low testing rates, strongly suggests that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and
that a cluster is developing in Chernivtsi oblast.
There's a reason Chernivtsi has so many cases -- large # of people go to Italy for
work.
An acquaintance of mine from there confirmed his business partner just tested positive for
the virus.
But just in case you think I am piling on to Ukraine because of my own political obsessions
you would be mistaken.
I will say that after Ukraine, probably the second biggest undetected Corona timebomb in
Europe may be Serbia. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on COVID-19 testing doesn't have
information for Serbia. However, one of my Serbian friends on Thursday wrote me that:
We are still testing around 50 per day, with 1/5 being positive
So both the intensity of testing and the rate of positives is similar to Ukraine.
This Friday, he continued:
We still have competent health care workers (the decision not to test the wider population
is purely political, as was the decision no to close schools until 5 days ago), relatively
functioning health care system, about 1500 respirators on a population that is 7+
million.
On the other hand, we have the second lowest reported total test volume anywhere in the
world, after Malorossiya :), at 545 total as of this morning, one of the highest positive
rates per 1000 tests (after Italy, Spain, Ecuador and the Philippines). We have seen an
influx of over 250 000 gastarbeiters from Western Europe in the past 10 days Many people are
breaking the 14 day mandatory self isolation. When I say many, I'm talking about thousands
every day
We have 3 things potentially on our side. God, warmth, and Sun. Or it's all just God?
And to think that Serbia was one of the first countries in the world to eradicate smallpox
in the 1830s Under the lifelong illiterate knyaz Miloš
The large number of Gastarbeiters in Western Europe, most of whom are now going to be let
go, is another similarity that Serbia shares with Ukraine. And is something that will be a very
problematic issue going forwards.
Fortunately, it appears that China (and Russia ) are going to bail Serbia
out with test kits.
Extraordinary address the president of Serbia, the largest #EU membership
candidate now banned from importing medical kit. "European solidarity does not exist. It was
a fairy-tale the only country who can help us out of this difficult situation is China."
#coronavirus
https://t.co/JTbtPCS6NK
Despite their rather different geopolitical viewpoints, European attitudes to both Serbia
and the Ukraine are quite similar. They are to be exploited to the extent they are useful;
otherwise discarded as needed. It's a lesson they should mull over.
Why are you sensitive about what some article said in an American newspaper about Russia? Who
cares? Half of articles in Russian websites are often ten times more stupid than even
articles in American websites (which are already stupid), and people in America don't care
about that.
Also, I read only CNN's article on the topic, and I notice it follows the pattern that CNN
report more accurately outside America, than they do in America. I.e. They are more objective
(like most people) writing about things which are far away from them https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/21/europe/putin-coronavirus-russia-intl/index.html
Business Insider: Doctors in Russia are accusing the government of covering up its
coronavirus outbreak and denying them protective equipment
I have to say that on reddit this kind of conspiratorial crap gets a LOT of interest and
upvotes, an order of magnitude more upvotes than the factual Russian news. It seems that a
large chunk of Western public feels better about themselves and their situation, "knowing"
that there is terrible epidemic going on in Russia.
So these articles are actually having therapeutic effect on Western societies: ordinary
people in West take comfort in [imaginary] Russian suffering.
Serbia and Ukraine should have less developed epidemic of coronavirus, compared to most
European countries, as they are one of the minority of European countries which is not in the
EU.
As a result, they should have less per capita connectivity to Northern Italy, that is the
"staging point" for the coronavirus epidemic's invasion into Europe.
Well, perhaps I am wrong about Serbia, as it is a neighbouring country to Italy. But the
EU has a very intense labour mobility and incredibly amount of flights between themselves, if
we would look at flightradar on a normal week.
But EU is still covered by flights. While planes are generally avoiding Serbia and
Ukraine. Russia is almost disconnected from Europe now by planes (except for cargo planes).
However, even in normal, pre-Coronavirus times, Russia (as well as Ukraine) is far more
disconnected than any EU country, and is never blanketed by flights on flightradar in the
same way as Europe.
Perhaps Serbia still receives a lot of entry by people in buses and cars.
Wishing the virus to hit hard Russia is a way Westerners try to cover their incompetence.
There is an explosion of new cases in the USA but the American MSM keeps its Russophobe
obsession.
Today new cases in USA reached the numbers of Italy
https://www.rt.com/russia/483744-russia-doctor-coronavirus-holiday/
" A leading infectious diseases specialist in Russia's southern Stavropol region
endangered the lives of dozens of her colleagues and students by failing to self-quarantine
after a holiday in Spain, where she contracted coronavirus."
Just read the headline and thought, "Western journalists really want there to be a huge
corona epidemic in America ."
We all remember Bill Maher, to his credit, admitting to wanting what so many Progressives
pray for -- a brutal recession that would sink Tump's chances of reelection -- but I am
continually astounded by the fact that the MSM's hysterical, cult-like fervor for destroying
Trump, even to the tragic detriment of the American people, simply will not exhaust itself.
It is, if you will, a virus that keeps mutating into more and more virulent strains.
I think American-journalist-as-suicide-bomber is the number one potential threat to the
United States, and preventing this should be the FBI's number one priority. Thx.
@yakushimaru The Chinese
economy has at least one good thing going for it. They are the world's manufacturing floor.
Ultimately they can still make things unlike the US which has hollowed itself out. Refilling
the world supply chain gives them an advantage in recovering faster than the US will.
@Dmitry Don't be silly,
there are entire organizations in the West dedicated to fact checking Russian news agencies
and publishing their mistakes. So Anatoly's counterparts in the West do seem to care, they
seem to care very much. Furthermore, there is the asymmetry between the geopolitical power of
the two countries which makes what Americans write about Russia much more important than the
inverse.
AK has been covering this topic for years, so it may not be interesting to you, but it is
to him. And we come here, partly, because he writes about what he wants to, not what others
want him to. You, yourself, pointed this out.
Western media openly wishing that a plague strikes Russia is very low class. It has a minor
therapeutic role for the West to show that the evil ones are also suffering. But it is
basically a continuing descent into hysteria. Next we will hear that Putin was spotted
poisoning wells in Italy. (Sneaky bastard, probably used a face-mask, he is after all a
trained KGB spy.)
Regarding facts: it is a truism that all numbers are understated. There must be at this
point millions of people around the world who have been exposed and most will never know
about it. Corona hurts the old and the sick, most other people probably wouldn't know it was
happening without the media. In a preventive way it might actually benefit young, healthy
people to be exposed when their bodies can develop immunity -- you don't in general get the
same virus twice.
But a decision was made to protect our elders and it is a humane thing to do. And the
usual suspects can't avoid their low class ideological manias, attacking China, Russia and/or
Trump. These days they mostly work in the Western media. One wonders how that happened.
@utu
This was actually going to be the subject of my next post. She is the chief infectious
disease doctor for Stavropol!
She went to Madrid , from March 6th- March 9th- the exact period when cases in Spain
started ballooning up (420 went to 1200)
She has infected 11 other people, at least, in Stavropol and also taken part in a
conference there where about 1000 people attended.
I don't know if it was definitely a holiday -- sure, those are weekend dates and Madrid is
a wonderful place but infections there then still exceeded
the number in Russia now.
This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In
Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to
blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random
cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system,
despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.
It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests
about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has
been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.
Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used.
It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or
completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about
"failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin
exploited it for propaganda.
One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of
highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the
Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs
consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site.
Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more
Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".
By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance
"Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is
probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a
10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.
Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist,
perhaps?
@Dmitry Can you show me even
ONE article or report from Izvestiya, life, kp. Vz, RBK, vesti, Channel 1 etc that is stupid
about the west? I can't because most of them are extremely well written.
The inverse situation? . I have just read 3 cretinous western lie reports about
Russia/coronavirus in the last half an hour! Each one born out of jealousy or CIA psyops
There is no comparison to make at all. You are doing false equivalence.
Gayropa DOES exist. It is a thing, an ideology
Your premise is absurd-50 % because Russian journalists are a lot more intellectual than
their western counterparts . and the other 50 % is quite naturally because millions of
Russians have closely admired or studied or been influenced by western practises and popular
culture in the last 30 years .. than vice versa.
Kiselyov has had an American wife, speaks English, family in Germany and has done many
excellent reports on western countries.
Brilyev speaks perfect English and is a British citizen.
Solovyov knows Italy and the US very well and on his talk shows he has done many
objective, constructive/positive comments about American business climate and bureaucracy,
for instance.
Can you compare any of those guys to their dumb as f ** k western counterparts trying to
do a report on Russia?
Different matter if you are talking about RT – that is lowest of the low,
anti-russian, garbage.
who cares? Half of Russian articles are 10 times more stupid than US ones
Who cares ? Because the culmination of these deceitful idiot scumbag stories is what
creates the momentum to ban Russia from the Olympics based on "collective" not individual
punishment , pull Ukraine away from Russia, make a friend of mine be too scared to come to
Russia on holiday because "the police will arrest you there for no reason" BS.,dissuade
investors from billions in investment because of PR, not practical reasons. create the
conditions so that self-discrediting freaks like Browder and Rodchenkov can say any BS as a
pretext to sanction russia with zero chance of getting refuted because of the "they will get
killed" by Russian agents if they go into the public (whilst going to the public) theory- a
hypothesis based on other lie reporting.
Russian media will make clear that its a disgrace the number of people the US police shoot
dead each year- but they won't say or imply that Russian tourists will get shot by US police
or dissuade them from going on holiday there.
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American
Mainstream Media
User Settings:
Version?
Social Media?
Read Aloud w/
Show Word Counts
No Video Autoplay
No Infinite Scrolling
Save
Cancel
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Toggle All
Bookmark
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Imagine if the congress approved a measure to form a public-private
partnership between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine that?
Now imagine if a panicky and ill-informed
Congress gave the Fed a blank check to bail out all of its crooked crony corporate and Wall Street friends,
allowing the Fed to provide more than $4.5 trillion to underwater corporations that ripped off Mom and Pop
investors by selling them bonds that were used to goose their stock prices so fatcat CEOs could make off
like bandits. Imagine if all that red ink from private actors was piled onto the national debt pushing
long-term interest rates into the stratosphere while crushing small businesses, households and ordinary
working people.
Now try to imagine the impact this would
have on the nation's future. Imagine if the Central Bank was given the green-light to devour the Treasury,
control the country's "purse strings", and use nation's taxing authority to shore up its trillions in
ultra-risky leveraged bets, its opaque financially-engineered ponzi-instruments, and its massive speculative
debts that have gone pear-shaped leaving a gaping black hole on its balance sheet?
Well, you won't have to imagine this
scenario for much longer, because the reality is nearly at hand. You see, the traitorous, dumbshit
nincompoops in Congress are just a hairs-breadth away from abdicating congress's crucial power of the purse,
which is not only their greatest strength, but also allows the congress to reign in abuses of executive
power by controlling the flow of funding. The power of the purse is the supreme power of government which is
why the founders entrusted it to the people's elected representatives in congress. Now these imbeciles are
deciding whether to hand over that authority to a privately-owned banking cartel that has greatly expanded
the chasm between rich and poor, incentivized destructive speculation on an industrial scale, and repeatedly
inflated behemoth asset-price bubbles that have inevitably blown up sending stocks and the real economy into
freefall. The idea of merging the Fed and the Treasury first appeared in its raw form in an article by
former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in the Financial Times. Here's a short excerpt from the
piece:
"The Fed could ask Congress for the
authority to buy limited amounts of investment-grade corporate debt The Fed's intervention could help
restart that part of the corporate debt market, which is under significant stress.
Such a programme
would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed
while still
providing needed liquidity to an essential market." (
Financial
Times
)
The Fed is not allowed to buy corporate
debt, because it is not within its mandate of "price stability and full employment". It's also not allowed
to arbitrarily intervene in the markets to pick winners and losers, nor is it allowed to bailout
poorly-managed crybaby corporations who were gaming the system to their own advantage when the whole deal
blew up in their faces. That's their problem, not the Fed's and not the American taxpayer's.
But notice how Bernanke emphasizes how
"Such a programme would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed". Why
do you think he said that?
He said it because he anticipates an
arrangement where the new Treasury-Fed combo could buy up to "$4.5 trillion of corporate debt" (according to
Marketwatch and BofA). And the way this will work, is the Fed will select the bonds that will be purchased
and the credit risk will be heaped onto the US Treasury. Apparently Bernanke and Yellen think this is a
"fair" arrangement, but others might differ on that point.
Keep in mind, that in the last week
alone, investors pulled a record $107 billion out of corporate bonds which is a market which has been in a
deep-freeze for nearly a month. The only activity is the steady surge of redemptions by frantic investors
who want to get their money back before the listing ship heads for Davey Jones locker. This is the market
that Bernanke wants the American people to bail out mainly because he doesn't want to submerge the Fed's
balance sheet in red ink. He wants to find a sucker who will take the loss instead. That's where Uncle Sam
comes in, he's the target of this subterfuge. This same theme pops up in a piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Check it out:
"At least Treasury has come around
to realizing it needs a facility to provide liquidity for companies. But as we write this, Mr. Mnuchin
was still insisting that Treasury have control of most of the money to be able to ladle out directly to
companies it wants to help. This is a recipe for picking winners and losers, and thus for bitter
political fights and months of ugly headlines charging favoritism. The far better answer is for Treasury
to use money from Congress to replenish the Exchange Stabilization Fund to back the Fed in creating a
facility or special-purpose vehicles under Section 13(3) to lend the money to all comers. "(
"Leaderless
on the Econom"
, Wall Street Journal)
I can hardly believe the author is bold
enough to say this right to our faces. Read it carefully: They are saying "We want your money, but not your
advice. The Fed will choose who gets the cash and who doesn't. Just put your trillions on the counter and
get the hell out."
Isn't that what they're saying? Of
course it is. And the rest of the article is even more arrogant:
"The Fed can charge a
non-concessionary rate, but the vehicles should be open to those who think they need the money, not
merely to those Treasury decides are worthy." (Huh? So the Treasury should have no say so in who gets
taxpayer money??) The looming liquidity crisis is simply too great for that kind of bureaucratic,
politicized decision-making. (Wall Street Journal)
Get it? In other words, the folks at
Treasury are just too stupid or too prejudiced to understand the subtleties of a bigass bailout like this.
Is that arrogance or what?
This is the contempt these people have
for you and me and everyone else who isn't a part of their elitist gaggle of reprobates. Here's a clip from
another article at the WSJ that helps to show how the financial media is pushing this gigantic handout to
corporate America:.
"The Federal Reserve, Treasury
Department and banking regulators deserve congratulations for their bold, necessary actions to provide
liquidity to the U.S. financial system amid the coronavirus crisis. But more remains to be done. We thus
recommend: (1) immediate congressional action . to authorize the Treasury to use the Exchange
Stabilization Fund to guarantee prime money-market funds, (2) regulatory action to effect temporary
reductions in bank capital and liquidity requirements (NOTESo now the banks don't need to hold capital
against their loans?) .. additional Fed lending to banks and nonbanks .(Note -by "nonbanks", does the
author mean underwater hedge funds?)
We recommend that the Fed take
further actions as lender of last resort. First, it should re-establish the Term Auction Facility, used
in the 2008 crisis, allowing depository institutions to borrow against a broad range of collateral at an
auction price (NoteThey want to drop the requirement for good Triple A collateral.) Second, it should
consider further exercising its Section 13(3) authority to provide additional liquidity to nonbanks,
potentially including purchases of corporate debt through a special-purpose vehicle" (
"Do
More to Avert a Liquidity Crisis"
, Wall Street Journal
)
This isn't a bailout, it's a joke, and
there's no way Congress should approve these measures, particularly the merging of the US Treasury with the
cutthroat Fed. That's a prescription for disaster! The Fed needs to be abolished not embraced as a state
institution. It's madness!
And look how the author wants to set up
an special-purpose vehicle (SPV) so the accounting chicanery can be kept off the books which means the
public won't know how much money is being flushed down the toilet trying to resuscitate these insolvent
corporations whose executives are still living high on the hog on the money they stole from credulous
investors. This whole scam stinks to high heaven!
Meanwhile America's working people will
get a whopping $1,000 bucks to tide them over until the debts pile up to the rafters and they're forced to
rob the neighborhood 7-11 to feed the kids. How fair is that?
And don't kid yourself: This isn't a
bailout, it's the elitist's political agenda aimed at creating a permanent underclass who'll work for
peanuts just to eek out a living.
In 2008-2009, the Federal Reserve bailed out the global banking system to the tune of $16 Trillion. But
American citizens were left to pay usurious rates of interest on $1 Trillion of credit card debt. And
American students had lost years of economic opportunity but their $1 Trillion dollars of debt could not be
discharged through bankruptcy.
This time the banks should stand behind the debtors at the government
troth.
It's hard to understand how holiday cruise shipping can be regarded as an essential business.
It is almost as hard to understand why a "Globalist Enterprise" should be spared its fate through the
generosity of of one country. Even harder to understand, why would that one country should bail out a
business, which had employed both tax-avoidance schemes as well as strategy import substitution and foreign
investment to improve its profits at the expense of that country.
Nationalism is better that globalism. The current crisis was not caused by globalism; but globalism has
drained from our country the means to respond to the crisis with the medicines and equipment that would
reduce its severity.
Not a single cent of government aid should go toward a person or an entity outside the United States and
it territories. Conditions should be placed upon such aid, so that the companies receiving it, must
domesticate their supply chains, and must produce and develop their products within the United States.
@anachronism
Make the universities discharge the student debt. It was their scam all along. They can begin by retrenching
their schools of the humanities and at least halving their administrative staff. And end building and sports
programs. The fat hangs heavy on that particular pig.
The student and the university should share responsibility equally. In
the future, the institution should be made a co-signor on any student loan; and the obligation to repay
the loan should be joint and several for both the institution and the student.
Bankruptcy provides the ex-student with the chance to start over and to escape the burden; but not
without consequences. This will discourage the ex-student, who is doing well financially and has the
means to service the debt, from just walking away.
"... It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did ..."
"... Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East. Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States. ..."
"... Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy. ..."
"... Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president. ..."
Now that the
Democratic Party has apparently succeeded in getting rid of the only two voices among its
presidential candidates that actually deviated from the establishment consensus, it appears
that Joe Biden will be running against Donald Trump in November. To be sure, Bernie Sanders and
Tulsi Gabbard are still hanging on, but the fix was in and the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) made sure that Sanders would be given the death blow on Super Tuesday while Gabbard would
be blocked from participating in any of the late term debates.
It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete
Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an
intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering
the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and
throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did. Rumor has it that Klobuchar might well
wind up as Biden's vice president. An alternative tale is that it was a much more threatening
"offer that couldn't be refused" coming from the Clintons.
... ... ...
Both Trump and Biden might reasonably described as Zionists, Trump by virtue of the
made-in-Israel foreign policy positions he has delivered on since his election, and Biden by
word and deed during his entire time in politics. When Biden encountered Sarah Palin in 2008 in
the vice-presidential debate, he and Palin sought to outdo each other in enthusing over how
much they love the Jewish state. Biden has said that "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a
Jew to be a Zionist" and also, ridiculously, "Were there not an Israel, the U.S. would have to
invent one. We will never abandon Israel -- out of our own self-interest. [It] is the best $3
billion investment we make." Biden has been a regular feature speaker at the annual AIPAC
summit in Washington.
Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as
surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is
criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being
said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a
consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East.
Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States.
Trump similarly reversed himself on withdrawing from Syria when he ran into criticism of the
move and his plan to extricate the United States from Afghanistan, if it develops at all, could
easily be subjected to similar revision. Trump is not really the man who as a candidate
indicated that he was seriously looking for a way out of America's endless and pointless wars,
no matter what his supporters continue to assert.
Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate
Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack
Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to
create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that
had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was
suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until
after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy.
Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which
include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he
actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is
clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the
establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president.
And Biden's foreign policy reminiscences are is subject to what appear to be memory losses
or inability to articulate, illustrated by a whole series of faux pas during the campaign. He
has a number of times told a tale of his heroism in Afghanistan that is
complete fiction , similar to Hillary Clinton's lying claims of courage under fire in
Bosnia.
So, we have a president in place who takes foreign policy personally in that his first
thoughts are "how does it make me look?" and a prospective challenger who appears to be
suffering from initial stages of dementia and who has always been relied upon to support the
establishment line, whatever it might be. Though Trump is the more dangerous of the two as he
is both unpredictable and irrational, the likelihood is that Biden will be guided by the
Clintons and Obamas. To put it another way, no matter who is president the likelihood that the
United States will change direction to get away from its interventionism and bullying on a
global scale is virtually nonexistent. At least until the money runs out. Or to express it as a
friend of mine does, "No matter who is elected we Americans wind up getting John McCain."
Goodnight America!
Philip Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. A former
CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and
the Middle East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with honors from the University of
Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London. "
Source "
But she sees this China-bashing as mostly a political reaction:
In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health
crisis they're now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land
squarely on the shoulders of their president, who's running for re-election this year.
instead of a deliberate Deep-State strategy (which is my view).
We can argue who created the virus (I'm still looking for any rebuttal to the Chinese
claim that USA must be the source because it has all five strains of the virus), but the
Empire's gaming of the virus outbreak seems very clear to me.
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
(NOTE: Away in Feb, felled by severe cold this moth. Not.not CV)
PUTIN 4EVER. ( Russian Constitution text .) In January
Putin suggested some amendments to the Constitution to be discussed and put to national vote in
a referendum. Which is, I suppose, close enough to the amending procedure set out in Chapter 9.
A commission was quickly set up and amendment suggestions came in. The final ones reflected the
rather traditionalist flavour of Russia – marriage is between a man and a woman, a
reference to God, indissolubility of Russian territory and some social guarantees. ( Wikipedia
list .)
Two proposals reflect what Russia has learned in the three decades since the first version.
Russian legislation will now take primacy over international law and office holders cannot have
dual citizenship or foreign residency permits. This is understandable: the original text had
been written at a time when Russians were much more hopeful about the outside world than they
are now: grim experience has taught them that "international institutions" are another stick to
beat them with. (And, given the chaos and destruction that the self-proclaimed " Rules-Based
International Order" has produced, even laudable.)
Among the changes suggested by Putin and approved was the removal from Article 81.3 of "for
more than two terms running"; in short two terms only for a president. So what we were looking
at was a slightly less president-dominated system with a two-term president, the end of
naïve expectations about the " Rules-Based International Order " and some declarations to
make conservatives happy.
(I do not now remember why the term limit was in the Constitution – my vague memory is
that Western advisors insisted on it so as to reduce dictatorship possibilities. There were, I
remember, much fear of the Communists coming back in those days. But, a term limit is not
normal world practice and most countries don't worry about it – MacKenzie King was PM of
Canada for more than 21 years.)
So far so good and all reasonable enough and sensible.
Enter Valentina
Tereshkova . Since we're changing the Constitution, said she, then we should start the
presidential term counting clock all over again. In other words, when Putin finishes this term
in 2024, he can run twice more. Did she think this up on her own or was she put up to it? No
one seems to know. Putin addressed the Duma, said it was OK with him if the Constitutional
Court approved. Which it did. At this point it is reasonable to observe that it is hardly
"constitutional" if you rule that any president can restart the clock by making a few twiddles
to the Constitution, is it?
The full package has not yet been approved by a referendum on 22 April but all indications
are that it will be: a recent poll showed that a solid majority was quite happy to have Putin
stay in office. Meretriciously the voters will be asked to approve the whole package or
nothing .
So, what to say about all this? There are, as usual, several theories. First are those who
have said from the beginning that Putin would contrive a way to stay on forever. Well, there
isn't much of a retort to them except to to wonder why he didn't just amend Article 81.3, is
there? Another theory holds that Putin feels he has to stay on because only he can manage
things in the dangerous times of the decline of the Imperium Americanum. In his speech to the
Duma he referred to Roosevelt's breaking the two-term custom, adding: " When a country is going through such
upheavals and such difficulties (in our case we have not yet overcome all the problems since
the USSR, this is also clear), stability may be more important and must be given priority.
" Well, that decline is undeniably dangerous and there will be many crisis points; but it will
take several dangerous decades and Putin certainly won't be here when the power earthquake is
finally over. And there's always some crisis, somewhere. Another idea is that what he has
really done is leave the possibility of running again thereby avoiding a lame duck period
before he does go in 2024. Maybe: Putin is coy in this interview .
But, altogether, the manoeuvre leaves a bad taste in the mouth: manipulative, shabby,
slipshod, legal only in the most pedantic sense, arbitrary, second-rate and poorly thought out.
Very disappointing to someone who thought Putin did not want to be the Turkmenbashi of
Russia.
Patrick, thanks for the detailed explanation of this move. I share your disappointment, but
I'm not at all surprised. The earlier constitutional changes left an opening for Putin to
continue ruling Russia. This change just makes that opening into a four lane highway. To be
fair, I think the majority of politicians vying to lead their countries think they are their
countries' best hope. Putin is no different.
When the USSR first collapsed, the void was immediately filled by many Academy of Science
technicians. That didn't last long. They were quickly shunted aside by former CPSU members, a
decidedly younger and more pragmatic bunch than the CPSU old guard, but with the same
background. I knew some of the academics that were shunted aside. That's why I see only minor
differences between the Russia of the Bolsheviki (as my great grandmother called all
Russians) and today's Russia of the Russkii.
Hope you recover from your cold. SWMBO and I had colds for several weeks now and are
fearful of being hauled off to an isolation ward if we cough in public.
"..office holders cannot have dual citizenship or foreign residency permits." No
constitution is complete without similar safeguards IMO. Compare and contrast with Iraq,
where a dual US citizen, formerly of Bremmer's CPA no less, has just been appointed
PM-designate. Perhaps one day Iraq too will get to exert sovereignty over its own
constitution.
Do you have any thoughts on the OPEC+ bust up? Have Putin & MBS cooked this up
together to challenge the petrodollar or just poach market share? Thanks.
I am not a lawyer, but all modern laws seem corrupt to me. All modern laws seem to uphold
the letter of the law and subvert the spirit of the law. All modem laws seem to be legal only
in a pedantic sense. Let us pray that my perception is wrong about this, or at least let us
hope that most people don't share my perception, because a nation state that is widely
perceived to be without meaningful law lacks legitimacy, and thus is unstable.
OIL price.
My first thoughts are 1) yes Putin & Co have decided that it's time to strike at the US
2) lower energy prices will help China a) recover from Covid b) take a big step forward. If
so, the next punch may come from Beijing.
What's going on with MbS? Haven't a clue but I doubt he'll be smiling as the price war
drags on.
I think that this oil thing is, indeed, aimed at the fracking "industry". Yes, it is
impressive that it is done at all, but it is not now, nor will it ever be likely to be
profitable. The yield so rapidly declines, that the capital investment required is not going
to be recouped in the vast majority of instances. Thus far, the only thing that has kept it
even marginally viable has been the oil price being high enough, coupled with the willingness
of investors to set large sums of money on fire. Unless the whole thing were to be
nationalized, and accepting plunging into a black hole of misallocated resources by the Fed
(nothing new there, so never say never...), that sector is toast.
But I suspect that Putin has had enough of the Saudis, and the jihadi-supporting Gulfies,
setting the Middle East ablaze with the sponsorship of this stuff made possible by the price
of oil. This is a matter of national security for Russia, which has had to fight down
Wahabbist types in their country, as well as in their near abroad. By slashing the oil price,
they undermine that high price and the ability to both support the Wahabbists, and to content
their growing and mostly unproductive home populations. I am quite sure that the Russians are
also mindful of the threats made against them by the Gulfies around the time of the Sochi
Olympics, and it is payback time now. They have helped fight the Islamists to a standstill,
and now they are letting the Saudis & ilk reflect on the errors of their ways.
But the Russians are not just settling into a comfortably numb leaning on the Chinese. As
recently clearly seen, China has some feet of clay, and all the big talk about the Belt &
Road is scarcely a dome deal. Andrei Martyanov just put up a post about how the Russians are
working on developing an access through Azerbaijan & Iran to the Indian Ocean, and thence
to India, as well as many other points. It is The Grand Game Redux. And why not, because they
are thereby not putting all of their eggs in the Chinese basket.
And pace McCain, being a gas station with nukes (but way, way more than that...) confers
some real advantages. It comes down to EROEI, energy returned on energy invested, and not
being limited to "tight oil" as a nationally, territorially controlled resource gives them a
leg over. I think of money, in the context of a modern, technological society as nothing more
than a proxy for access to energy, and currently it seems as if the Russians have it all over
the US & Europe.
Big doings, and having such an experienced hand on the tiller, with the broad vision that
Putin and his team exhibits is a material advantage. Why toss it away when your nation's
sovereignty may depend on access to this asset?
I very much doubt Putin will run for president again. His one request for change to the
constitution was that "in a row" clause be removed. He has laid the foundations and more.
There will be others who can continue the job.
When the government changed, some of the old guard government moved I think to the
security council. Medvedev at least went to the security council. Putin spoke about it in the
Tass interviews. If I recall correctly some new planning bodies were set up.
I suspect this is where Putin is planning to head at the end of his current term.
"If the system that he and his team spent 20 years building doesn't work without him then
it doesn't work."
Agreed. In the Oliver Stone interview, derided by his lessers in our MSM, asked a series
of questions revealing Putin to be one of those micro-managers who can't delegate. Ironic
that Yeltsin, who crushed Russia, managed to find an obscure St. Petersburg politician to
succeed him to bring Russia back from ruin.
Any thoughts on how Russia was able to contain Coronavirus so well? I'm certain do more
commerce w/China but Russia still has significant contact.
As to Russia and Covid-19. As you may recall Moscow shut its borders pretty quickly -- long
before the West did. I hear from contacts that if you arrive at Sheremetyevo, your
temperature is taken immediately and other checks are made by people in hazmat suits. Again,
anecdotal evidence says this isn't happening in the West. Moscow is building a big hospital
(quickly although not as quickly as Beijing did.) Other factors I would suggest is that
Russians by and large trust their govt and Moscow has serious civil defence preparations.
This piece makes interesting reading today.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19790/index-scores-by-level-of-preparation-to-respond-to-an-epidemic/?fbclid=IwAR2dmwOy9_c387cdrOL4f-PdXmr4aWSI684cJx3M98zm31wVIFdw_62tsZg
Of course there may be a simpler answer: looking across the pond, Putin sees an election
between Biden (b Nov 1942) and Trump (b June 1946) and realises that he (b Oct 1952) is just
at the start of his career.
Patrick,
I have to largely agree with your coda. Chretien, King ... while I agree that there need be
nothing sacrosanct about term limits, time waits for no man. I lean towards the lame duck
thesis, because I suspect the man has to be tired and really would like to take a step back.
For instance, although the RF seems to be handling this as well as or better than the
Western countries (low bar, I know), I have so far seen no evidence that V.V. Putin sees the
COVID response as a strategically vital threat / opportunity. If Russia is able to emerge
relatively quickly and whole, to join with China and East Asia among those that have
demonstrated the efficacy of their cultural / civilizational models, this might prove
decisive indeed, and might even succeed in prising Europe from the grip of the U.S. and the
comprador Atlanticists.
With the medical diplomacy to Italy, France, Cuba, Venezuela ... China I think may already
be acting on this. I've been surprised not to see more evidence of Russia / China solidarity
and joint actions (pace the joint denunciation of Iran sanctions). But, then again, maybe the
oil-price war is a coordinated element of this.
Though the decline of the Imperium will, as you say, not be the work of a day, this
particular moment is as dangerous and turbulent as anything we've seen since the Cuban
missile crisis. The slope of decline might be quite a bit steeper than any cautious thinker
might have imagined just three months ago. Maybe he just can't commit to stepping back now.
It does seem sloppy though. Be well, in whatever part of the Dominion that you happen to
inhabit.
Patrick,
I would suggest that a much more important reason for the new presidential amendment in
Russia is the likely, imminent collapse of the United States economy. You need to read and
study Rotislav Ischenko's 2015 post which is as follows; http://thesaker.is/time-is-running-out-for-pax-americanas-apologists/
In this post, Ischenko sees that some time in 2016 the U.S. will only get an "hard
landing. He ends this post with:
"The point of no return will pass once and for all sometime in 2016, and America's elite
will no longer be able to choose between the provisions of compromise and collapse. The only
thing that they will then be able to do is to slam the door loudly, trying to drag the rest
of the world after them into the abyss."
Knowledgeable analysts are writing that this collapse, because of the Coronavirus being a
catalyst, will take place in 2020.
If the U.S. can stay in its current stagnation mode for the mid-term, IMO Russia would not
have made plans to change the constitution in the way you reported. It's governance is in
great shape, and I am confident that the new prime minister can continue Putin's work. If the
U,.S. economy collapses, we have a different scenario. Putin is needed to manage the U.S.
slamming the door when its economy drops into the abyss.
There's a lot of ruin in a nation and the USA still has a lot left that isn't ruined.
But Covid is certainly going to kick it a step down (and the West too) and China will be
kicked a step up; so it's a major tremor in the geopolitical tectonic plate movement.
So I'm sure that that's in there somewhere in the Putin Team's calculation. I do notice that
when he talks about the oil price "war" he says "we have a solid safety margin for several
years" which suggests a timeline of <5years.
The problem is that we/I are just speculating: nobody expected this. But we ARE dealing with
a team that has shown it can think long term so it is certainly possible that they foresee
(accurately IMO) that oil price+covid will be a bad combination for NATOland and the pilot
wants to remain at the helm.
Richard Burr, chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has been accused of deceiving
the public about the coronavirus outbreak and seeking to profit from it by dumping stocks that
are crashing due to the pandemic. Burr (R-North Carolina) found himself under attack from two
directions on Thursday. Early in the day, National Public Radio ran a story based on "secret
recordings" from a speech he gave in North Carolina in late February, when he gave oddly
specific warnings about Covid-19 to an elite group of donors, while keeping the rest of the
American public in the dark.
SCOOP: Secret recording obtained by NPR shows that Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr
raised alarms about Coronavirus weeks ago in private meeting with well-connected constituents
-- concerns he never shared with the public https://t.co/afyvzaMyXK
The North Carolina Republican struck back later in the day,
accusing NPR on Twitter of "journalistic malpractice" for "knowingly and
irresponsibly" misrepresenting the speech, calling the article a "tabloid-style hit
piece."
By then, however, he was taking flanking fire from a different position. Open Secrets, a
"nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit" research group tracking money in politics
– with George Soros' Open Society Foundation as one of their biggest donors , mind you – published
his financial disclosures, showing that Burr and his wife sold over $1 million worth of stocks
in corporations that took it on the chin as the Covid-19 pandemic tanked the US stock
markets.
SCOOP: NC's GOP Senator Richard Burr told the public he was confident the govt can fight
off COVID-19 the same time he & his wife sold up to ~$1.5 million stock in major
corporations that ended up losing most of their value during the coronavirus pandemic
https://t.co/JsXkaxb2Pw
pic.twitter.com/lMnnbBfoNZ
Much of the outraged responses to both the NPR and Open Secrets, praising their revelations
and demanding Burr be imprisoned – along with the rest of the Republican Party, President
Donald Trump, and who knows who else – have been the usual suspects promoting the
'Russiagate' conspiracy theory over the past four years.
NPR's article was authored by Tim Mak, a Daily Beast alum who famously co-authored a
fake
Russiagate bombshell in December 2018, accusing the president's son Donald Trump Jr of
lying to Congress based on misquoting the publicly available transcript.
To make the irony even greater, Burr has been extremely helpful to the 'Russiagate' gang
while chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee. For example, he endorsed the infamous
"intelligence community assessment" based on wishful thinking . He
has also treated the ranking minority member, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) as
"co-chair," covering for him even when it emerged that Warner was trying to secretly
communicate with the British spy who wrote the debunked anti-Trump "Steele
dossier."
None of it availed Burr one bit when they came for his head, of course – the
"R" next to his name automatically made him a Trump supporter in the minds of the woke
mob. If it turns out to be true that he knew far more about the dangers of the pandemic but
chose to keep silent and profit from it, that would indeed be a colossal dereliction of duty.
But as his prior record in overseeing the US spy community indicates, it wouldn't have been the
first time.
R ussia and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an oil price war that has sent shockwaves around
the world, causing the price of oil to tumble and threatening the financial stability, and even
viability, of major international oil companies.
On the surface, this conflict appears to be a fight between two of the world's largest
producers of oil over market share. This may, in fact, be the motive driving Saudi Arabia,
which reacted to Russia's refusal to reduce its level of oil production by slashing the price
it charged per barrel of oil and threatening to increase its oil production, thereby flooding
the global market with cheap oil in an effort to attract customers away from competitors.
Russia's motives appear to be far different -- its target isn't Saudi Arabia, but rather
American shale oil. After absorbing American sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector,
and working with global partners (including Saudi Arabia) to keep oil prices stable by reducing
oil production even as the United States increased the amount of shale oil it sold on the world
market, Russia had had enough. The advent of the Coronavirus global pandemic had significantly
reduced the demand for oil around the world, stressing the American shale producers.
Russia had been preparing for the eventuality of oil-based economic warfare with the United
States. With U.S. shale producers knocked back on their heels, Russia viewed the time as being
ripe to strike back. Russia's goal is simple: to make American shale oil producers "
share the pain ".
The United States has been slapping sanctions on Russia for more
than six years, ever since Russia took control (and later annexed) the Crimean Peninsula and
threw its weight behind Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The first sanctions were issued
on March 6, 2014, through Executive
Order 13660 , targeting "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean
region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic
processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty,
and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets."
The most
recent round of sanctions was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 18,
2020, by sanctioning Rosneft Trading S.A., a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-owned oil brokerage
firm, for operating in Venezuela's oil sector. The U.S. also recently targeted the Russian
Nord Stream 2
and
Turk Stream gas pipeline projects.
Russia had been signaling its displeasure over U.S. sanctions from the very beginning. In
July 2014, Russian President Vladimir
Putin warned that U.S. sanctions were "driving into a corner" relations between the two
countries, threatening the "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and
people." Russia opted to ride out U.S. sanctions, in hopes that there might be a change of
administrations following the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Russian President Vladimir
Putin made it clear that he hoped the U.S. might elect someone whose policies would be more
friendly toward Russia, and that once the field of candidates narrowed down to a choice between
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Putin favored
Trump .
"Yes, I did," Putin remarked after the election, during a joint press conference with
President Trump following a summit in Helsinki in July 2018. "Yes, I did. Because he talked
about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."
Putin's comments only reinforced the opinions of those who embraced allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election as fact and concluded that Putin had some
sort of hold over Trump. Trump's continuous praise of Putin's leadership style only reinforced
these concerns.
Even before he was inaugurated, Trump singled out Putin's refusal to respond in kind to
President Obama's levying of sanctions based upon the assessment of the U.S. intelligence
community that Russia had interfered in the election. "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)
– I always knew he was very smart!"
Trump Tweeted . Trump viewed the Obama sanctions as an effort
to sabotage any chance of a Trump administration repairing relations with Russia, and
interpreted Putin's refusal to engage, despite being pressured to do so by the Russian
Parliament and Foreign Ministry, as a recognition of the same.
This sense of providing political space in the face of domestic pressure worked both ways.
In January 2018, Putin tried to shield his relationship with President Trump by calling the
release of a list containing some 200 names of persons close to the Russian government by the
U.S. Treasury Department as a hostile and "stupid"
move .
"Ordinary Russian citizens, employees and entire industries are behind each of those people
and companies," Putin remarked. "So all 146 million people have essentially been put on this
list. What is the point of this? I don't understand."
From the Russian perspective, the list highlighted the reality that the U.S. viewed the
entire Russian government as an enemy and is a byproduct of the "political paranoia" on the
part of U.S. lawmakers. The consequences of this, senior Russian officials warned, "will be
toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead."
While President Trump entered office fully intending to "
get along with Russia ," including the possibility of
relaxing the Obama-era sanctions , the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, especially as
viewed from Congress, has been the strengthening of the Obama sanctions regime. These
sanctions, strengthened over time by new measures signed off by Trump, have had a negative
impact on the Russian economy,
slowing growth and
driving away foreign investment .
While Putin continued to show constraint in the face of these mounting sanctions, the recent
targeting of Russia's energy sector represented a bridge too far. When Saudi pressure to cut
oil production rates coincided with a global reduction in the demand for oil brought on by the
Coronavirus crisis, Russia struck.
The timing of the Russian action is curious, especially given the amount of speculation that
there was some sort of personal relationship between Trump and Putin that the Russian leader
sought to preserve and carry over into a potential second term. But Putin had, for some
time now, been signaling that his patience with Trump had run its course. When speaking to
the press in June 2019 about the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin noted that "They
(our relations) are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse," adding that "The current
[i.e., Trump] administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions
against Russia in recent years."
By launching an oil price war on the eve of the American Presidential campaign season, Putin
has sent as strong a signal as possible that he no longer views Trump as an asset, if in fact
he ever did. Putin had hoped Trump could usher in positive change in the trajectory of
relations between the two nations; this clearly had not happened. Instead, in the words of
close Putin ally Igor Sechin , the chief executive of Russian oil giant Rosneft, the U.S.
was using its considerable energy resources as a political weapon, ushering in an era of "power
colonialism" that sought to expand U.S. oil production and market share at the expense of other
nations.
From Russia's perspective, the growth in U.S. oil production -- which doubled in output from
2011 until 2019 -- and the emergence of the U.S. as a net exporter of oil, was directly linked
to the suppression of oil export capability in nations such as Venezuela and Iran through the
imposition of sanctions. While this could be tolerated when the target was a third party, once
the U.S. set its sanctioning practices on Russian energy, the die was cast.
If the goal of the Russian-driven price war is to make U.S. shale companies "share the
pain," they have already succeeded. A similar price war, initiated by Saudi Arabia in 2014 for
the express purpose of suppressing U.S. shale oil production, failed, but only because
investors were willing to prop up the stricken shale producers with massive loans and infusion
of capital. For shale oil producers, who use an expensive methodology of extraction known as
"fracking," to be economically viable, the breakeven price of oil
per barrel needs to be between $40 and $60 dollars. This was the price range the Saudi's
were hoping to sustain when they proposed the cuts in oil production that Russia rejected.
The U.S. shale oil producers, saddled by massive debt and high operational expenses, will
suffer greatly in any sustained oil price war. Already, with the price of oil down to below $35
per barrel,
there is talk of bankruptcy and massive job layoffs -- none of which bode well for Trump in
the coming election.
It's clear that Russia has no intention of backing off anytime soon. According to
the Russian Finance Ministry , said on Russia could weather oil prices of $25-30 per barrel
for between six and ten years. One thing is for certain -- U.S. shale oil companies cannot.
In a sign that the Trump administration might be waking up to the reality of the predicament
it faces, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin quietly met with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S.,
Anatoly Antonov. According to a read out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the two discussed economic sanctions, the Venezuelan economy, and the potential for "trade
and investment." Mnuchin, the Russians noted, emphasized the "importance of orderly energy
markets."
Russia is unlikely to fold anytime soon. As Admiral Josh Painter, a character in Tom
Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," famously said , "Russians don't take a dump without
a plan."
Russia didn't enter its current course of action on a whim. Its goals are clearly stated --
to defeat U.S. shale oil -- and the costs of this effort, both economically and politically (up
to and including having Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election) have all been calculated and
considered in advance. The Russian Bear can only be toyed with for so long without generating a
response. We now know what that response is; when the Empire strikes back, it hits hard.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books,
including his forthcoming, Scorpion King:
America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).
"... "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," ..."
"... "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination, ..."
"... "information warfare against the United States of America ..."
"... The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in court. ..."
"... The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13 individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques." ..."
"... Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing in January 2019 that Concord was leaking them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ..."
The US is dropping the much-hyped indictment for 'election
meddling' against a company supposedly behind the so-called Russian troll farm, closing the opening chapter of special counsel Robert
Mueller's Russiagate investigation. Further pursuing the case against Concord Management & Consulting LLC, "promotes neither
the interests of justice nor the nation's security," the Department of Justice wrote to the federal judge overseeing the case
on Monday, in a
motion to drop the charges.
DOJ lawyers cited "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination,
" saying only that they submitted further details in a classified addendum.
Wow.The DOJ moves to dismiss the charges against the Russian Company (Concord) who conducted the alleged "information warfare
against the US"The troll case will be dismissed w/ prejudice.How embarrassing for Team Mueller.
pic.twitter.com/wfZ78EWgKc
Concord was one of the three companies the Internet Research Agency is another and 13 individuals charged in February 2018
with waging "information warfare against the United States of America " using social media.
The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States
and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really
changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in
court.
The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13
individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery
documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques."
But the Russians *did* show up, got to claim they were innocent until proven guilty, availed themselves of discovery, tied
up the court in time, cost hundreds of thousands of $ in legal bills for DOJ, and gave Mueller a few black eyes in the process,
and ended up victorious
Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing
in January 2019 that Concord was leaking
them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit
there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.
They still insisted that Russia had "meddled " in the election, but there too the case proved a problem. Concord successfully
petitioned Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in May last year to rebuke the prosecutors for presenting their allegations as facts.
This is not to say that the DOJ is ready to disavow 'Russiagate' as a debunked conspiracy theory, however. Though the Concord
case was dropped, the charges against the Internet Research Agency and the 13 Russian individuals were not. Given that none of them
have a presence in the US, and have not dignified the indictment with a response, it is unclear how if at all the DOJ intends
to proceed with the case.
Keeping it on the books may keep the flames of 'Russiagate' alive, though, which is very convenient for the media and others heavily
invested in the narrative of Moscow somehow menacing US elections, despite not a shred of actual evidence being presented to back
it up.
For a snapshot in time, this was the NYT homepage after the Russian troll farm indictment back in February 2018. Russia, we
were told, "is engaged in a virtual war against the United States." pic.twitter.com/Z0xXCZoT9P
Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were
watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here https://vimeo.com/76668594
This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme
parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an
almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to
be had by all.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well ..."
"... "are out to get a military victory in all of Syria," ..."
"... Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other actions. ..."
"... "in a very savage military way" ..."
"... "a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances." ..."
"... "a complication" ..."
"... "three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are women and children," ..."
"... "Russian aggression" ..."
"... I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are more than capable of holding ground on their own. ..."
"... "Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways," ..."
"... "There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter." ..."
The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib
against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well
.
Russia and the Syrian government
"are out to get a military victory in all of Syria,"
Ambassador James Jeffrey told
reporters
on a conference call
out of Brussels on Tuesday.
Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other
actions.
To illustrate these methods, Jeffrey cited the US threat to respond
"in a very savage military way"
against any
chemical attacks, which he described as
"a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances."
This is
factually untrue, since the alleged attacks always happen
after
Syrian Army victories, as a pretext for US
intervention.
Jeffrey also noted that there are US and coalition troops in parts of Syria officially there to fight Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS), but in actuality
"guarding"
the oil fields. He tellingly described their presence as
"a
complication"
for the Syrian government.
Jeffrey and US ambassador to Turkey David Satterfield were in Brussels after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's
visit, to discuss ways the US and NATO can help Ankara protect its pet militants in their last remaining redoubt Syria's
Idlib province.
But while Satterfield described Idlib as containing
"three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are
women and children,"
and accused
"Russian aggression"
of seeking to displace them, listen to how Jeffrey chose
to describe the situation, when asked by a CNN reporter if NATO was considering sending in ground troops:
I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are
more than capable of holding ground on their own.
This is either appallingly ignorant or downright delusional, as the Syrian army had successfully rolled up the
Turkish-backed militants and the ceasefire Ankara agreed to in Moscow last week confirmed that.
Rsum par dates cls de l'opration de l'arme syrienne dans la rgion d'
#Idlib
jusqu' l'accord de cessez-le-feu ngoci par la
#Russie
et la
#Turquie
(phase 1 : 6 mai - 31 aot 2019
; phase 2 : 19 dc 2019 - 6 mars 2020)
pic.twitter.com/FcNWUThWBa
The real revelation here is that the militants are described as Turkey's
"opposition."
Contrast this with the
words of Colonel Myles Caggins, spokesman for the anti-ISIS coalition's military arm, just three weeks ago:
"Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways,"
Caggins told Sky News.
"There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to
hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter."
Bear in mind that Jeffrey doubles as Washington's special envoy to the coalition against IS, that infamous Schroedinger
entity that either doesn't exist any more when US President Donald Trump seeks to claim victory against the self-proclaimed
caliphate or is about to make a resurgence big time and requires US military presence in perpetuity to prevent that, as the
State Department and the Pentagon prefer to see it.
Needless to say, this entrenched insistence on legacy policies doesn't do much for Trump's promise to pull out US troops
from
"endless wars"
in the Middle East.
Neither Jeffrey nor Satterfield, nor any of the reporters asking them questions, mentioned even once the existence of Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham the latest incarnation of the notorious Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate whose fighters dominate the ranks of
the militants in Idlib. Listening to them, one might think it doesn't exist!
Jeffrey and Satterfield openly admit that an outright Syrian victory over these terrorists would deny the "international
community" as they style the US and its allies the leverage to insist on regime change in Damascus. Which is incredibly
rich in irony given that the sole legal pretext on which the US has any troops in Syria, in open violation of international
law, is a congressional authorization to use force against... Al-Qaeda.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a
regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
Helmer prefers Levada poll. https://tass.com/politics/898199
A Justice Ministry source told TASS that a random check carried out by the ministry's Moscow
branch had established that the Levada Center was financed by foreign sources and was
involved in political activities in the territory of Russia in the interests of its foreign
sponsors. The center prepares and distributes by means of modern information technologies
their opinion on decisions passed by Russian bodies of state power and their policy and forms
socio-political views and convictions.
"The inspection revealed that the Analytical Center of Yuri Levada had received a large
part of its funds from the United States, including a grant from the University of Wisconsin
- Madison, which is curated by the U.S. Department of Defense," the source said.
On things Russian, I think a Russian funded poll might be more accurate than a US
government funded NGO.
"... The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well ..."
"... "are out to get a military victory in all of Syria," ..."
"... Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other actions. ..."
"... "in a very savage military way" ..."
"... "a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances." ..."
"... "a complication" ..."
"... "three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are women and children," ..."
"... "Russian aggression" ..."
"... I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are more than capable of holding ground on their own. ..."
"... "Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways," ..."
"... "There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter." ..."
The State Department's special envoy for Syria has just admitted that the US aims to defend jihadist militants in Idlib
against 'Russian aggression,' proving once again that the swamp in Foggy Bottom is alive and well
.
Russia and the Syrian government
"are out to get a military victory in all of Syria,"
Ambassador James Jeffrey told
reporters
on a conference call
out of Brussels on Tuesday.
Our goal is to make it very difficult for them to do that by a variety of diplomatic, military, and other
actions.
To illustrate these methods, Jeffrey cited the US threat to respond
"in a very savage military way"
against any
chemical attacks, which he described as
"a favorite tactic of the Syrian regime in making advances."
This is
factually untrue, since the alleged attacks always happen
after
Syrian Army victories, as a pretext for US
intervention.
Jeffrey also noted that there are US and coalition troops in parts of Syria officially there to fight Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS), but in actuality
"guarding"
the oil fields. He tellingly described their presence as
"a
complication"
for the Syrian government.
Jeffrey and US ambassador to Turkey David Satterfield were in Brussels after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's
visit, to discuss ways the US and NATO can help Ankara protect its pet militants in their last remaining redoubt Syria's
Idlib province.
But while Satterfield described Idlib as containing
"three million-plus innocent civilians, the majority of whom are
women and children,"
and accused
"Russian aggression"
of seeking to displace them, listen to how Jeffrey chose
to describe the situation, when asked by a CNN reporter if NATO was considering sending in ground troops:
I think you can forget ground troops. Turkey has demonstrated ably that it and its opposition forces are
more than capable of holding ground on their own.
This is either appallingly ignorant or downright delusional, as the Syrian army had successfully rolled up the
Turkish-backed militants and the ceasefire Ankara agreed to in Moscow last week confirmed that.
Rsum par dates cls de l'opration de l'arme syrienne dans la rgion d'
#Idlib
jusqu' l'accord de cessez-le-feu ngoci par la
#Russie
et la
#Turquie
(phase 1 : 6 mai - 31 aot 2019
; phase 2 : 19 dc 2019 - 6 mars 2020)
pic.twitter.com/FcNWUThWBa
The real revelation here is that the militants are described as Turkey's
"opposition."
Contrast this with the
words of Colonel Myles Caggins, spokesman for the anti-ISIS coalition's military arm, just three weeks ago:
"Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways,"
Caggins told Sky News.
"There are [a] variety of groups there -- all of them are a nuisance, a menace and a threat to
hundreds of thousands of civilians who are just trying to make it through the winter."
Bear in mind that Jeffrey doubles as Washington's special envoy to the coalition against IS, that infamous Schroedinger
entity that either doesn't exist any more when US President Donald Trump seeks to claim victory against the self-proclaimed
caliphate or is about to make a resurgence big time and requires US military presence in perpetuity to prevent that, as the
State Department and the Pentagon prefer to see it.
Needless to say, this entrenched insistence on legacy policies doesn't do much for Trump's promise to pull out US troops
from
"endless wars"
in the Middle East.
Neither Jeffrey nor Satterfield, nor any of the reporters asking them questions, mentioned even once the existence of Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham the latest incarnation of the notorious Al-Nusra, an Al-Qaeda affiliate whose fighters dominate the ranks of
the militants in Idlib. Listening to them, one might think it doesn't exist!
Jeffrey and Satterfield openly admit that an outright Syrian victory over these terrorists would deny the "international
community" as they style the US and its allies the leverage to insist on regime change in Damascus. Which is incredibly
rich in irony given that the sole legal pretext on which the US has any troops in Syria, in open violation of international
law, is a congressional authorization to use force against... Al-Qaeda.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a
regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
Helmer prefers Levada poll. https://tass.com/politics/898199
A Justice Ministry source told TASS that a random check carried out by the ministry's Moscow
branch had established that the Levada Center was financed by foreign sources and was
involved in political activities in the territory of Russia in the interests of its foreign
sponsors. The center prepares and distributes by means of modern information technologies
their opinion on decisions passed by Russian bodies of state power and their policy and forms
socio-political views and convictions.
"The inspection revealed that the Analytical Center of Yuri Levada had received a large
part of its funds from the United States, including a grant from the University of Wisconsin
- Madison, which is curated by the U.S. Department of Defense," the source said.
On things Russian, I think a Russian funded poll might be more accurate than a US
government funded NGO.
Thought I'd share the website http://www.aymennjawad.org/ as it might be of interest to
people who post on/read this blog.
I came across this website during the height of the ISIS rampage. It's by a guy named
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi who specializes in translating into English the communiques of
Islamist political groups in Syria and Iraq, particularly those affiliated with Sunni
jihadism like ISIS and AQ.
He also sometimes interviews non jihadist groups, like the Iraqi Hashd al Sha'abi, and
civilians who live in the conflict zones.
I am not sure who his sponsors are but he seems to be associated with the International
Crisis Group. It's a good site for getting the perspective of the "other side" in their own
words. There doesn't seem to be a propagandistic angle or hidden agenda, at least not
overtly.
@Daniel #27:
Thought I'd share the website http://www.aymennjawad.org/ as
it might be of interest to people who post on/read this blog.
Thank you. It really is an interesting and useful site. For example, if one's relatives, friends, co-workers or
acquaintances start the "democratic activists" lament again, one can send them a link to this article:
Not too long ago the leadership of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)- the main insurgent faction in northwest Syria-
held meetings with Patrick Haenni and Dareen Khalifa, two monstrous analysts from the Centre for Humanitarian
Dialogue and International Crisis Group respectively.
Whatever one thinks of Shami's general portrayal of continuity in positions with the original Jabhat al-Nusra (for
one thing, it was not very plausible to imagine a meeting with Western think-tanks in the days of Jabhat al-Nusra),
there are some important insights to draw here. For instance, the insistence on Shari'a as the sole reference
authority is consistent with the reaffirmation of HTS principles by Abu al-Fatah al-Farghali (an Egyptian Shari'i
official in the group), who made clear the group rejects democracy and secularism (contrary to those who
imagine HTS is going in a more 'secular' and 'nationalist' direction).
- The battle in Syria is one of the monotheist mujahideen against the idolater enemies. There is a great
international disbeliever/apostate conspiracy against the jihad in Syria. The people of al-Sham and the mujahid
factions need to beware of this conspiracy and avoid falling into the trap of losing their decision-making to malign
actors.
- The people of al-Sham and the mujahideen need to be steadfast and endure and remember that tribulation of the
believers is something by which God tests His servants and distinguishes the truly faithful.
- The mujahideen should pursue guerrilla warfare against the enemy and do all they can from various
tactics to terrorize the enemy. They should not despair despite their poverty and hardship.
- The youth of the Islamic Ummah should support the jihad in Syria.
- Please God, destroy Assad, his followers, the Jews, Christians, Shi'a and other enemies of the
religion.
In an op-ed in the Financial Times on March 4th, he [Soros] urged that "Europe must
stand with Turkey over Putin's war crimes in Syria," an astonishing misreading of the
situation in the region as Turkey is the aggressor while Russia is fighting to eliminate
the last major terrorist enclave in Idlibt.
" Defender 2020" is a "maneuvre of shame"
by Willy Wimmer
former State Secretary at the German Ministry of Defence
"The German Chancellor, Dr Angela Merkel, is breaking a taboo by allowing German soldiers to
participate in the biggest NATO manoeuvre since the end of the Cold War against Russia
.
It is therefore no wonder that the German Federal Government in May 2019 did not
commemorate the "Versailles" of one hundred years ago, nor did the German President do so in
a commemoration ceremony for which he can be held accountable. Versailles does not only mean
"the demon of revenge", but also a deliberate inability to strive for peace.
This way of thinking is expressed once again in the NATO major manoeuvre, deliberately
planned for the 9 May, the day the war ended in 1945. As if the fact had needed further
proof that the "NATO West" cannot make peace, it can only make war, be that war cold or
hot.
The American conference in Bratislava in the Slovak Republic in April 2000 made the
American goal for Europe clear: An Iron Curtain between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea,
Russia can stay anywhichwhere, and be divided or broken up into smaller states. The NATO
manoeuvre called "Defender 2020" is a "manoeuvre of shame" that only serves the
warmongers . "
"... Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria ..."
"... Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or characteristics." ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most insidiously by the nation's foreign policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand chess-masters seeking to checkmate their Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian heartland. ..."
"... This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian bear as a menace to Western civilization. ..."
For
the last five years, the American media has been filled with scurrilous articles demonizing
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin has been accused of every crime imaginable, from shooting down airplanes, to
assassinating opponents, to invading neighboring countries, to stealing money to manipulating
the U.S. president and helping to rig the 2016 election.
Few of the accusations directed against Putin have ever been substantiated and the quality
of journalism has been at the level of "yellow journalism."
In a desperate attempt to sustain their political careers, centrist Democrats like Joe Biden
and Hillary Clinton accused their adversaries of being Russian agents – again without
proof.
And even the progressive hero Bernie Sanders – himself a victim of red-baiting –
has engaged in Russia bashing and unsubstantiated accusations for which he offers no proof.
Mettan is a Swiss journalist and member of parliament who learned about the corruption of
the media business when his reporting on the world anticommunist league rankled his newspapers'
shareholders, and when he realized that he was serving as a paid stenographer for the Bosnian
Islamist leader Alija Izetbegovic in the early 1990s.
Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that
associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative
character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists
first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or
characteristics."
Like anti-semitism, Mettan writes, "Russophobia is a way of turning specific pseudo-facts
into essential one-dimensional values, barbarity, despotism, and expansionism in the Russian
case in order to justify stigmatization and ostracism."
The origins of Russophobic discourse date back to a schism in the Church during the Middle
Ages when Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Roman empire and modified the Christian
liturgy to introduce reforms execrated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine
empire.
Mettan writes that "the Europe of Charlemagne and of the year 1000 was in need of a foil in
the East to rebuild herself, just as the Europe of the 2000s needs Russia to consolidate her
union."
Before the schism, European rulers had no negative opinions of Russia. When Capetian King
Henri I found himself a widower, he turned towards the prestigious Kiev kingdom two thousand
miles away and married Vladimir's granddaughter, Princess Ann.
A main goal of the new liturgy adopted by Charlemagne was to undermine any Byzantine
influence in Italy and Western Europe.
Over the next century, the schism evolved from a religious into a political one.
The Pope and the top Roman administration made documents disappear and truncated others in
order to blame the Easterners.
Byzantium and Russia were in turn rebuked for their "caesaropapism," or "Oriental style
despotism," which could be contrasted which the supposedly enlightened, democratic governing
system in the West.
Russia was particularly hated because it had defied efforts of Western European countries to
submit to their authority and impose Catholicism.
In the 1760s, French diplomats working with a variety of Ukrainian, Hungarian and Polish
political figures produced a forged testament of Peter 1 ["The Great"] purporting to reveal
Russia's 'grand design' to conquer most of Europe.
This document was still taken seriously by governments during the Napoleanic wars; and as
late as the Cold War, President Harry Truman found it helpful in explaining Stalin.
In Britain, the Whigs, who represented the liberal bourgeois opposition to the Tory
government and its program of free-trade imperialism, were the most virulent Russophobes, much
like today's Democrats in the United States.
The British media also enflamed public opinion by taking hysterical positions against Russia
– often on the eve of major military expeditions.
The London Times during the 1820s Greek Independence war editorialized that no
"sane person" could "look with satisfaction at the immense and rapid overgrowth of Russian
power." The same thing was being written in The New York Times in the 2010s.
A great example of the Orientalist stereotype was Bram Stoker's novel Dracula ,
whose main character was modeled after Russian ruler, Ivan the Terrible. As if no English ruler
in history was cruel either.
The Nazis took Russo-phobic discourse to new heights during the 1930s and 1940s, combining
it with a virulent anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.
A survey of German high school texts in the 1960s found little change in the image of
Russia. The Russians were still depicted as "primitive, simple, very violent, cruel, mean,
inhuman, cupid and very stubborn."
The same stereotypes were displayed in many Hollywood films during the Cold War, where KGB
figures were particularly maligned. No wonder that when a former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin,
took power, people went insane. Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most
insidiously by the nation's foreign policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand
chess-masters seeking to checkmate their Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian
heartland.
This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the
importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian
bear as a menace to Western civilization.
Guy Mettan has written a thought-provoking book that provides badly needed historical
context for the anti-Russian delirium gripping our society.
Breaking the taboo on Russophobia is of vital importance in laying the groundwork for a more
peaceful world order and genuinely progressive movement in the United States. Unfortunately,
recent developments don't inspire much confidence that history will be transcended. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Jeremy KuzmarovJeremy
Kuzmarov is the author of The Russians are Coming,
Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce (Monthly Review Press, 2018) and
Obama's Unending Wars: Fronting for the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta:
Clarity Press, 2019).
There
was this moment during the State of the Union Address that I can't stop thinking about.
When President Trump spoke to army wife Amy Wiliams during his speech and told her he'd
arranged her husband's return home from Afghanistan as a "special surprise," it was difficult
to watch.
Sgt. Townsend Williams then descended the stairs to reunite with his family after seven
months of deployment. Congress cheered. A military family's reunion -- with its complicated
feelings that are typically handled in private or on a base -- was used for an applause
line.
That gimmick was the only glimpse many Americans will get of the human reality of our wars
overseas. There is no such window into the lives or suffering of people in Yemen, Somalia,
Afghanistan, or beyond.
That's unacceptable. And so is the myth that Trump is actually ending the wars.
The U.S. has reached a deal with the Taliban to remove 3,400 of the 12,000 U.S. troops
currently in Afghanistan, with the pledge to withdraw more if certain conditions are met.
That's a long overdue first step, as U.S. officials are finally recognizing the war is a
disaster and are negotiating an exit.
But taking a step back reveals a bigger picture in which, from West Africa to Central Asia,
Trump is expanding and deepening the War on Terror -- and making it deadlier.
Far from ending the wars, U.S. airstrikes in Somalia and Syria have skyrocketed under Trump,
leading to more
civilian casualties in both countries. In Somalia, the forces U.S. operations are
supposedly targeting have not been defeated after 18 years of war. It received little coverage
in the U.S., but the first week of this year saw a truck bombing in Mogadishu that killed more
than 80 people.
Everywhere, ordinary people, people just like us except they happen to live in other
countries, pay the price of these wars. Last year saw over 10,000 Afghan civilian casualties --
the sixth year in a row to reach those grim heights.
And don't forget, 2020 opened with Trump bringing the U.S. to the brink of a potentially
catastrophic war with Iran. And he continues to escalate punishing sanctions on the country,
devastating women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable people.
Trump is not ending wars, but preparing for more war. Over the past year, he has deployed
14,000 more
troops in the Middle East -- beyond the tens of thousands already there.
If this seems surprising, it's in part because the problem has been bipartisan. Indeed, many
congressional Democrats have actually supported these escalations.
In December, 188 House Democrats
joined Republicans in passing a nearly $740 billion military budget that continues the
wars. They passed the budget after abandoning anti-war measures put forward by California
Representative Barbara Lee and the precious few others trying to rein in the wars.
It's worth remembering that State of the Union visual, of Congress rising in unison and
joining the president in applause for his stunt with the Williams family. Because there has
been nearly that level of consensus year after year in funding, and expanding, the wars.
Ending them will not be easy. Too many powerful interests -- from weapons manufacturers to
politicians -- are too invested. But ending the wars begins with rejecting the idea that real
opposition will come from inside the White House.
As with so many other issues -- like when Trump first enacted the Muslim Ban and people
flocked to airports nationwide in protest, or the outpouring against caging children at the
border -- those of us who oppose the wars need to raise our voices, and make the leaders
follow. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Khury Petersen-Smith
I read Rostislav Ishchenko's puff piece about how well Russia had done in the negotiations with Turkey, yet as suspected couldn't
find one example of wins for the Syrian administration.
We are told "Russia showed tremendous indifference to the Turkish threats"
& "Turkey gave too much, even for its current (far from brilliant) position."
But no evidence is supplied to support either broad but utterly flimsy statement
Joint Turko-Russian patrols on the M4 means two things detrimental to Syria, it is the perfect excuse for Turkey to keep troops
inside Syria's borders and, it makes it impossible for Syria to reclaim it's highway.
The most accurate statement I found in the article was: "In the end, Ankara knew that Russia also did not want a direct conflict with Turkey and would not bring the matter to a break."
Many people who like to maintain the self-delusion that Russia is a non-interventionist state, will disagree but rather than argue
in circles I say 'let's check out the state of play at the end of August, when if Russia hadn't backed down the Syrian government
would have won back total control of M4 & M5 as well as the administration of all major population centers in the Idlib Governorate.
It always saddens me when humans rightly swear off one brand of propaganda only to lap up the same type of tosh generated by
the original brand's major competitor.
They all lie this is evidenced by simply swapping the placename's in Ishchenko's article for those of a state amerika has invaded
by stealth, say Colombia with FARQ as the enemy protagonist. Do that and the article reads like a b grade NYT pile of steaming
tosh, full of historical analogies which have little relevance other than a vain attempt to boost the author's credentials.
It makes me mad because it has become obvious that Syria isn't ever going to completely recover it's territory.
Turkey still playing games?? posted at Syrian perspective blog: RUSSIAN "CHOPPER" GOT IN THE WAY OF THE TURKISH F-16 IN SYRIAN
IDLIB
Lajoie Parrot
"Russian aviation using an electronic warfare system (EW) prevented the Turkish F-16 fighter from shooting down the Syrian fighter-bomber
Su-22 in the sky over Idlib province. The incident occurred on March 4, and now it became known that Russian reconnaissance aircraft
equipped with the Il-22PP Porubshchik jamming system helped to get away from the Turkish missile to the Syrian Air Force combat
vehicle.
Over the past few days, Syrian aircraft have been repeatedly attacked by Turkish forces. In particular, a combat training L-39
was recently shot down, before which the Turkish Air Force destroyed two Syrian Su-24 bombers. All three combat vehicles of the
Arab Republic were hit after the Turkish Army launched Operation Spring Shield in Syrian Idlib on March 1. Earlier, several unsuccessful
attempts were made to shoot down Russian bombers from man-made anti-aircraft missile systems (MANPADS) FIM-92 Stinger American-made.
The situation is complicated by the fact that attacks, as military experts note, are carried out by Turkish F-16s with long-range
AIM-120 air-to-air missiles (up to 105 km range), and the target is guided by a Boeing early warning and control reconnaissance
aircraft 737AEW & C Turkish Air Force (equipped with electronic warfare, which includes the system of optoelectronic counteraction
AN / AAQ-24 (V) "Nemesis"). It is important to note that Turkish fighters conducted operations on Idlib without entering Syrian
airspace, thus avoiding getting into the affected area air defense systems from the Russian Khmeimim air base, since Moscow had
previously warned Ankara that it did not guarantee the safety of Turkish aviation in the sky of the northwestern ATS region.
However, a recent incident showed that in this case, the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Syrian Air Force have prepared countermeasures.
The Syrian Su-22 last Wednesday, March 4, was able to escape from the AIM-120 rocket, launched by the Turkish F-16. According
to military experts, such a maneuver was made possible thanks to the Russian integrated reconnaissance aircraft Tu-214R. "Syrian
troops, with the support of the Russian air forces, responded to the insidious strategy of Turkey with deterrence tactics. Russia
has significantly increased its EW forces in the region. First of all, due to the Tu-214 and Il-22PP, which were able to not only
detect the approaching Turkish F-16s, but also warn Syrian fighters, "writes the Chinese news portal Sina.
The Russian "Logger" also disrupted the tactical network Link 16, which made the Turkish Boeing 737AEW & C useless in monitoring
the terrain and warning strike fighters. In fact, experts say that Moscow, having not entered into an open confrontation with
Ankara, competently neutralized the Turkish Air Force in the region, which again realized that they could neither control the
airspace over Idlib nor provide support to their ground forces and allied fighters.
"The Russian air forces continue to provide air support to the Syrian government forces, thereby condemning the Turks and their
allied gangs to failure. A vivid example of this is the restoration of Syrian army control over the city of Sarakib," notes Sina."
[note that this may now be altered by the agreement reached in Moscow under the new ROE, which prevent the Turk turd from any
hostile act against Russian assets, no matter where initiated. Maybe.] ... numbers of missiles doesn't matter if you have effective/electronic
warfare capabilities that enable setting missile neutralization fields (fry all the electronics in the missile/plane/ship etc)
...which is what Russia has - quality beats quantity any day... Got that Uncle Sam and friends?
by Ellen Taylor At this very moment
thousands of US soldiers are disembarking from troop transports in six European countries and
rushing toward prepositioned munitions around Europe, to deploy weapons as swiftly as possible.
This excitement marks the beginning of "Defender Europe 2020", the largest military
exercises to be staged in Europe in over 25 years. Strategists will record how swiftly our
forces can reach the Russian border, and test our NATO allies.
There has already been a massive US build-up in the countries bordering Russia.
In the words of Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, "The last 18 years of conflict built muscle
memory in counterinsurgency, but with this came atrophy in other areas. We are now engaging
these other muscle groups."
General Tod Wolters, Commander of US forces in Europe and of NATO, has stated, "I'm in favor
of a flexible first-use (nuclear weapon) policy."
The US has withdrawn from the INF treaty.
Most diabolical and chilling of all: the exercises will come to a climax in June, which is
the 75 th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of the Soviet
Union in 1941, which killed 27 million people. Russians born in 1930 turn 90 this year. They
remember. The heart and soul of Russia remembers as well.
Russian Chief General Gerasimov is convinced the US is preparing for war. All it would take
for an attack is one false-flag operation.
The people of the world lie in helpless ignorance. And the Doomsday clock moves 20 seconds
closer to midnight.
New article from John Helmer "MI6 & BBC REVEAL OPERATION MINCEPIE – SKRIPAL
BLOOD-TESTS AT SALISBURY HOSPITAL FAILED TO SHOW NERVE AGENT UNTIL PORTON DOWN ADDED IT FOR
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE".
"The evidence of the Salisbury hospital personnel has been reviewed by a sharp-eyed
English analyst who prefers anonymity and an internet handle called Twiki. He has discovered
that the blood testing of the Skripals for at least 36 hours after their hospitalisation
– that is between their admission on Sunday afternoon March 4, and the following
Tuesday morning March 6 – did not (repeat not) reveal a marker for organo-phosphate
nerve agent poisoning; that is, the level of acetylcholinesterase (ACE) in the
bloodstream.*"
It seems to me that HMG fiction writers need to up their game. HMG novel on what happened
to the Skripal's is unbelievable. Has the quality of modern day Agatha Christie's
deteriorated that much? It seems that the events on March 4th in Salisbury were not
anticipated and a clusterfuck of the coverup has no clothes on it.
The importance of getting to the factual roots of what happened to put humanity on this
epidemiological trajectory should be especially clear after the debacle of September 11, 2001.
Without any sustained investigation of the 9/11 crimes, Americans were rushed into cycles of
seemingly perpetual warfare abroad, police state and surveillance state interventions at home.
This cycle of fast responses began within a month of 9/11 with a full-fledge military invasion
of Afghanistan, an invasion that continues yet.
When two US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, sought to slow the rush of the US
executive into emergency measures and war, they and the US Congress they served were hit hard
by a military grade bioweapon, anthrax. The violent tactic of the saboteurs proved effective in
easing aside close scrutiny that might have slowed down the fast approval by the end of October
of Congress's massive Patriot Act.
Since then a seemingly endless cycle of military invasions has been pushed forward in the
Middle East and Eurasia. The emergency measure powers claimed by the executive branch of the US
government extended to widespread illegal torture, domestic spying, media censorship and a
meteoric rise in extrajudicial murders especially by drones. This list is far from
complete.
All of these crimes against humanity were justified on the basis of an unproven official
explanation of 9/11. Subsequent scholarly investigations have demonstrated unequivocally for
the attentive that officialdom's explanations of what transpired on the fateful day in
September were wrong, severely wrong. The
initial interpretations are strongly at variance with the evidentiary record available on
the public record.
We must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in the same manner once again. The stakes are
too large, maybe even larger than was the case in 2001. The misinterpreted and misrepresented
events of 9/11 were exploited in conformity with the " Shock Doctrine ," a strategy for instituting
litanies of invasive state actions that the public would not otherwise have accepted.
The conscientious portion of humanity, many of whose members have done independent homework
of their own on the events of 9/11, will well understand the importance of identifying the
actual originating source of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
No less than in the wake of the 9/11 debacle , there are grave
dangers entailed in being too quick or too naïve or too trustful in immediately accepting
as gospel fact the Chinese government's initial explanations of the COVID-19 outbreak. Why not
take the time to investigate and test the current interpretations of the authorities that
proved themselves to be so wrong in their decision to reprimand Dr. Li?
Especially when the stakes are extremely high, the need is great for objective, third-party
adjudication to establish what really happened irrespective of official interpretations.
History provides abundant evidence to demonstrate that official interpretations of
transformative events often veer away from the truth in order to serve and protect the
interests of entrenched power.
All semblance of due process and the rule of law can quickly evaporate when powerful
institutions advance interpretations of catastrophic events used to justify their own
open-ended invocation of unlimited emergency measure powers. The well-documented examples of
the misrepresentation and exploitation of the 9/11 debacle demonstrate well the severity of the
current danger. The origins of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic have yet to be adequately
addressed and explained by a panel of genuinely independent investigators.
The Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, acknowledged on Feb. 9 on CBS's
Face the Nation
that there is no certainty about the origins of COVID-19. When asked by CBS's Margaret Brennan
where the virus came from, the Chinese Ambassador responded, "We still don't know yet."
Well they signed the agreement with the Taliban and two days later the DOD was bombing
them again so who knows what happens there.
Trump has declared all sorts of deals that ultimately turned into puffs of smoke -- the
non-deal with North Korea comes to mind. I consider pulling out of the TPP and tariffs
against China more indicative of bucking the consensus, but those can be reversed by Trump or
any other president whenever they feel like it.
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because
the initiators, financiers and a large part of the anti-government fighters come from
abroad.
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army, like its direct opponents,
is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected, because
the allegedly competing gas pipeline projects never existed to begin with, as even the
Syrian president confirmed.
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change, which developed
into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the
US, Great Britain and France – and Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
@Bill If you view China as a Han ethnic construct, antipathy to it (in the West) is very
low compared to most other ethnic constructs: such as core-Americans, European nationalists,
or worse still, Russia.
I've heard people evoke Russia in conspiracies, in real life. Not just on the
internet.
The only large, noteworthy, homogeneous country with lessor antipathy in the West is
Japan. But it is something of a double-edged sword, as Japan is nowhere near as praised as
China because it doesn't have the same power and has been stagnating.
There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks targeting the US Congress and
some media organizations in early October of 2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious
assault ever on the operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics in
the United States.
These attacks have come to be understood as an integral part of the large body of
crimes committed in Manhattan and Washington DC on 9/11. The anthrax attacks killed five people
including two postal workers. Seventeen people were injured and Congress was shut down for a few days.
Anthrax-laden letter attacks were specifically directed at two Democratic Party Senators,
Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. When they received the contaminated letters both lawmakers were engaged
in questioning provisions of the post-9/11 emergency measures legislation known as the Patriot Act.
Both Senators Leahy and Daschle were hesitant to rubber stamp the enactment that was seemingly
instantly drafted and put before Congress within three weeks of the 9/11 debacle.
The anthrax attacks took place just as the US Armed Forces began invading Afghanistan where the
culprits of the 9/11 crimes were supposed to be hiding out. The perpetrators of the anthrax attack,
who we were supposed to imagine at the time as al-Qaeda terrorists, succeeded in easing aside the
major locus of opposition to the Patriot Act's speedy passage in late October. Why, one might
legitimately ask, ask, would Islamic jihadists want the Patriot Act to be rushed through Congress. In
early October the US Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan at the same time that the US executive branch
was seeking with the Patriot a license to kill and torture and steal without any checks of
accountability.
Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a fraudulent explanation of
9/11's genesis, there was basically no chance that a genuine and legitimate evidence-based
investigation of the September 11 crimes would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror
continues to unfold on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for
the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the world.
In his 2005 book,
Biowarfare and Terrorism
,
Prof.
Boyle's analysis
pointed to major problems in the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks
including the agency's destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly refined
military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the anthrax bioweapon was produced
within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or
Bacillus anthracis
,
is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.
Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle
observed
,
"The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare when it suits their
interests. They already attacked the American People and Congress and disabled our Republic with
super-weapons-grade anthrax in October 2001."
Prof. Boyle's interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a book by Canadian Prof.
Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity of Prof. MacQueen's study of the anthrax
deception as part of a "domestic conspiracy." He sees
The
2001 Anthrax Deception
as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so far.
Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very large group of academics and public officials who condemn
the official narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence. Those who
share this understanding include former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, former German
Defence Minister Andreas von Blow, former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, former
Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Director of the US Star Wars Missile
Defense Program Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk, and the
author of ten academic books on different aspects of the 9/11 debacle, Claremont Graduate University
Professor David Ray Griffin.
Prof. Francis Boyle shared the 9/11 skepticism of many when he
asked
,
Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the
immediately-following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same
people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist
anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the
pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented
powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?
In his coverage of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic, Spiro Skouras highlighted the proceedings known
as Event 201. Event 201 brought together in New York on October 18, 2019 an assembly of delegates
hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center
for Health Security. The gathering anticipated the COVID-19 crisis by just a few weeks. I retrospect
it is almost as if Event 201 announced many of the controversies about to arise with the outbreak of
the real epidemic in Wuhan China. Event 201 performed functions similar to those of the drills that
frequently mimic the engineered scenarios animating false flag terror events but especially those of
9/11.
A major subject of the meeting highlighted the perceived need to control communications during an
epidemic. Levan Thiru of the Monetary Authority of Singapore went as far as to call for "a step up on
the part of governments to take action against Fake News." Thiru called for recriminatory litigation
aimed at criminalizing "bad actors." Cautioning against this kind of censorship, Skouras asked, Who is
going to decide what constitutes "Fake News"? If fact checkers are to be employed, "who will fact
check the fact checkers"?
Hasti Taghi, a media executive with NBC Universal in New York, was especially outspoken in
condemning the activities of "conspiracy theorists" that have organized themselves to question the
motives and methods of the complex of agencies involved in developing and disseminating vaccines.
She
frequently condemned
the role of "conspiracy theories" in energizing public distrust of the role
of pharmaceutical companies and media conglomerates in their interactions with government.
Tom Ingelsby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security injected an interesting twist into the
discussion. He asked,
"How much control of information should there be? By whom should control
of information be exercised? How can false information be effectively challenged?" Ingelsby then
added, "What happens if the false information is coming from companies and governments?"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/AoLw-Q8X174
This final question encapsulates a major problem for conscientious citizens trying to find
their way through the corruption and disinformation that often permeates our key institutions.
Those that try to counter the problem that governments and corporations sometimes peddle false
information can pretty much expect to face accusations that they are "conspiracy theorists." Too often
the calculations involved in deciding whom or what is credible (or not) depends primarily on simple
arithmetic favouring the preponderance of wealth and power.
Spiro Skouras gives careful consideration to the possibility that the United States
instigated the COVID-19 epidemic starting in Wuhan China.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WE8m309gKVE
https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0DDXsPKGHw
He notes the precedent set in 1945 on the atomic attacks by the US government on the
civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skouras points out that there is proof that since the
Second World War, the US government has conducted at least 239 experiments, secretly deploying toxic
chemical and biological agents against portions of its own population.
On the history of US involvement in biological warfare see
here
,
here
and
here
.
Skouras highlights the window presented for a covert US bioweapon attack at the World Military
Games in Wuhan China in the second half of October of 2019. He notes that 300 US soldiers participated
as athletes in the Wuhan Military Games together with a large contingent of American support
personnel. The timing and the circumstances of the event were more or less ideal to open up a new
pathogenic front in the US government's informal
"hybrid
war" against China
.
On Feb. 15 at the Munich Security Conference, US Defence Secretary, Mark T. Esper, developed a
highly critical characterization of Chinese wrongdoing in order to seemingly justify recriminatory
actions.
Esper
asserted
, "China's growth over the years has been remarkable, but in many ways it is fuelled by
theft, coercion, and exploitation of free market economies, private companies, and colleges and
universities Huawei and 5G are today's poster child for this nefarious activity.
The US antagonism to Huawei's leadership in the design and worldwide dissemination of 5 G
technology might well be a factor in the scandal generated by the Chinese connection to intertwined
research in microbiology at the level 4 labs in Winnipeg and Wuhan.
Back in 2000 the
notorious
report
entitled
Rebuilding America's Defenses
, a publication brought forward by the
neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), proposed that the US government should
refurbish and invoke its capacity to wage biological warfare. PNAC was the think tank that anticipated
the events of September 11, 2001 by outlining a strategic scheme that could only be realized by
mobilizing American public opinion with "a catalytic event like a New Pearl Harbor."
After 9/11, the PNAC Team of related neoconservative activists and Zionist organizations pretty
much took over the governance of the United States along with the build up and deployment of its
formidable war machine. PNAC called for the invocation of "advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes." In this fashion "biological warfare might be transformed into a
politically useful tool."
The relationship of this pandemic to internal disagreements within China has been put on
full display in Steve Bannon's coverage of the crisis entitled
War Room: Pandemic
.
A
prominent member of US President Donald Trump's
inner
circle
, Steve Bannon is often accompanied on the daily show by Chinese billionaire dissident,
Miles Guo (aka Guo Wengui, Miles Haoyun, Miles Kwok).
Guo is an
outspoken Chinese refugee
. He is a
persistent critic of virtually every facet of the policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
Guo regularly condemns those who dominate China's one-party system, a system run by an elite who,
he alleges, are corrupt, incompetent and inveterate liars. Guo regularly asserts that all of the
Chinese government's numbers on the pandemic, including death rates and infection rates, can probably
be multiplied by 10X or even 100X to get closer to accuracy.
[On the 10X guestimate of mortality and infection see
this
.]
Clearly Bannon and Guo would like to see the emergency conditions created by the pandemic as a
wedge of division, protest and regime change within China. One of the subjects they regularly raise,
as do others who accuse the Chinese government of systematic lying and deception, is that the
crematoriums in Wuhan and nearby Chongqing are burning corpses of dead people at a rate far higher
than official death figures. Some reports indicated that portable incinerators were being brought into
the most infected core of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
It is troubling, to say the least, that some reports indicate dead people are being
cremated far faster and at far higher rates than the Chinese government and the World Health
Organization are reporting. Some reckoning with the apparent disparity between reported and actual
deaths has led to widespread suspicions about what is actually going in the scenes of violent and
angry exchanges between people in the Wuhan area.
Many of these videos show brutal confrontations between Chinese civilians and Chinese security
police. The displays of desperation by some of those trying to escape apprehensions by uniformed
officials seem sometimes to suggest the
severity
of a life or death struggle
. It is made to seem that those seeking to escape the grip of
authorities are aware that their failure to do so might lead to a quick death and a quick exit by
incineration.
These
reflections
are, of course, speculative rather than definitive.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/yvouHwAEYCk
Questions concerning who we are supposed to believe or not in this crisis are becoming ever more
pressing and volatile. One of the emerging themes in the discourse developed at
War Room: Pandemic
is
the
propensity of some of the core agencies of mainstream media in the United States to accept
at face value the reports they receive from official media outlets answering to the Chinese Communist
Party.
To Banning and Guo this pattern makes media organizations like the
New York Times
,
The
Washington Post
, and
CNN
essentially propaganda extensions of the Chinese government.
The Chinese people themselves are clearly grappling in new ways with the problem of how to
understand the information and directives given them by the governing apparatus of the Chinese
Communist Party.
Clearly the Party initially failed the people by not intervening early and
decisively enough after the first cases of Coronavirus illness began to show up. The exit from Wuhan
of almost five million people in prior to the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations had huge
implications for spreading the contagion.
As noted in the introduction,
the death in Wuhan of Dr. Li Wenliang on 7 February has
become a flash point for popular criticism of the Chinese Communist Party led by General Secretary Xi
Jinping.
Dr. Li wrote to members of his medical school alumnus group suggesting that some
significant action should be taken in response to the appearance of SARS-like symptoms that suddenly
afflicted his patients.
For sending out this unauthorized communication, Dr. Li was summoned along with seven other
supposed offenders to the Public Security Bureau. There
he was warned by police to stop
"making false statements." He was ordered to cease and desist "spreading rumors," and "acting
illegally to disturb social order."
Dr. Li signed a form indicating he would refrain from continuing to do what he had been accused of
doing. The chastised professional returned to his medical practice. He took his own advice and began
treating patients exhibiting signs of the new illness. He himself soon
died
from COVID-19
when it was still known as 19-nCoV.
Is Twitter's permanent
deplatforming
of the Zero Hedge web site a North
American version of the police intervention in China with the goal of silencing Dr. Li? Is the
censorship of the Internet in the name of opposing
"conspiracy theorists"
repeating
the Chinese Communist Party's effort to silence Dr. Li?
Is Dr. Li to be appropriately understood as a Chinese version of a "conspiracy
theorist"?
How different was his treatment for allegedly "spreading rumours" and "acting
illegally to disturb social order" from the treatment of those in the Occident who have been
deplatformed, smeared and professionally defrocked for attempting to speak truth to power?
I have developed responses to these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda
blows of an especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing board of my
university.
These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic analysis of their own
violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling critics of their zealotry as "conspiracy
theorists" or worse.
More recently I have been grappling against a variation on this process in trying to counter the
censorious attacks on the
American
Herald Tribune
.
These assaults on free expression and open debate began with the machinations
of military hawks whose hit job instructions were passed along to the disinformation specialists at
CNN
and
the
Washington Post
.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/1MXdLwZ6spE
No one can say for sure where the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is taking the world. Wherever
we are headed, however, we are leaving behind an era that can never be recreated.
Whatever
happened to originate the contagion, this crisis is forcing us to take stock of the framework of
biological warfare as it has been developing in China, Russia, Israel and probably many other
countries.
Nowhere, however, is biological warfare being more expansively and expensively developed and
probably deployed than by the US Armed Forces.
The death and destruction that humanity is
presently experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about inspecting
military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological Warfare Convention of 1972.
It
is, in fact, time to get much more serious about enforcing all aspects of international criminal law
in balanced ways that transcend the biases of Victors' Justice.
It is time to throw off the weight of the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through
abhorrent tactics like the inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress.
Most certainly, it
is time to draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and research in the
development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work towards putting an end altogether to
militarization through the massive expansion of the "death sciences."
The vile activities of
fallen practitioners of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of
our besieged institutions of higher learning.
Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run "Russia
helping Sanders" stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The
Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against
Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S.
citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up
the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people
familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies'
assertion.
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported.
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified
"information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions
without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in
U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the
Democratic pack. Politicoreported
Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop
Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times
reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in
November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without
substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.
In a Tough Spot
The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders
himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in
his campaign.
But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after
the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources.
Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to
help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S.
intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.
So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the
Post :
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic
thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to
undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our
election."
Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious
online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use
Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly
stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real
supporters."
But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him
as being a tool of the Kremlin.
Mission accomplished.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one
capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide
to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for
the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.
Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31
The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and
the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.
If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73
Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that
nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their
silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to
send them flying.
Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So
how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18
I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head.
It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that
they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the
Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was
nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how
anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this
point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.
J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55
I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election
reform if he pulls out a victory .
or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have
that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela &
defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got
him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act
to get off his.
They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he
is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement,
Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.
"#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders'
political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like
#NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to
sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone
neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have
discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian
grandfathers.
It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense
leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in
Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage
and contempt for what is going on .
Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"
Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32
Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They
will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair
election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.
jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25
agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will
carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea
how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07
Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the
reporters.
Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and
titillated.
A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.
JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43
It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual,
meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of
enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But
why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him?
It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker
candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably
Bloomberg.
delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14
Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that
the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the
candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.
Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44
Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep
state during a debate. They have the same enemies.
The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders
election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against
Sanders.
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21
Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy
Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would
rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year
olds.
Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49
Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to
face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely
crushed.
This will never end.
No president will ever change anything.
The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
I am going to go and enjoy what's left.
Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24
" But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement
after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that
Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even
disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "
I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't
disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after
being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the
resulting "bad look".
JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06
The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in
unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few
percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own
America's Vichy MSM.
"Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW
1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing
control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in
favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the
war."
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html
Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar
example.
elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25
The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other
Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate
abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our
Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and
purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are
financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to
seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all
intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are
quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in
closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want
when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent
the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring.
The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their
associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will
never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room,
directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the
people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain
unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of
democratic governments-anywhere.
The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing
the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power
and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do
as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy,
oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort
to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the
beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and
smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the
early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the
specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for
example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either
liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating
the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed
the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as
limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and
(eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government
within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names
to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the
freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard
Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is
ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance
reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death
with senseless debates and useless candidates.
Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have
a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been
shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.
Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37
Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some
purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we
should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he
really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds
so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old
establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a
pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real
criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.
Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51
Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel
Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message
here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool
of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues
of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no
limits.
The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for
someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least
a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own
merits is impossible.
Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside
Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an
"autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder
if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his
"public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?
I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my
reply could fit here as well.
The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports"
are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and
gossip -- public doesn't care.
I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks
for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant
other countries confronting and challenging America.
It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one
(statistically speaking) believes you.
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04
A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one
Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.
Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of
anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having
OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.
So much for our being a HIGHER life form.
We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all
flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from
memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano
Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of
nature over man."
Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40
The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven
claims of Russian violations.
It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do
not stop it.
And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?
Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US
elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.
Sounds right to me.
Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24
When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their
oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no
longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few
marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is
completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.
michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03
Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence
shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg,
or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is
even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that
Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because
RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the
DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino
males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With
this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration
once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was
Secretary of State probably plays a role.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China,
not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and
military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in
1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained
permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to
advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the
strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and
soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that
Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in
Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!
Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22
Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his
intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China
(Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless
English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast
are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon
mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the
exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.
Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04
"So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double
standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements
like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate
liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all
into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude
that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned
out to be?
For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various
RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will
be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his
resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How
was that definition of insanity again?
If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem
party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what
can you expect.
aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29
Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had
the stones to at least abstain. How sad.
GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33
Dear DNC:
KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and
that is Bernie Sanders.
And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's
border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones
make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to
disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately
America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags,
which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right
of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you,
Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your
past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.
Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18
Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family,
sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250
million in cash."
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37
One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the
repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.
What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?
Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10
Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are
propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the
judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights
in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.
Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55
Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL
the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having
grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of
Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively
canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a
vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated
by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??
There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators
zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham
these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45
"Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated
distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a
sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??"
Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to
have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously.
If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic
military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump
handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and
have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.
When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the
population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating
will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.
John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33
Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face,
it sounds like bad intel to me.
But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to
put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots
after a really really bad election day three years ago.
The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself.
Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and
Bill's forensics.
Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52
When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the
President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability.
Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about
Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has
been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears
they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.
OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08
"Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help."
Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are
helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.
KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26
What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's
Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a
Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or
gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the
nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked
experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if
Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the
affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing
everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth
since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than
the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up
with this nonsense, day in, day out?
Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47
Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so
cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but
when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.
Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50
Kiwi you may have a point.
ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19
Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul
destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is
aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09
I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation
each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict
when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior,
Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.
Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach
anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean
tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest
integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to
abuse us with it until we reject it completely.
robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31
I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading
for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.
Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear
adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.
When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that
note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site
called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many
various topics. .
If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand
to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really
realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the
changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the
country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the
status quo.
Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties
switching and the party of trump
Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing
right
Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's
supporters
This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7
minutes.
Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my
courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know
things must change.
NY Times is citing "people familiar with the situation." How the mighty have fallen. What
about Shadow, and the Iowa caucuses, and Buttigieg? That was real. This is absolute
horseshit.
> Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders
It looks like the CIA is short of ideas on how to meddle in the elections. Trump had a
very similar briefing on January 6, 2017 -- with Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, and Comey -- on
Russia allegedly aiding his campaign. As well without any evidence.
Charlene Richards , February 22, 2020 at 14:47
Russia couldn't possibly do the damage to Sanders that the DNC and Democrat Establishment
elites are doing out in the open every day with the MSM as their prime propagandists.
As they say in wrestling, it's all "a work".
richard baker , February 22, 2020 at 10:55
Bart Hansen , February 22, 2020 at 18:27
Looking at the comments at the Post and Times, I'd say you are on target. Oh, for the Kool
Aid contract at those organs of misinformation and omission.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
"... It comes as US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft visited northern Syria to meet with White Helmets, and to pledge US aid money to them for the humanitarian crisis there. ..."
"... Officials are keen to make the humanitarian crisis wholly Syria's fault, and support for Turkey's war there as having humanitarian intentions, though specifically Turkey is looking to reinstall Islamist rebels into the area just so Syria won't have it. ..."
While Defense Secretary Mark Esper says
the US has no interest in reentering the Syrian War to back Turkey, the White House says that
the US is willing to
provide military aid to Turkey for the fight , including a recently committed influx of
ammunition.
The State Department downplayed the comments, made by US Special Envoy James Jeffrey, saying
that they weren't really new policy, but rather that he just stated the policy as it already
existed.
It comes as US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft
visited northern Syria to meet with White Helmets, and to pledge US aid money to them for
the humanitarian crisis there.
Officials are keen to make the humanitarian crisis wholly Syria's fault, and support for
Turkey's war there as having humanitarian intentions, though specifically Turkey is looking to
reinstall Islamist rebels into the area just so Syria won't have it.
Forget Where's Wally, what we really want to know is where are the Skripals? It's exactly two years to
the day since the Russian spy and his daughter were novichoked in Salisbury, and we've still not seen
hide nor hair of them.
Former double agent Sergei has been completely off-grid, while Yulia Skripal was seen in a highly
staged video in 2018, filmed in an anonymous but pleasant leafy glade shortly after recovering from
her poisoning ordeal; but, apart from that, there has been no statements or updates about them at all.
The most recent piece of 'information', and I use that term loosely, to leak out about their whereabouts came this weekend
from Britain's Mail on Sunday, courtesy of a source which became ubiquitous throughout the Skripal
saga, the reliably unreliable
"security insiders."
It's always amazing how willing these
apparent insiders are to release top-level secrets to the home of the
"sidebar of shame."
The latest speculation from 'security insiders' is that the Skripals are hoping to head for a new
life down under in Australia after
"effectively living under house arrest since the attack."
This means either those insiders are the leakiest spies in the world, or the Skripals are going to be
nowhere near
Australia
anytime soon.
The house arrest must be at Julian Assange in Belmarsh levels of security, because even the
Skripals' family in Russia say they haven't heard from them in months.
So all quiet on the Skripal front and, frankly speaking, it's all quiet on the geopolitical front,
too, and in the media. The disputed events of March 4, 2018, over poisoned spies and their aftermath
formed the biggest story on the planet, and not just because the whole world finally started paying
attention to the majesty of Salisbury cathedral's glorious 123-metre spire.
This incident seemed like it might have genuine life-changing political consequences. Britain
entered the phrase
"highly likely"
into the lexicon of geopolitics, and [then-PM] Theresa
May's declaration that it was
"highly likely"
that the Kremlin was to blame was deemed strong
enough to see the West turn en masse against Moscow, and Russian diplomats and 'diplomats' were
expelled by the dozen, by London and its allies across the world. It seemed the bar for state-to-state
accusations had been lowered.
Russia to this day denies involvement in what happened in Salisbury.
So what has changed? If anything, all that has changed over the last two years is a desire to get
back to business, to rebuild ties and move on. Some of those expelled diplomats have reportedly moved
back
.
French leader Emmanuel Macron is pushing hard for relations between the West and Moscow to be
repaired, something Germany needs little encouragement for.
The Brexit dividend (for Russia)... In 2019, British imports of Russian
oil jumped by a whopping 57% compared to the previous year, as Boris Johnson's government
unleashed the potential of their country.
https://t.co/ZSIJGvpFif
Britain is still pretending to be in a huff, but British imports of Russian oil were up 57 percent
last year, so realpolitik reigns supreme in London, as ever.
Boris Johnson is now the prime minister and with a thumping majority doesn't need to use bogeyman
Russia as a tool to look strong quite as much as his predecessor did. Johnson and Putin even met in
January and there are reports the prime minister is considering an invitation to attend a second world
war commemoration
parade
in Moscow this May.
And as for the media, it's all gone quiet there, too. Skripal coverage is about as common in the
mainstream now as coverage of Julian Assange's imprisonment. He's a journalist whose supporters say is
'highly likely' a victim of a demonstrable state campaign against him because he attempted to uncover
the misdeed of power. However, a boring attack on free speech is nowhere near as exciting as a
poisoned spy, is it?!
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Simon Rite
is a writer based in London for RT, in charge of several projects including the political
satire group #ICYMI. Follow him on Twitter
@SiWrites
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because the initiators, financiers and
a large part of the anti-government fighters
come from abroad .
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army – like its direct opponents – is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected,
because the allegedly
competing gas pipeline projects
never
existed to begin with, as even the Syrian president
confirmed .
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change
, which developed into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the US, Great Britain and France – and
Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
In fact, already since the 1940s the US has repeatedly
attempted to install a pro-Western government
in Syria, such as in 1949, 1956, 1957, after 1980 and after 2003, but without success so far. This makes Syria – since the fall of
Libya – the last Mediterranean country independent
of NATO.
Thus, in the course of the „Arab Spring" of 2011, NATO and its allies, especially Israel and the Gulf States,
decided to try again. To this end, politically and economically motivated protests in Syria were used and were quickly
escalated into an armed conflict.
NATO's original strategy of 2011 was based on the Afghanistan
war of the 1980s and aimed at conquering Syria mainly through positively portrayed Islamist militias (so-called „rebels").
This did not succeed, however, because the militias lacked an air force and anti-aircraft missiles.
Hence from 2013 onwards,
various poison gas
attacks were
staged in order to be able to deploy the NATO air force as part of a „humanitarian intervention" similar to the earlier wars
against Libya and Yugoslavia. But this did not succeed either, mainly because Russia and China blocked a UN mandate.
As of 2014, therefore, additional but negatively portrayed Islamist militias („terrorists") were covertly
established in Syria
and Iraq via NATO partners Turkey and Jordan, secretly
supplied
with weapons and vehicles
and indirectly
financed
by oil exports via the Turkish Ceyhan terminal.
ISIS: Supply and export routes through NATO partners Turkey and Jordan (ISW / Atlantic, 2015)
Media-effective
atrocity propaganda and mysterious „terrorist attacks" in Europe and the US then offered the opportunity to intervene in Syria
using the NATO air force even without a UN mandate – ostensibly to fight the „terrorists", but
in reality still to conquer Syria and topple
its government.
This plan failed again, however, as Russia also used the presence of the „terrorists" in autumn 2015 as a justification
for direct military
intervention and was now able to attack both the „terrorists" and parts of NATO's „rebels" while simultaneously securing
the Syrian airspace to a large extent.
By the end of 2016, the Syrian army thus succeeded in
recapturing the city of Aleppo.
From 2016 onwards, NATO therefore switched back to positively portrayed but now Kurdish-ledmilitias (the SDF) in order to still have unassailable
ground forces available and to conquer the Syrian territory held by the previously established „terrorists" before Syria and Russia
could do so themselves.
This led to a kind of
„race"
to conquer cities such as Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in 2017 and to a temporary division of Syria along the Euphrates river into a (largely)
Syrian-controlled West and a Kurdish (or rather American) controlled East (see map below).
This move, however, brought NATO into
conflict
with its key member Turkey, because Turkey did not accept a Kurdish-controlled territory on its southern border. As a result, the
NATO alliance became increasingly divided from 2018 onwards.
Turkey now fought the Kurds in
northern Syria and at the same time supported the remaining Islamists in the north-western province of Idlib against the Syrian army,
while the Americans eventually
withdrew
to the eastern Syrian oil fields in order to retain a political bargaining chip.
While Turkey supported Islamists in northern Syria, Israel more or less covertly
supplied Islamists in southern Syria and at the same time fought Iranian and Lebanese (Hezbollah) units with air strikes, though
without lasting success: the militias in southern Syria had to surrender in 2018.
Ultimately, some NATO members
tried to use a confrontation between the Turkish and Syrian armies in the province of Idlib as a last option to escalate the
war. In addition to the situation in Idlib, the issues of the occupied territories in the north and east of Syria remain to be resolved,
too.
Russia, for its part, has tried to draw Turkey out of the NATO alliance and onto its own side as far as possible. Modern Turkey,
however, is pursuing a rather far-reaching geopolitical
strategy of its own, which is also increasingly clashing with Russian interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.
As part of this geopolitical strategy, Turkey in 2015 and 2020 even used the so-called
"weapon of mass migration" , which may serve to destabilize
both Syria (so-called strategic depopulation
) and Europe, as well as to extort financial, political or military support from the European Union.
Syria: The situation in February 2020
What role did the Western media play in this war?
The task of NATO-compliant media was to portray
the war against Syria as a „civil war", the Islamist „rebels" positively, the Islamist „terrorists" and the Syrian government negatively,
the alleged „poison gas attacks" credibly and the NATO intervention consequently as legitimate.
Since 2019, NATO-compliant media moreover had to conceal or discredit various leaks and whistleblowers that began to prove the
covert Western arms deliveries
to the Islamist „rebels" and „terrorists" as well as the staged
„poison gas attacks"
.
But if even the „terrorists" in Syria were demonstrably established and equipped by NATO states, what role then did the mysterious
„caliph of terror" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi play? He possibly played a similar role as his direct
predecessor , Omar al-Baghdadi – who was a
phantom .
Thanks to new communication technologies and on-site sources, the Syria war was also the first war about which
independent media could report almost in real-time and thus for
the first time significantly influenced the public perception of events – a potentially historic change.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from SPR
Order Mark Taliano's Book "Voices from Syria"
directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis
that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
"... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing, according to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof," Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or conditions." ..."
"... Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise. @tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this is brought up? ..."
"... In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598 for taking them to the hospital." ..."
"... Last week, the Miami Herald reported that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China. ..."
"... Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays ..."
"... The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic. ..."
"Huge surprise medical bills [are] going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone." by
Jake Johnson, staff writer Public health
advocates, experts, and others are demanding that the federal government cover coronavirus testing and all related costs after several
reports detailed how Americans in recent weeks have been saddled with exorbitant bills following medical evaluations.
Sarah Kliff of the New York Times
reported Saturday
that Pennsylvania native Frank Wucinski "found a pile of medical bills" totaling $3,918 waiting for him and his three-year-old daughter
after they were released from government-mandated quarantine at Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, California.
"My question is why are we being charged for these stays, if they were mandatory and we had no choice in the matter?" asked Wucinski,
who was evacuated by the U.S. government last month from Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak.
"I assumed it was all being paid for," Wucinski told the Times . "We didn't have a choice. When the bills showed up, it was just
a pit in my stomach, like, 'How do I pay for this?'"
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not billing patients for coronavirus testing,
according
to Business Insider . "But there are other charges you might have to pay, depending on your insurance plan, or lack thereof,"
Business Insider noted. "A hospital stay in itself could be costly and you would likely have to pay for tests for other viruses or
conditions."
Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, told the Times that
"the most important rule of public health is to gain the cooperation of the population."
"There are legal, moral, and public health reasons not to charge the patients,"
Gostin said.
Congress needs to immediately pass a bill appropriating funding to cover 100% of the cost of all coronavirus testing & care
within the United States. We will not have a chance at containing it otherwise.
@tedlieu - as my rep, can you please ensure this
is brought up?
In the case of the Wucinskis, Kliff reported that "the ambulance company that transported [them] charged the family $2,598
for taking them to the hospital."
"An additional $90 in charges came from radiologists who read the patients' X-ray scans and do not work for the hospital," Kliff
noted.
The CDC declined to respond when Kliff asked whether the federal government would cover the costs for patients like the Wucinskis.
The Intercept 's Robert Mackey
wrote
last Friday that the Wucinskis' situation spotlights "how the American government's response to a public health emergency, like trying
to contain a potential coronavirus epidemic, could be handicapped by relying on a system built around private hospitals and for-profit
health insurance providers."
We should be doing everything we can to encourage people with
#COVIDー19 symptoms to come forward.
Huge surprise medical bills is going to make sure people with symptoms don't get tested. That is bad for everyone, regardless
of if you are insured. https://t.co/KOUKTSFVzD
Play this tape to the end and you find people not going to the hospital even if they're really sick. The federal government
needs to announce that they'll pay for all of these bills https://t.co/HfyBFBXhja
Last week, the Miami Herald reported
that Osmel Martinez Azcue "received a notice from his insurance company about a claim for $3,270" after he visited a local hospital
fearing that he contracted coronavirus during a work trip to China.
"He went to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he said he was placed in a closed-off room," according to the Herald . "Nurses
in protective white suits sprayed some kind of disinfectant smoke under the door before entering, Azcue said. Then hospital staff
members told him he'd need a CT scan to screen for coronavirus, but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first."
Azcue tested positive for the flu and was discharged. "Azcue's experience shows the potential cost of testing for a disease
that epidemiologists fear may develop into a public health crisis in the U.S.," the Herald noted.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, highlighted Azcue's case in a tweet last Friday.
"The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together," Sanders wrote. "We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits
over outrageous bills. Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and
public health."
Last week, as Common Dreams
reported , Sanders argued that the coronavirus outbreak demonstrates the urgent need for Medicare for All.
The coronavirus reminds us that we are all in this together. We cannot allow Americans to skip doctor's visits over outrageous
bills.
Everyone should get the medical care they need without opening their wallet -- as a matter of justice and public health.
https://t.co/c4WQMDESHU
The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S.
surged by more than two
dozen over the weekend, bringing the total to 89 as the Trump administration continues to
publicly downplay the severity of the outbreak.
Dr. Matt McCarthy, a staff physician at NewYorkPresbyterian Hospital,
said
in an appearance on CNBC 's "Squawk Box" Monday morning that testing for the coronavirus is still not widely available.
"Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing patients," McCarthy said. "I still do not have a rapid
diagnostic test available to me."
"I'm here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, I don't have it at my finger tips," added
McCarthy. "I still have to make my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88 cases in the United
States. There are going to be hundreds by middle of week. There's going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing issue."
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Did anyone expect the unconscionable greed of capitalism to cease when a public health crisis emerges? This is just testing
for the virus, wait until a vaccine has been developed so expensive that the majority of the US populace can not afford it at
all and people are dropping like flies. Wall Street, never-the-less, will continue to have its heydays
A wall street bank or private predator may own your emergency room. A surprise bill may await your emergency treatment above
insurance payments or in some instances all of the bill.
An effort was made recently in congress to stop surprise billings but enough dems joined repubs to kill it. More important
to keep campaign dollars flowing than keep people alive.
fernSmerl 12h I know emergency rooms are being purchased by organizations like Tenet (because they are some of
the most expensive levels of care) and M.D.s provided by large agencies. I'm not as up on this as I should be but a friend of
mine tells me that some of this is illegal. I have received bills that were later discharged by challenge. This is worth investigating
further. Atlasoldie 11h Hmmmm A virus that
overwhelmingly kills the elderly and/or those with pre-exisitng conditions.
Sounds like a medical insurance companies wet dream. As well as .gov social security/medicare wet dream.
The very idea that the defense and "Homeland" security budgets are bloated and additional funding approved year after year
but the citizens of this country are not afforded 100% health coverage In a time of global health crisis that could become a pandemic.
And as has been stated, the unconscionable idea suggested that a possible vaccine (a long way away or perhaps not developed at
all) might not be affordable to the workers who pay the taxes that fund the government? That's insane.
Another example of "American Exceptionalism." China doesn't charge its coronavirus patients, neither does South Korea. I guess
they are simply backward countries.
I own my own home after years of hard work paying it off. It's the only thing of value, besides my old truck, that I have.
If I get the virus, I will stay home and try to treat it the best I can. I can't afford to go to the hospital and pay thousands in
medical bills, with the chance that they'll come after my possessions. America, the land of the _______. Fill in the blank. (Hint:
it's no longer free).
There are other ways to protect your home. Homesteading or living trust. I'm not good at this but I know there are ways to
do it. Hopefully, it would never come to that but outcomes are not certain even with treatment in this case.
As someone
who lost a mother at 5 years old I can sympathize with your grief in losing a daughter-in-law and especially seeing her four children
orphaned. However, I think you miss the point here: This is about we becoming a society invested in each others welfare and not a
company town that commodifies everything including the health and well being of us all.
As a revision it is better but flawed. It is a cost containment bill based on the same research as the republican plan with global
budgets and block grants.
Edited: I encourage you to read this: -ttps://www.rand.org/blog/2018/10/misconceptions-about-medicare-for-all.html Giovanna-Lepore10h oldie:
Part D
Higher education is not free but they do need to become free for the students and payed by us as a society.
Part D is a scam, a Republican scam also supported by corporate democrats because of its profit motive and its privatization
Medicare only covers 80% and does not cover eye and dental care and older folks especially need these services. Medicaid helps but there are limits and one cannot necessarily use it where one needs to go.
Expanded, Improved Medicare For All is a vast improvement. because it covers everyone in one big pool and, therefore, much more dignified
than the rob Paul to pay peter system we have.
Social Security too can be improved. Why should it simply be based on the income of the person which means that a person working
in a low paying job in a capitalist system gone wild with greed will often work until they die.
Pell grants can be eliminated when we have what the French have: publicly supported education for everyone.
The demise of unions certainly did not help but it was part of the long strategy of the Right to privatize everything to the enrichment
of the few.
The overall competence that Canada is handling this outbreak, compared to the USA, is stark. First world (Canada) versus third-world
(USA). Testing is practically available for free, to any suspect person, sick or not, as Toronto alone can run 1000 tests a day and
have results in 4 hours. That is far more than all the US's capacity for 330 million people.
I wonder how long before Canada closes its borders to USAns? Me and my wife (both in a vulnerable age/medical group) should seriously
consider fleeing to my brother's place in Toronto as the first announced cases in Pittsburgh are probably only days away. What about
our poor cat though? We could try to smuggle her across the border, but she is a loud and talkative kitty
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures but the
"low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals
shop there and they think it's being hyped by media. Did get this from my NJ Sen. Menendez
Center for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC)
There is currently no vaccine to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being
exposed to this virus. However, everyday preventive actions can help prevent the spread of respiratory diseases:
Wash your hands often
Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
Stay home when you are sick.
Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
For more information : htps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/prevention-treatment.html
How it spreads : The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person. It may be possible that a person can get
COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their
eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. [Read more.] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html )
Symptoms : For confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, reported illnesses have ranged from mild symptoms to
severe illness and death. Symptoms can include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
Don't want to discourage anyone from any protective measures but the
"low down" from my veggie store today was that a lot of health professionals
shop there and they think it's being hyped by media.
I agree it is being hyped by the media to the point of being fear mongering. At the same time it is being ignored by the administration to such an extent that really little almost nothing is being done. At some point the two together will create an even bigger problem.
It is like the old adage: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." Each over/under reach in considering the reality of the situation has its own problem, which multiply when combined. Every morning when I wake up I say a little atheistic prayer to myself before I get out of bed: "Another day and for better or
worse...".
Well, two reported here in Florida tonight. One in my county, one in the county next door. And more of the "we already knew, but told you late". One person checked into the hospital on Wednesday. We hear it Monday night.
Both were ignored far a long time it seems, and 84 in particular are being watched (roommates, friends, hospital workers not alerted
for several days, the usual). But no one knows every place they had been since becoming infected.
Oh, and they have tested a handful of people. No worry?
I can't see anyway that this level of incompetency is an accident. Spring break is just starting usually a 100's of thousand tourist
bonanza.
So the question is do they want to kill us, or just keep us in fear?
I think the later. But the end result is a crap shoot. So once again, it is a gamble with our lives.
The business of America is business. Sometimes that can go too far and this is one of those times. Making money from the loss,
distress, harm and suffering of others is perverse beyond belief.
There are many influential supporters of nuclear war, and some of these contend that the use
of "low-yield" and/or short-range weapons is practicable without the possibility of escalation
to all-out Armageddon. In a way their argument is comparable to that of the band of starry-eyed
optimists who thought, apparently seriously, that there could be such a beast as a "moderate
rebel."
In October 2013 the Washington Post
reported that "The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in
Syria amid concern that moderate, US-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country's
civil war," and the US Congress gave approval
to then President Barack Obama's plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight
against Islamic State extremists. The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents
that could be described as "moderate rebels" is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how
Washington's planners classify such people. It obviously didn't dawn on them that any person
who uses weapons illegally in a rebellion could not be defined as being moderate. And how
moderate is moderate? Perhaps a moderate rebel could be equipped with US weapons that kill only
extremists? Or are they allowed to kill only five children a month? The entire notion was
absurd, and predictably the scheme collapsed, after expenditure of vast amounts of US
taxpayers' money.
And even vaster amounts of money are being spent on developing and producing what might be
classed as moderate nuclear weapons, in that they don't have the zillion-bang punch of most of
its existing 4,000 plus warheads. It is apparently widely believed in Washington that if a
nuclear weapon is (comparatively) small, then it's less dangerous than a big nuclear
weapon.
In January 2019 the Guardian reported that "the Trump
administration has argued the development of a low-yield weapon would make nuclear war less
likely, by giving the US a more flexible deterrent. It would counter any enemy (particularly
Russian) perception that the US would balk at using its own fearsome arsenal in response to a
limited nuclear attack because its missiles were all in the hundreds of kilotons range and 'too
big to use', because they would cause untold civilian casualties."
In fact, the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe -- as
would all nuclear wars, because there's no way, no means whatever, of limiting escalation. Once
a nuclear weapon has exploded and killed people, the nuclear-armed nation to which these people
belonged is going to take massive action. There is no alternative, because no government is
just going to sit there and try to start talking with an enemy that has taken the ultimate leap
in warfare.
It is widely imagined -- by many nuclear planners in the sub-continent, for example -- that
use of a tactical, a battlefield-deployed, nuclear weapon will in some fashion persuade the
opponent (India or Pakistan) that there is no need to employ higher-capability weapons, or, in
other words, longer range missiles delivering massive warheads. These people think that the
other side will evaluate the situation calmly and dispassionately and come to the conclusion
that at most it should itself reply with a similar weapon. But such a scenario supposes that
there is good intelligence about the effects of the weapon that has exploded, most probably
within the opponent's sovereign territory. This is verging on the impossible.
War is confusing in the extreme, and tactical planning can be extremely complex. But there
is no precedent for nuclear war, and nobody -- nobody -- knows for certain what reactions will
be to such a situation in or near any nation. The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review stated that
low-yield weapons "help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in
limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely." But do the possible
opponents of the United States agree with that? How could they do so?
The reaction by any nuclear-armed state to what is confirmed as a nuclear attack will have
to be swift. It cannot be guaranteed, for example, that the first attack will not represent a
series. It will, by definition, be decisive, because the world will then be a tiny step from
doomsday. The US nuclear review is optimistic that "flexibility" will by some means limit a
nuclear exchange, or even persuade the nuked-nation that there should be no riposte, which is
an intriguing hypothesis.
...the review calls for modification to 'a small number of existing submarine-launched
ballistic missile (SLBM) warheads' to provide a low-yield option.
It also calls for further exploration of low-yield options, arguing that expanding these
options will 'help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in
limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.' This is intended to
address the argument that adversaries might think the United States, out of concern for
collateral damage, would hesitate to employ a high-yield nuclear weapon in response to a
'lower level' conflict, in which an adversary used a low-yield nuclear device. The review
argues that expanding low-yield options is 'important for the preservation of credible
deterrence,' especially when it comes to smaller-scale regional conflicts.
"Credible deterrence" is a favourite catch-phrase of the believers in limited
nuclear war, but its credibility is suspect. Former US defence secretary William Perry
said last year that he wasn't so much worried about the vast number of warheads in the
world as he was by open proposals that these weapons are "usable". It's right back to the Cold
War and he emphasises that "The belief that there might be tactical advantage using nuclear
weapons – which I haven't heard being openly discussed in the United States or in Russia
for a good many years – is happening now in those countries which I think is extremely
distressing." But the perturbing thing is that while it is certainly being discussed in Moscow,
it's verging on doctrine in Washington.
In late February US Defence Secretary Esper was
reported as having taken part in a "classified military drill in which Russia and the
United States traded nuclear strikes." The Pentagon stated that "The scenario included a
European contingency where you're conducting a war with Russia and Russia decides to use a
low-yield, limited nuclear weapon against a site on NATO territory." The US response was to
fire back with what was called a "limited response."
First of all, the notion that Russia would take the first step to nuclear war is completely
baseless, and there is no evidence that this could ever be contemplated. But ever if it were to
be so, it cannot be imagined for an instant that Washington would indulge in moderate nuclear
warfare in riposte. These self-justifying wargames are dangerous. And they bring Armageddon
ever closer.
In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media,
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and
attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the
article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada
caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She
also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York
City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina.
Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq
and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar
with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks.
Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.
She wrote:
Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these
dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by
out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the
Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges
that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is
a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who
are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election
process.
We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and
self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by
generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for
"journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without
presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no
information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
Gabbard continued:
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians"
are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" --
then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.
After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had
little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper
ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing
presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is
antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot
have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they
dislike.
As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a
positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military
career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state.
However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate
and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence
apparatus.
Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA
smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the
remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself --
has responded to her appeal.
Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the
warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination,
or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric
and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our
country and the world."
Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced
into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has
been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against
Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller
investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.
Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has
written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic
Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the
emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to
this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.
Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not
voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She
has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to
antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if
elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.
These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential
candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was
being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away
from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the
Russians," Clinton claimed.
Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its
monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael
Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but
Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.
This is simply pretty dirty and pretty effective propaganda trick. And it make intelligence agencies the third political party
participating in the USA elections. With the right of veto.
Based on the tone of Tuesday's Democratic debate, you would think the Kremlin has already
determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Former Vice President Joe Biden said
Russians are "engaged now, as I speak, in interfering in our election." Billionaire Tom Steyer
said there is "an attack by a hostile foreign power on our democracy right now." Former New
York Mayor Mike Bloomberg charged that
Russia was backing Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt., to ensure a Trump victory in November.
But the Russian interference narrative has become entrenched. When intelligence community
election expert Shelby Pierson speculated to the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door
meeting that Russia was trying to help President Trump get reelected, it quickly leaked, became
a front-page story in The New York Times and precipitated the usual outrage. It took a few days
for the less dramatic truth to catch up -- that there was
no evidence for the "misleading" supposition that the Kremlin is pro-Trump; at best Russia
may have a "preference" for a "deal-maker."
Back in January, well before the Democratic primary race had taken on its current
composition, independent journalist
Ruth Ann Oskolkoff reported that a source had heard from high-level Democratic Party
insiders that they were planning to install Joe Biden as the party's nominee, and to smear
Bernie Sanders as a Russian asset.
"On January 20, 2020 at 8:20 p.m. PDT I received a communication from a reliable source,"
Oskolkoff wrote.
"This person had interactions earlier that evening with high level party members and
associates of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who said that they have now selected
Biden as the Democratic Party nominee, with Warren as the VP. They also said the plan is to
smear Bernie as a Russian asset."
Now, immediately before Super Tuesday, we are seeing establishment candidates
Pete Buttigieg and
Amy Klobuchar drop out of the race, both of whom, along with
former candidate Beto O'Rourke , are now suddenly endorsing Biden. Elizabeth Warren, the
only top-level candidate besides Sanders who could be labeled vaguely "left" by any stretch of
the imagination, has meanwhile
outraged progressives by remaining in the race, to the Vermont senator's detriment.
Prior to the South Carolina primary, Russian state media were touting Bernie Sanders as
the most likely Democratic nominee, and it won't be surprising if they do the same after
Super Tuesday https://t.co/mH98PVmcjr
This latter development is becoming a conspicuously common line of attack against Sanders
and, while we're on the subject, also tracks with a prediction made by journalist Max Blumenthal back in
July of 2017. Blumenthal told Fox's Tucker Carlson that "this Russia hysteria will be
re-purposed by the political establishment to attack the left and anyone on the left -- a
Bernie Sanders-like politician who steps out of line on the issues of permanent war or
corporate free trade, things like that -- will be painted as Russia puppets. So this is very
dangerous, and people who are progressive who are falling into it need to know what the
long-term consequences of this cynical narrative are."
So we're seeing things unfold exactly as some have predicted. We're seeing the clear
frontrunner smeared as a tool of Vladimir Putin, accompanied by a deluge of op-eds and think
pieces from all the usual
warmongering mass media narrative managers calling on so-called "moderates" to rally around
the former Vice President on Super Tuesday.
"Whatever the case for either Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren...neither is going to be
the nominee. And...it's not going to be Mike Bloomberg either. So it's Bernie Sanders or Joe
Biden." Tomorrow, if you live in one of 14 states, you can choose Biden. https://t.co/btuPbGtWxG
And the prediction markets have seen a massive surge for Biden and plunge for Bernie...
With Biden now surging into the lead
The only problem? Biden's brain is turning into sauerkraut.
There are two new clips of video footage making the rounds today, one featuring Biden at a
rally telling his supporters that tomorrow is "Super Thursday" ,
and another featuring the former VP saying (and this is a direct quote ),
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created -- by the -- you know, you
know the thing."
And yeah, it's unpleasant to have to keep pointing this out. I'm not loving it myself. I
resent Biden's handlers and the Democratic Party establishment for making it necessary to
continually point out an old man's obvious symptoms of cognitive decline. But it does need to
be pointed to, and it's creepy and weird that they're continuing to prop up this crumbling husk
of a man while pretending that everything's fine.
Not that Biden would be an acceptable leader of the most powerful government on earth even
with a working brain; he's a horrible war hawk
with an
inexcusable track record of advancing right-wing policies. But even rank-and-file Americans
who don't pay attention to that stuff would plainly see a man on the debate stage opposite
Trump who shouldn't be permitted near heavy machinery, much less the nuclear codes. And Trump
will happily point that out.
It's been obvious since 2016 that the Dems were going to once again sabotage the only
candidate with a chance of beating Trump in favor of a scandalously inappropriate candidate,
but wheeling out an actual, literal dementia patient for the role is something not even I would
have imagined.
To those idiots here calling critque on Putins descion "anti-Putin troll": Please add Elijah
J. Magnier and the Syrian and Iranian command and even Russian military commanders the same:
A significant development took place in Syria on Friday. A Russian attack on a Turkish
convoy in Idlib in north-west Syria killed 36 Turkish soldiers and officers. In retaliation,
Turkey launched an unprecedented armed drone attack that lasted several hours and resulted in
the killing and wounding of over 150 Syrian officers and soldiers and their allies of
Hezbollah and the Fatimiy'oun. The Turkish drones destroyed dozens of tanks and rocket
launchers deployed by the Syrian Army along the front line. Russia ceased air support for
Syria and its allies demanded from Russia an explanation for the lack of coordination of its
unilateral stoppage of air support, allowing the Turkish drones to kill so many Syrian Army
and allied forces. What happened, why, and what will be the consequences?
In October 2018, Turkey and Russia signed an agreement in Astana to establish a
de-confliction zone along the Damascus-Aleppo (M5) and Aleppo-Latakia (M4) highways. It was
agreed that all belligerents would withdraw and render the roads accessible to civilian
traffic. Moreover, it was decided to end the presence of all jihadists, including the Tajik,
Turkistan, Uighur and all other foreign fighters present in Idlib alongside Hayat Tahrir
al-Sham (former ISIS, former al-Qaeda in Syria), Hurras al-Din (al-Qaeda in Syria), and Ahrar
al-Sham with their foreign fighters and all "non-moderate" rebels. Last year, Hayat Tahrir
al-Sham took full control of Idlib and its rural area under the watchful eyes of
Turkey.
Over a year later, the Turkish commitment to end the presence of jihadists and to open
the M5 and M4 had not been respected. The Syrian Army and its allies, along with Russia,
agreed to impose the Astana agreement by force. In a few weeks, the jihadists defence line
crumbled under heavy Russian bombing. According to field commanders, the jihadists left fewer
than 100 men in every village, who withdrew under the heavy bombing and preferred to leave
rather than be surrounded by the Syrian Army and their fast advance.
Turkey, according to the military commanders in Syria, saw the withdrawal of jihadists and
decided to move thousands of troops into Syria to lead a counter-attack against the Syrian
Army and its allies. This action made it impossible for Russia to distinguish between
jihadists and the Turkish Army. Moreover, Turkey refrained from informing Russia – as
it had agreed to according to the deconfliction agreement between Russia and Turkey –
about the position of its regular forces. This was when Russia bombed a convoy killing 36
Turkish officers along with 17 jihadists who were present together with the Turkish Army.
According to decision-maker sources in Syria, the Russian Air Force was not aware of the
presence of the Turkish convoy when it was almost decimated in Idlib. The Turkish command has
supplied Turkish vehicles and deployed thousands of Turkish soldiers with the jihadists. "It
almost appears that Turkish President Recep Tayyeb Erdogan wanted this high number of Turkish
casualties to stop the successful and rapid attack of the Syria army on Idlib front, and to
curtail the fast withdrawal of jihadists."
According to the sources, Russia was surprised by the number of Turkish soldiers killed
and declared a unilateral ceasefire to calm down the front and de-escalate. Moscow ordered
its military operational room in Syria to stop the military push and halt the attack on rural
Idlib. Engaging in a war against Turkey is not part of President Putin's plans in Syria.
Russia thought it the right time to quieten the front and allow Erdogan to lick his
wounds.
This Russian wishful thinking did not correspond to Turkish intentions and plans in Syria.
Turkey moved its military command and control base on the borders with Syria to direct
attacks against the Syrian Army and its allies. Turkish armed drones mounted an unprecedented
organised drone attack lasting several hours, destroying the entire Syrian defence line on
the M5 and M4 and undermining the effectiveness of the Syrian Army, equipped and trained by
Russia. Furthermore, Iran had informed Turkey of the presence of its forces and allied forces
along the Syrian Army, and asked Turkey to stop the attack to avoid casualties. Turkey, which
maintains over 2000 officers and soldiers in 14 observation locations that are today under
Syrian Army control, ignored the Iranian request and bombed Iranian HQ and that of its
allies, including a military field hospital killing 30 (9 Hezbollah and 21 Fatimiyoun) and
tens of the Syrian army officers. The Turkish attack wounded more than 150 soldiers of the
Syrian Army and their allies.
Turkish backed jihadists and foreign fighters preparing an attack against the Syrian Army
position around Idlib.
It was now clear that Russia, Iran and its allies had misunderstood President Erdogan:
Turkey is in the battle of Idlib to defend what Erdogan considers Turkish territory (Idlib).
That is the meaning of the Turkish message, based on the behaviour and deployment of the
Turkish Army along with the jihadists. Damascus and its allies consider that Russia made a
mistake in not preventing the Turkish drones from attacking Syrian-controlled territory in
Idlib. Moreover, Russia made another grave mistake in not warning its allies that the
political leadership in Moscow had declared a one-sided ceasefire, exposing partners in the
battlefield and denying them air cover.
This is not the first time Russia has stopped a battle in the middle of its course in
Syria. It happened before at al-Ghouta, east Aleppo, el-Eiss, al-Badiya and Deir-ezzour. It
was Russia who asked the Syrian Army and its allies to prepare for the M5 and M4 battle.
Militarily speaking, such an attack cannot be halted unless a ceasefire is agreed to on all
fronts by all parties. The unilateral ceasefire was a severe mistake because Russia neither
anticipated the Turkish reaction nor did it allow the Syrian Army and its allies to equip
themselves with air defence systems. Moreover, while Turkey was bombing the Syrian Army and
its allies for several hours, it took many hours for Russian commanders to convince Moscow to
intervene and ask Turkey to stop the bombing.
The military command of Syria and its allies believe that Turkey could now feel encouraged
to repeat such an attack by Russian hesitation to stand against it. Thus Syria, Iran and
allies have decided to secure air coverage for their forces spread over Idlib and to make
sure they have independent protection even if Russia were to promise – according to the
source – to lead a future attack and recover total air control.
It is understandable that Russia is not in Syria to trigger a war against NATO member
Turkey. However, NATO is not in a position to support Turkey because Turkey is occupying
Syrian soil. Nevertheless, the war in Syria has shown how little the rule of law is respected
by the West. A possible US intervention is not excluded with the goal of spoiling Russia,
Iran and Syria's victory and their plans to liberate the Levant from jihadists and to unite
the country. Possible US intervention is a source of concern to Russia and Iran, particularly
when President Erdogan keeps asking for US direct intervention, a 30 km no-fly-zone, a buffer
zone along the borders with Syria, US Patriot interception missiles to confront the Russian
air force, and a protection for internally displaced Syrian refugees (at the same time as he
organises their departure to Europe).
Moscow maintains good commercial and energy ties with Turkey, and President Putin is not
in Syria to start a new war with Syria's enemies Turkey, the US and Israel, notwithstanding
the importance of the Levant for Russia's air force (Hmeymeem airbase) and navy (Tartous
naval base).
The options are limited: either Russia agrees to support the preparation of the inevitable
Syrian counter-attack in the coming days and before a Putin-Erdogan summit, or the situation
in Idlib will hibernate and remain static until jihadists attack Aleppo again in the next 6-7
months.
The options are limited: either Russia agrees to support the preparation of the inevitable
Syrian counter-attack in the coming days and before a Putin-Erdogan summit, or the
situation in Idlib will hibernate and remain static until jihadists attack Aleppo again in
the next 6-7 months.
Magnier may be correct but one dimensional. Whatever, but methinks he ignores the Iranian
position in this battle. The confidence of all the Middle Eastern allies including Syia must
be seriously shaken at the Russian mistake (if there was one). That will generate a new
battle command structure and Russia might have to work much harder and smarter to maintain
its friends.
There may well be shared responsibility in that neither Syria or Russian forces thought
Erdoghan would use attack drones instead of reconnaissance drones. I am gobsmacked that any
one would make that mistake when dealing with Erdoghan. He is a repeat offender.
Russia's policy of pleasing everyone will end in a disaster. They're trying to please
Erdogan, Assad and Bibi all at the same time on different levels.
My hunch is that Russia sees Iran and Inranian influenc in Syria as a potential problem
for them in future and wants them out. Hence the double game being played in partnership with
Erdogan and Bibi. Much like what happened in Aleppo(Russia stopped providing air support)
before it was re-captured by Syrian army and Iranian backed fighters, Russia will be
sidelined in Idlib and the resistance axis will have to go it alone.
They "helped" get rid of Suleimani, who they saw as an obstacle to their plans in Syria..
Funny enough, it was Suleimani who brought the Russians into the war. Before that, they're
hanging out in their bases and issueing useless statements about dialogue with fsa etc
etc.
I wonder if the unilateral ceasefire by Russia was intended to allow Erdogan the chance to
back off from making further mistakes in Syria. Now that he's rejected that opportunity and
the Turkey/jihadists appear to have launched a drone attack on Hmymim air base, I suspect the
ceasefire just ended. Now Putin has political cover for the onslaught that's going to hit the
jihadists.
@dennis #20
Erdogan isn't doing anything, anyone who understands Turkey's historical behavior would be
shocked by.
Turkey wants to make a place for itself - it, like Iran, shares a general religion with
the Middle East but is both ethnically and religiously different.
Unlike Iran or Saudi Arabia, Turkey doesn't have oil to speak of. But it does have a prime
geopolitical position between the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia and Europe.
Turkey has historically played the fan dancer between whatever factions seek to
extend/maintain power across these borderland regions.
Let's not forget, Turkey shot down a Russian plane not so long ago. While Turkey craves US
and EU money (and still hosts Incirlik), at the same time, it has other opportunities
including Qatari and Israeli gas; Russian gas cartel/Turk Stream, pipelines for gas and oil
from Central Asia. On top of this, Turkey has a severe Kurd problem (large minority that is
out-reproducing the natives) and an ambiguous religious position (doesn't possess a holy site
for either Shi'a or Sunni).
Bad luck for Syrian terrorists fighting for Erdoghan and GNA
forces in Libya
Lindsey Snell @LindseySnell
·
5h
In accordance with the MoU signed in Damascus, the first group of captured Syrian
mercenaries will be deported soon. When I mentioned this development to a Hamza Division
fighter today, he was dumbfounded. This possibility never occurred to them, and it's
terrifying.
Quote Tweet
M.LNA
@LNA2019M
· 11h
Parts of the agreement signed with the Syrian government are full Intelligence cooperation
in the fields of military and counter #Terrorism and transferring all captured Syrian
mercenary #terrorists to the Syrian authorities after being questioned in #libya
#HoR #LNA #Syria
There goes Erdoghan's strategy to shift the jihadis away from Turkey via Libya. He had
better hope the Yemen channel remains open. It would be nice to see him stew in his own
juice.
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
This is like a new gangster who takes control of a neighborhood and reduces the required
weekly protection payment. Hurray For Less Extortion!
Hey Bernie, how about throw away the JCPOA, restore normal diplomatic and commercial
relations, and apologize for 40 years of economic warfare?
But that will never happen, because the Dummycrat policy is to destroy Iran for the crime
of existence. How is it the Bernie people don't notice that Bernie always caucuses with the
Dummycrats in Congress and is running on the Dummycrat ticket? We are supposed to believe
that someone elected on the Dummycrat ticket won't follow Dummycrat party polices?
We are supposed to believe that someone elected on the Dummycrat ticket won't follow
Dummycrat party polices?
The way American electoral politics works, Sanders doesn't really have a choice except to
try and steal the Democratic party's ballot line. An independent bid would split the left
vote and make it impossible to win the general election, which is winner take all.
At least that's what his supporters say. I think there's a grain of truth there. If Bernie
wants to win, and not merely be a protest candidate, he has to take the ballot line of the
party with the most left-wing voters, and that's not the Republican party.
To those idiots here calling critque on Putins descion "anti-Putin troll": Please add Elijah
J. Magnier and the Syrian and Iranian command and even Russian military commanders the same:
A significant development took place in Syria on Friday. A Russian attack on a Turkish
convoy in Idlib in north-west Syria killed 36 Turkish soldiers and officers. In retaliation,
Turkey launched an unprecedented armed drone attack that lasted several hours and resulted in
the killing and wounding of over 150 Syrian officers and soldiers and their allies of
Hezbollah and the Fatimiy'oun. The Turkish drones destroyed dozens of tanks and rocket
launchers deployed by the Syrian Army along the front line. Russia ceased air support for
Syria and its allies demanded from Russia an explanation for the lack of coordination of its
unilateral stoppage of air support, allowing the Turkish drones to kill so many Syrian Army
and allied forces. What happened, why, and what will be the consequences?
In October 2018, Turkey and Russia signed an agreement in Astana to establish a
de-confliction zone along the Damascus-Aleppo (M5) and Aleppo-Latakia (M4) highways. It was
agreed that all belligerents would withdraw and render the roads accessible to civilian
traffic. Moreover, it was decided to end the presence of all jihadists, including the Tajik,
Turkistan, Uighur and all other foreign fighters present in Idlib alongside Hayat Tahrir
al-Sham (former ISIS, former al-Qaeda in Syria), Hurras al-Din (al-Qaeda in Syria), and Ahrar
al-Sham with their foreign fighters and all "non-moderate" rebels. Last year, Hayat Tahrir
al-Sham took full control of Idlib and its rural area under the watchful eyes of
Turkey.
Over a year later, the Turkish commitment to end the presence of jihadists and to open
the M5 and M4 had not been respected. The Syrian Army and its allies, along with Russia,
agreed to impose the Astana agreement by force. In a few weeks, the jihadists defence line
crumbled under heavy Russian bombing. According to field commanders, the jihadists left fewer
than 100 men in every village, who withdrew under the heavy bombing and preferred to leave
rather than be surrounded by the Syrian Army and their fast advance.
Turkey, according to the military commanders in Syria, saw the withdrawal of jihadists and
decided to move thousands of troops into Syria to lead a counter-attack against the Syrian
Army and its allies. This action made it impossible for Russia to distinguish between
jihadists and the Turkish Army. Moreover, Turkey refrained from informing Russia – as
it had agreed to according to the deconfliction agreement between Russia and Turkey –
about the position of its regular forces. This was when Russia bombed a convoy killing 36
Turkish officers along with 17 jihadists who were present together with the Turkish Army.
According to decision-maker sources in Syria, the Russian Air Force was not aware of the
presence of the Turkish convoy when it was almost decimated in Idlib. The Turkish command has
supplied Turkish vehicles and deployed thousands of Turkish soldiers with the jihadists. "It
almost appears that Turkish President Recep Tayyeb Erdogan wanted this high number of Turkish
casualties to stop the successful and rapid attack of the Syria army on Idlib front, and to
curtail the fast withdrawal of jihadists."
According to the sources, Russia was surprised by the number of Turkish soldiers killed
and declared a unilateral ceasefire to calm down the front and de-escalate. Moscow ordered
its military operational room in Syria to stop the military push and halt the attack on rural
Idlib. Engaging in a war against Turkey is not part of President Putin's plans in Syria.
Russia thought it the right time to quieten the front and allow Erdogan to lick his
wounds.
This Russian wishful thinking did not correspond to Turkish intentions and plans in Syria.
Turkey moved its military command and control base on the borders with Syria to direct
attacks against the Syrian Army and its allies. Turkish armed drones mounted an unprecedented
organised drone attack lasting several hours, destroying the entire Syrian defence line on
the M5 and M4 and undermining the effectiveness of the Syrian Army, equipped and trained by
Russia. Furthermore, Iran had informed Turkey of the presence of its forces and allied forces
along the Syrian Army, and asked Turkey to stop the attack to avoid casualties. Turkey, which
maintains over 2000 officers and soldiers in 14 observation locations that are today under
Syrian Army control, ignored the Iranian request and bombed Iranian HQ and that of its
allies, including a military field hospital killing 30 (9 Hezbollah and 21 Fatimiyoun) and
tens of the Syrian army officers. The Turkish attack wounded more than 150 soldiers of the
Syrian Army and their allies.
Turkish backed jihadists and foreign fighters preparing an attack against the Syrian Army
position around Idlib.
It was now clear that Russia, Iran and its allies had misunderstood President Erdogan:
Turkey is in the battle of Idlib to defend what Erdogan considers Turkish territory (Idlib).
That is the meaning of the Turkish message, based on the behaviour and deployment of the
Turkish Army along with the jihadists. Damascus and its allies consider that Russia made a
mistake in not preventing the Turkish drones from attacking Syrian-controlled territory in
Idlib. Moreover, Russia made another grave mistake in not warning its allies that the
political leadership in Moscow had declared a one-sided ceasefire, exposing partners in the
battlefield and denying them air cover.
This is not the first time Russia has stopped a battle in the middle of its course in
Syria. It happened before at al-Ghouta, east Aleppo, el-Eiss, al-Badiya and Deir-ezzour. It
was Russia who asked the Syrian Army and its allies to prepare for the M5 and M4 battle.
Militarily speaking, such an attack cannot be halted unless a ceasefire is agreed to on all
fronts by all parties. The unilateral ceasefire was a severe mistake because Russia neither
anticipated the Turkish reaction nor did it allow the Syrian Army and its allies to equip
themselves with air defence systems. Moreover, while Turkey was bombing the Syrian Army and
its allies for several hours, it took many hours for Russian commanders to convince Moscow to
intervene and ask Turkey to stop the bombing.
The military command of Syria and its allies believe that Turkey could now feel encouraged
to repeat such an attack by Russian hesitation to stand against it. Thus Syria, Iran and
allies have decided to secure air coverage for their forces spread over Idlib and to make
sure they have independent protection even if Russia were to promise – according to the
source – to lead a future attack and recover total air control.
It is understandable that Russia is not in Syria to trigger a war against NATO member
Turkey. However, NATO is not in a position to support Turkey because Turkey is occupying
Syrian soil. Nevertheless, the war in Syria has shown how little the rule of law is respected
by the West. A possible US intervention is not excluded with the goal of spoiling Russia,
Iran and Syria's victory and their plans to liberate the Levant from jihadists and to unite
the country. Possible US intervention is a source of concern to Russia and Iran, particularly
when President Erdogan keeps asking for US direct intervention, a 30 km no-fly-zone, a buffer
zone along the borders with Syria, US Patriot interception missiles to confront the Russian
air force, and a protection for internally displaced Syrian refugees (at the same time as he
organises their departure to Europe).
Moscow maintains good commercial and energy ties with Turkey, and President Putin is not
in Syria to start a new war with Syria's enemies Turkey, the US and Israel, notwithstanding
the importance of the Levant for Russia's air force (Hmeymeem airbase) and navy (Tartous
naval base).
The options are limited: either Russia agrees to support the preparation of the inevitable
Syrian counter-attack in the coming days and before a Putin-Erdogan summit, or the situation
in Idlib will hibernate and remain static until jihadists attack Aleppo again in the next 6-7
months.
Mr.
Fish / Truthdig
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the product of ancient ethnic hatreds. It is the tragic clash
between two peoples with claims to the same land. It is a manufactured conflict, the outcome of a
100-year-old colonial occupation by
Zionists
and later Israel, backed by the British, the United States and other major imperial powers. This project
is about the ongoing seizure of Palestinian land by the colonizers. It is about the rendering of the
Palestinians as non-people, writing them out of the historical narrative as if they never existed and
denying them basic human rights. Yet to state these incontrovertible facts of Jewish colonization --
supported by innumerable official reports and public and private communiques and statements, along with
historical records and events -- sees Israel's defenders level charges of anti-Semitism and racism.
Rashid Khalidi
, the
Edward Said
professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University, in his book "
The
Hundred Years' War on Palestine
: A History of Settler Colonization and Resistance, 1917-2017" has
meticulously documented this long project of colonization of Palestine. His exhaustive research, which
includes internal, private communications between the early Zionists and Israeli leadership, leaves no
doubt that the Jewish colonizers were acutely aware from the start that the Palestinian people had to be
subjugated and removed to create the Jewish state. The Jewish leadership was also acutely aware that its
intentions had to be masked behind euphemisms, the patina of biblical legitimacy by Jews to a land that
had been Muslim since the seventh century, platitudes about human and democratic rights, the supposed
benefits of colonization to the colonized and a mendacious call for democracy and peaceful co-existence
with those targeted for destruction.
"This is a unique colonialism that we've been subjected to where they have no use for us," Khalidi
quotes Said as having written. "The best Palestinian for them," Said wrote, "is either dead or gone. It's
not that they want to exploit us, or that they need to keep us there in the way of Algeria or South
Africa as a subclass."
Zionism was birthed from the evils of anti-Semitism. It was a response to the discrimination and
violence inflicted on Jews, especially during the savage
pogroms
in Russia and Eastern Europe in the
late 19th century and early 20th century that left thousands dead. The Zionist leader Theodor Herzl in
1896 published "Der Judenstaat," or "The Jewish State," in which he warned that Jews were not safe in
Europe, a warning that within a few decades proved terrifyingly prescient with the rise of German
fascism.
Britain's support of a Jewish homeland was always colored by anti-Semitism. The 1917 decision by the
British Cabinet, as stated in the
Balfour Declaration
, to
support "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was a principal part of
a misguided endeavor based on anti-Semitic tropes. It was undertaken by the ruling British elites to
unite "international Jewry" -- including officials of Jewish descent in senior positions in the new
Bolshevik state in Russia -- behind Britain's flagging military campaign in World War I. The British
leaders were convinced that Jews secretly controlled the U.S. financial system. American Jews, once
promised a homeland in Palestine, would, they thought, bring the United States into the war and help
finance the war effort. To add to these bizarre anti-Semitic canards, the British believed that Jews and
Dnmes -- or "crypto-Jews" whose ancestors had converted to Christianity but who continued to practice the
rituals of Judaism in secret -- controlled the Turkish government. If the Zionists were given a homeland
in Palestine, the British believed, the Jews and Dnmes would turn on the Turkish regime, which was
allied with Germany in the war, and the Turkish government would collapse. World Jewry, the British were
convinced, was the key to winning the war.
"With 'Great Jewry' against us," warned Britain's Sir
Mark Sykes
, who with the French diplomat Franois
Georges-Picot created the secret treaty that carved up the
Ottoman Empire
between Britain and France,
there would be no possibility of victory. Zionism, Sykes said, was a powerful global subterranean force
that was "atmospheric, international, cosmopolitan, subconscious and unwritten, nay often unspoken."
The British elites, including Foreign Secretary
Arthur Balfour
, also believed that Jews could never be assimilated in British society and it was
better for them to emigrate. It is telling that the only Jewish member of Prime Minister David Lloyd
George's government, Edwin Montagu, vehemently opposed the Balfour Declaration. He argued that it would
encourage states to expel its Jews. "Palestine will become the world's ghetto," he warned.
This turned out to be the case after World War II when hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, many
rendered stateless, had nowhere to go but Palestine. Often, their communities had been destroyed during
the war or their homes and land had been confiscated. Those Jews who returned to countries like Poland
found they had nowhere to live and were often victims of discrimination as well as postwar anti-Semitic
attacks and even massacres.
The European powers dealt with the Jewish refugee crisis by shipping victims of the Holocaust to the
Middle East. So, while leading Zionists understood that they had to uproot and displace Arabs to
establish a homeland, they were also acutely aware that they were not wanted in the countries from which
they had fled or been expelled. The Zionists and their supporters may have mouthed slogans such as "a
land without a people for a people without a land" in speaking of Palestine, but, as the political
philosopher Hannah Arendt observed, European powers were attempting to deal with the crime carried out
against Jews in Europe by committing another crime, one against Palestinians. It was a recipe for endless
conflict, especially since giving the Palestinians under occupation full democratic rights would risk
loss of control of Israel by the Jews.
Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the godfather of the right-wing ideology that has dominated Israel since 1977, an
ideology openly embraced by Prime Ministers Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and
Benjamin Netanyahu, wrote bluntly in 1923: "Every native population in the world resists colonists as
long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized. That is
what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a
solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of 'Palestine' into the 'Land
of Israel.' "
This kind of public honesty, Khalidi notes, was rare among leading Zionists. Most of the Zionist
leaders "protested the innocent purity of their aims and deceived their Western listeners, and perhaps
themselves, with fairy tales about their benign intentions toward the Arab inhabitants of Palestine," he
writes. The Zionists -- in a situation similar to that of today's supporters of Israel -- were aware it
would be fatal to acknowledge that the creation of a Jewish homeland required the expulsion of the Arab
majority. Such an admission would cause the colonizers to lose the world's sympathy. But among themselves
the Zionists clearly understood that the use of armed force against the Arab majority was essential for
the colonial project to succeed. "Zionist colonization can proceed and develop only under the
protection of a power that is independent of the native population -- behind an iron wall, which the
native population cannot breach," Jabotinsky wrote.
The Jewish colonizers knew they needed an imperial patron to succeed and survive. Their first patron
was Britain, which sent 100,000 troops to crush the Palestinian revolt of the 1930s and armed and trained
Jewish militias known as the Haganah. The savage repression of that revolt included wholesale executions
and aerial bombardment and left 10% of the adult male Arab population killed, wounded, imprisoned or
exiled. The Zionists' second patron became the United States, which now, generations later, provides
more than $3 billion a year
to Israel. Israel,
despite the myth of self-reliance it peddles about itself, would not be able to maintain its Palestinian
colonies but for its imperial benefactors. This is why the
boycott, divestment and sanctions movement
frightens Israel. It is also why I support the BDS
movement.
The early Zionists bought up huge tracts of fertile Palestinian land and drove out the indigenous
inhabitants. They subsidized European Jewish settlers sent to Palestine, where 94% of the inhabitants
were Arabs. They created organizations such as the Jewish Colonization Association, later called the
Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, to administer the Zionist project.
But, as Khalidi writes, "once colonialism took on a bad odor in the post-World War II era of
decolonization, the colonial origins and practice of Zionism and Israel were whitewashed and conveniently
forgotten in Israel and the West. In fact, Zionism -- for two decades the coddled step-child of British
colonialism -- rebranded itself as an anticolonial movement."
"Today, the conflict that was engendered by this classic nineteenth-century European colonial venture
in a non-European land, supported from 1917 onward by the greatest Western imperial power of its age, is
rarely described in such unvarnished terms," Khalidi writes. "Indeed, those who analyze not only Israeli
settlement efforts in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, but the entire
Zionist enterprise from the perspective of its colonial settler origins and nature are often vilified.
Many cannot accept the contradiction inherent in the idea that although Zionism undoubtedly succeeded in
creating a thriving national entity in Israel, its roots are as a colonial settler project (as are those
of other modern countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Nor can they accept
that it would not have succeeded but for the support of the great imperial powers, Britain and later the
United States. Zionism, therefore, could be and was both a national and a colonial settler movement at
one and the same time."
One of the central tenets of the Zionist and Israeli colonization is the denial of an authentic,
independent Palestinian identity. During the British control of Palestine, the population was officially
divided between Jews and "non-Jews." "There were no such thing as Palestinians they did not exist,"
onetime Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir quipped. This erasure, which requires an egregious act of
historical amnesia, is what the Israeli sociologist
Baruch Kimmerling
called the "politicide" of the Palestinian people. Khalidi writes, "The surest way to eradicate a
people's right to their land is to deny their historical connection to it."
The creation of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948, was achieved by the Haganah and other Jewish
groups through the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and massacres that spread terror among the
Palestinian population. The Haganah, trained and armed by the British, swiftly seized most of Palestine.
It emptied West Jerusalem and cities such as Haifa and Jaffa, along with numerous towns and villages, of
their Arab inhabitants. Palestinians call this moment in their history the Nakba, or the Catastrophe.
"By the summer of 1949, the Palestinian polity had been devastated and most of its society uprooted,"
Khalidi writes. "Some 80 percent of the Arab population of the territory that at war's end became the new
state of Israel had been forced from their homes and lost their lands and property. At least 720,000 of
the 1.3 million Palestinians were made refugees. Thanks to this violent transformation, Israel controlled
78 percent of the territory of former Mandatory Palestine, and now ruled over the 160,000 Palestinian
Arabs who had been able to remain, barely one-fifth of the prewar Arab population."
Since 1948, Palestinians have heroically mounted one resistance effort after another, all unleashing
disproportionate Israeli reprisals and a demonization of the Palestinians as terrorists. But this
resistance has also forced the world to recognize the presence of Palestinians, despite the feverish
efforts of Israel, the United States and many Arab regimes to remove them from historical consciousness.
The repeated revolts, as Said noted, gave the Palestinians the right to tell their own story, the
"permission to narrate."
The colonial project has poisoned Israel, as feared by its most prescient leaders, including Moshe
Dayan and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish extremist in 1995.
Israel is an apartheid state that rivals and often surpasses the onetime savagery and racism of apartheid
South Africa. Its democracy -- which was always exclusively for Jews -- has been hijacked by extremists,
including current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have implemented racial laws that were once
championed mainly by marginalized fanatics such as
Meir Kahane
. The Israeli public is
infected with racism. "Death to Arabs" is a popular chant at Israeli soccer matches. Jewish mobs and
vigilantes, including thugs from right-wing youth groups such as Im Tirtzu, carry out indiscriminate acts
of vandalism and violence against dissidents, Palestinians, Israeli Arabs and the hapless African
immigrants who live crammed into the slums of Tel Aviv. Israel has promulgated a series of discriminatory
laws against non-Jews that eerily resemble the racist
Nuremberg Laws
that disenfranchised Jews in Nazi Germany. The Communities Acceptance Law permits exclusively Jewish
towns in Israel's Galilee region to bar applicants for residency on the basis of "suitability to the
community's fundamental outlook." The late Uri Avnery, a left-wing politician and journalist, wrote that
"Israel's very existence is threatened by fascism."
In recent years, up to 1 million Israelis have
left to live in
the United States
, many of them among Israel's most enlightened and educated citizens. Within Israel,
human rights campaigners, intellectuals and journalists -- Israeli and Palestinian -- have found themselves
vilified as traitors in government-sponsored smear campaigns, placed under state surveillance and
subjected to arbitrary arrests. The Israeli educational system, starting in primary school, is an
indoctrination machine for the military. The Israeli army periodically unleashes massive assaults with
its air force, artillery and mechanized units on the largely defenseless 1.85 million Palestinians in
Gaza, resulting in thousands of Palestinian dead and wounded. Israel runs the
Saharonim detention camp
in the Negev Desert, one of the largest detention centers in the world,
where African immigrants can be held for up to three years without trial.
The great Jewish scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz, whom
Isaiah Berlin
called "the conscience of Israel,"
saw the mortal danger to Israel of its colonial project. He warned that if Israel did not separate church
and state and end its colonial occupation of the Palestinians it would give rise to a corrupt rabbinate
that would warp Judaism into a fascistic cult. "Religious nationalism is to religion what National
Socialism was to socialism," said Leibowitz, who died in 1994. He saw that the blind veneration of the
military, especially after the 1967 war in which Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem, would
result in the degeneration of the Jewish society and the death of democracy.
"Our situation will deteriorate to that of a second Vietnam [a reference to the war waged by the
United States in the 1970s], to a war in constant escalation without prospect of ultimate resolution,"
Leibowitz wrote. He foresaw that "the Arabs would be the working people and the Jews the administrators,
inspectors, officials, and police -- mainly secret police. A state ruling a hostile population of 1.5
million to 2 million foreigners would necessarily become a secret-police state, with all that this
implies for education, free speech and democratic institutions. The corruption characteristic of every
colonial regime would also prevail in the State of Israel. The administration would have to suppress Arab
insurgency on the one hand and acquire Arab
Quislings
on the other. There is also good reason to fear that the Israel Defense Force, which has
been until now a people's army, would, as a result of being transformed into an army of occupation,
degenerate, and its commanders, who will have become military governors, resemble their colleagues in
other nations."
The Zionists could never have colonized the Palestinians without the backing of Western imperial
powers whose motives were tainted by anti-Semitism. Many of the Jews who fled to Israel would not have
done so but for the virulent European anti-Semitism that by the end of World War II saw 6 million Jews
murdered. Israel was all that many impoverished and stateless survivors, robbed of their national rights,
communities, homes and often most of their relatives, had left. It became the tragic fate of the
Palestinians, who had no role in the European pogroms or the Holocaust, to be sacrificed on the altar of
hate.
Moscow has transferred more than five hundred aircraft -- large military transports, early warning
aircraft, refueling aircraft, attack jets, and fighter interceptors -- to Beijing since 1990.
Chinese air power these days is something to behold. In the course of just about thirty years, Beijing's
aerial inventory has gone from quite obsolete to cutting edge. It's worth noting, moreover, that Chinese airpower is but
one tool that Beijing can wield in the skies. If its massive missile forces perform as expected, destroying adversary
runways, then there will be few enemy aircraft getting into the air to contest the supremacy of China's fighters and
bombers -- or at least very few of them will be able to gain access to much of the western Pacific.
The article is mostly junk. But it contains some important insights into the rise of Trympism (aka "national neoliberalism") --
nationalist oligarchy. Including the following " the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not
actually pursuing policies that are economically populist."
The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy should
change. The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy
should change.
Notable quotes:
"... Fascism: A Warning ..."
"... Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America ..."
"... the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist. ..."
"... The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy ..."
"... Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority to overthrow them. ..."
"... Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out through ordinary political means. ..."
"... Classical Greek Oligarchy ..."
"... Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different -- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ..."
"... We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. ..."
"... The view that money is speech under the First Amendment has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy," as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship. ..."
"... The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars ..."
"... The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic ..."
Ever since the 2016 election, foreign policy commentators and practitioners have been engaged in a series of soul-searching exercises
to understand the great transformations taking place in the world -- and to articulate a framework appropriate to the challenges
of our time. Some have looked backwards, arguing that the liberal international order is collapsing, while others question whether
it ever existed. Another group seems to hope the current messiness is simply a blip and that foreign policy will return to normalcy
after it passes. Perhaps the most prominent group has identified today's great threat as the rise of authoritarianism, autocracy,
and illiberal democracy. They fear that constitutional democracy is receding as norms are broken and institutions are under siege.
Unfortunately, this approach misunderstands the nature of the current crisis. The challenge we face today is not one of authoritarianism,
as so many seem inclined to believe, but of nationalist oligarchy. This form of government feeds populism to the people, delivers
special privileges to the rich and well-connected, and rigs politics to sustain its regime.
... ... ..
Authoritarianism or What?
Across the political spectrum, commentators and scholars have identified -- and warned of -- the global rise of autocracies and
authoritarian governments. They cite Russia, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey, among others. Distinguished commentators are increasingly
worried. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently published a book called Fascism: A Warning . Cass Sunstein
gathered a variety of scholars for a collection titled, Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America .
The authoritarian lens is familiar from the heroic narrative of democracy defeating autocracies in the twentieth century. But
as a framework for understanding today's central geopolitical challenges, it is far too narrow. This is mainly because those who
are worried about the rise of authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics. Their emphasis
is almost exclusively political and constitutional -- free speech, voting rights, equal treatment for minorities, independent courts,
and the like. But politics and economics cannot be dissociated from each other, and neither are autonomous from social and cultural
factors. Statesmen and philosophers used to call this "political economy." Political economy looks at economic and political relationships
in concert, and it is attentive to how power is exercised. If authoritarianism is the future, there must be a story of its political
economy -- how it uses politics and economics to gain and hold power. Yet the rise-of-authoritarianism theorists have less to say
about these dynamics.
To be sure, many commentators have discussed populist movements throughout Europe and America, and there has been no shortage
of debate on the extent to which a generation of widening economic inequality has been a contributing factor in their rise. But whatever
the causes of popular discontent, the policy preferences of the people, and the bloviating rhetoric of leaders, the governments
that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist.
The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of
them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek
to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy , Jeffrey Winters calls it "wealth
defense." Elites engage in "property defense," protecting what they already have, and "income defense," preserving and extending
their ability to hoard more. Importantly, oligarchy as a governing strategy accounts for both politics and economics. Oligarchs use
economic power to gain and hold political power and, in turn, use politics to expand their economic power.
Those who worry about the rise of authoritarianism and fear the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics.
The trouble for oligarchs is that their regime involves rule by a small number of wealthy elites. In even a nominally
democratic society, and most countries around the world today are at least that, it should be possible for the much larger majority
to overthrow the oligarchy with either the ballot or the bullet. So how can oligarchy persist? This is where both nationalism and
authoritarianism come into play. Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics
to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority
to overthrow them.
The divide-and-conquer strategy is an old one, and it works through a combination of coercion and co-optation. Nationalism --
whether statist, ethnic, religious, or racial -- serves both functions. It aligns a portion of ordinary people with the ruling oligarchy,
mobilizing them to support the regime and sacrifice for it. At the same time, it divides society, ensuring that the nationalism-inspired
will not join forces with everyone else to overthrow the oligarchs. We thus see fearmongering about minorities and immigrants, and
claims that the country belongs only to its "true" people, whom the leaders represent. Activating these emotional, cultural, and
political identities makes it harder for citizens in the country to unite across these divides and challenge the regime.
Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political
marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The
common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out
through ordinary political means. Tactics like these are not new. They have existed, as Matthew Simonton shows in his book
Classical Greek Oligarchy , since at least the time of Pericles and Plato. The consequence, then as now, is that nationalist
oligarchies can continue to deliver economic policies to benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
It is worth noting that even the generation that waged war against fascism in Europe understood that the challenge to democracy
in their time was not just political, but economic and social as well. They believed that the rise of Nazism was tied to the concentration
of economic power in Germany, and that cartels and monopolies not only cooperated with and served the Nazi state, but helped its
rise and later sustained it. As New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, one of the authors of the Anti-Merger Act of 1950, said, quoting
a report filed by Secretary of War Kenneth Royall, "Germany under the Nazi set-up built up a great series of industrial monopolies
in steel, rubber, coal and other materials. The monopolies soon got control of Germany, brought Hitler to power, and forced virtually
the whole world into war." After World War II, Marshall Plan experts not only rebuilt Europe but also exported aggressive American
antitrust and competition laws to the continent because they believed political democracy was impossible without economic democracy.
Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different
-- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional
norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy
will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as
Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. Electoral losers in places
like North Carolina seek to entrench their power rather than accept defeat. The view that money is speech under the First Amendment
has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy,"
as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase
their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded
enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship.
Addressing our domestic economic and social crises is critical to defending democracy, and a grand strategy for America's future
must incorporate both domestic and foreign policy. But while many have recognized that reviving America's middle class and re-stitching
our social fabric are essential to saving democracy, less attention has been paid to how American foreign policy should be reformed
in order to defend democracy from the threat of nationalist oligarchy.
The Varieties of Nationalist Oligarchy
Just as there are many variations on liberal democracy -- the Swedish model, the French model, the American model -- there
are many varieties of nationalist oligarchy. The story is different in every country, but the elements of nationalist oligarchy
are trending all over the world.
... ... ...
... the European Union funds Hungary's oligarchy, as Orbán draws on EU money to fund about 60 percent of the state projects
that support "the new Fidesz-linked business elite." Nor do Orbán and his allies do much to hide the country's crony capitalist
model. András Lánczi, president of a Fidesz-affiliated think tank, has boldly stated that "if something is done in the national
interest, then it is not corruption." "The new capitalist ruling class," one Hungarian banker comments, "make their money from
the government."
The commentator Jan-Werner Müller captures Orbán's Hungary this way: "Power is secured through wide-ranging control of the
judiciary and the media; behind much talk of protecting hard-pressed families from multinational corporations, there is crony
capitalism, in which one has to be on the right side politically to get ahead economically."
Crony capitalism, coupled with resurgent nationalism and central government control, is also an issue in China. While some
commentators have emphasized "state capitalism" -- when government has a significant ownership stake in companies -- this phenomenon
is not to be confused with crony capitalism. Some countries with state capitalism, like Norway, are widely seen as extremely non-corrupt
and, indeed, are often held up as models of democracy. State capitalism itself is thus not necessarily a problem. Crony capitalism,
in contrast, is an "instrumental union between capitalists and politicians designed to allow the former to acquire wealth, legally
or otherwise, and the latter to seek and retain power." This is the key difference between state capitalism and oligarchy.
... ... ...
Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law
and Chancellor's faculty fellow at Vanderbilt Law School, and the author of The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the
Age of Small Wars and The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic
.
"... In fact, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe today reflects its perception of a threat from the United States and the NATO countries. For example, President George Herbert Walker Bush promised Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not establish new military installations in Eastern Europe. With new NATO forward bases in Poland and the United States’ support of a coup in Ukraine, the Russians see the United States as having aggressive intent. From Russia’s vantage point United States threats to Soviet/Russian security have been a feature of East/West relations from the Russian Revolution, through the Cold War, to hostile relations with the United States in the twenty-first century. ..."
The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
240 pp, $19 pbk, ISBN 978-1-58367-694-3
By Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano
Reviewed by Harry Targ for Socialism and Democracy, vol. 33 (2019), no. 2
The primary purpose of this book is to challenge the popular view that Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, represents a challenge to
U.S. democracy much as the former Soviet Union was alleged to have been during the Cold War. The authors, taking The New York Times
as their prime source, argue that what is called Russiagate, a story about the nefarious use of computer hacking, spying, and bribing
and threatening to expose public figures, including President Trump, is being promoted day-after-day as the root cause of the outcome
of the 2016 election. In addition, they suggest that those who vigorously embrace the Russiagate explanation of the 2016 election
are claiming that Russia’s interference might be part of a longer-term Russian threat to American democracy. This is so because alleged
hackers spread misinformation about candidates and issues, thus distorting dialogue and debate.
The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
The authors review the charges of subversion of the elections that have been “proven”, or so The New York Times claims. The “proof”
includes statements released by spokespersons from the FBI, the CIA and other national security agencies that Russian operatives,
agencies, and private institutions have hacked social media with “fake news” about candidates running for office (especially, Hillary
Clinton). Advocates of this view presume that such misinformation influenced the voter choices of the American electorate. These
are the same institutions that figured so prominently in presenting distorted views of a Soviet “threat” during the Cold War that
justified the arms race and massive U.S. military expenditures.
To illustrate the seriousness of the charges of the impact of Russia’s interference in the election they quote Thomas Friedman
who claimed that the Russian hacking of the election was “…a 9/11 scale event. …that goes to the very core of our democracy.” Along
with similar opinion pieces by Charles Blow, Timothy Snyder, and other columnists, news stories, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, have
been replete with similar claims. The New York Times narrative concludes that the hacking and interference in the U.S. election is
designed to promote victories of candidates for public office who would be sympathetic, and subservient to Russia. The long-range
goal of Russia, their stories suggest, is to promote Russian expansionism and its restoration to great power status.
After developing their critique of the Russiagate narrative, Kuzmarov and Marciano, make the case that United States foreign policy
since 1917 has been motivated by the desire to crush the Russian Revolution and limit the influence and power of the Soviet Union
in world affairs. The Russiagate narrative, they suggest, is primarily a continuation of the story each U.S. administration told
the American people about a “Soviet threat” to justify the escalation of the arms race and military spending. They argue that proponents
of the Russiagate scenario promote the idea of a new “Russian threat.”
In fact, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe today reflects
its perception of a threat from the United States and the NATO countries. For example, President George Herbert Walker Bush promised
Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not establish new military installations in Eastern Europe. With new NATO forward bases in Poland
and the United States’ support of a coup in Ukraine, the Russians see the United States as having aggressive intent. From Russia’s
vantage point United States threats to Soviet/Russian security have been a feature of East/West relations from the Russian Revolution,
through the Cold War, to hostile relations with the United States in the twenty-first century.
All too briefly, Kuzmarov and Marciano review the history of the root causes of the United States’ Cold War policy, the lies perpetrated
about the Soviet threat, and the enormous damage Cold War policies did to the American people and the victims of war around the world.
For those who have not lived through the Cold War and students who are not taught about alternative narratives to “American exceptionalism”
this brief volume is very useful. It draws upon the best of historical revisionist scholarship, including the works of William Appleman
Williams, Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, Gar Alperowitz, and Ellen Schrecker. It has chapters on the onset of the Cold War and its causes;
the attack by Cold War advocates on democracy; Truman, McCarthy, and anti-communism; and the war against the Global South. In sum,
the story begins with the substantial U.S. military intervention during the Russian civil war after the Bolshevik victory and continues
to Russiagate today.
The authors effectively develop their two main themes. First, they challenge the argument that Russia, led by Vladimir Putin,
represents a threat to U.S. democracy much as the former Soviet Union was alleged to have done during the Cold War. They argue that
the Russiagate narrative is fraudulent. Second, they briefly revisit the history of United States/Soviet/Russian relations to argue
that the one-hundred-year conflict between the two sides was largely caused by United States’ imperial policies and that proponents
of the Russiagate thesis seek to rekindle a new Cold War with Russia.
"... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
"... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce
in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other
than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to
lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the
Oscar
gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts"
be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.
It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new
standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and
Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.
Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents
of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing
without a hint of irony.
If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the
horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:
The Front -- a 1976 comedy-drama film set against the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. It was written by Walter Bernstein,
directed by Martin Ritt, and stars Woody Allen and Zero Mostel.
Good Night, and Good Luck -- a 2005 historical drama film directed by George Clooney, tells the story of Edward R.
Murrow fighting back against the hysterical red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Trumbo -- a 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Jay Roach that follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted but continued to write award winning movies in alias (e.g. Spartacus).
This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that
there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing
that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.
Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the
same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The
very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the
Kremlin or Putin.
Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a
deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political
opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow
or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal
friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.
It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or
even wealth distribution.
If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.
Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government
institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our
Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
"Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not
a deviation from the norm."
Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered
her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that
she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That
she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought
to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's
good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald
this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.
I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet
Russia and Communist China.
The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents.
We know this from Kremlin documents.
We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded
by the Soviet Union.
The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan
was head of SAG he rooted them out).
We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.
This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood,
after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.
But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing
generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.
Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking
the blacklist.
I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.
On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is
the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the
oppressed collide.
Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie
Tax will be on them in 2021?
Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.
Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece,
its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as
one of those quiet orphans.
But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.
Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included
Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice
of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr,
who has yet to declassify.
The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as
he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the
actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?
Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip
it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made
his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has
been on the front pages for decades.
The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It
takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we
the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.
I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying
to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about
everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's
all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that
I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that
I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from
my friends about the movie.
I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.
You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets
are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.
I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long
ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.
The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country
to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines
at the ticket window.
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man.
It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives
of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an
essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was
meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that
is exactly what we should not do.
In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes
the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with
what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official
government statements'.
Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what
caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.
An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows
It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina.
That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep.
Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The
world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to
war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.
In a previous paper I wrote titled
"On Churchill's Sinews
of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of
Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was
exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933,
against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy
corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.
One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau
that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared
over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the
internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National
Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as
the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.
" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC)
Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations
and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so
by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces
were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "
What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the
foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the
President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.
An Inheritance of Secret Wars
" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "
– Sun Tzu
On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility
of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.
JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters
and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA
secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's
March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000
man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.
This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the
military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been
subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office,
and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.
Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist
history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a
decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for
the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because,
had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were
against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility
as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst
a Cold War.
What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers
from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against
an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without
the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.
Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge
Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In
addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out
of the country on the day of the landings.
Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:
" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited
the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the
official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "
As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the
responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell
Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was
due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.
Kennedy had them.
Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because
of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum
#55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty
states,
" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert
operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "
If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy
Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.
In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more
missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret
deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms
of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.
NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000
military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of
U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S.
TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.
This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.
Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but,
more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths
it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans
at the time, Jim Garrison's
book . And the excellently
researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")
Through the Looking Glass
On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of
Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War
and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.
The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total
of 20 years for Americans.
Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force
on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold
War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia
and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed
by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.
It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran
needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency
against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect
CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.
Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign
and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie
Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly
to 'pay the price' .
Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would
not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President
Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176
civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely
something else going on here.
I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad
to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a
compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President
alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.
One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April
2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC
at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military
can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's
assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it
no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.
Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown
conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that
though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was
the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long
pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "
Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country.
And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position
to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .
". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their
paychecks and finance the black ops.
Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team
established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.
Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable
ventures.
If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the
nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like
drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans
jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.
Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.
One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from
the region.
It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of
1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.
Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y
our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and
some 9th circle witches of course...
The USA is an imperial country. And wars is how empire is sustained and expanded. Bacevich does not even mention this
fact.
Notable quotes:
"... While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution to the impeachment crisis. ..."
"... This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive and deeply rooted American militarism has become. ..."
"... we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. ..."
"... The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all, the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade now. ..."
"... Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans. Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly, how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah. He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered Afghans. ..."
"... By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money ..."
"... Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort. ..."
The Afghanistan Papers could have been the start of redemption, but it's all been subsumed
by impeachment and an uninterested public.
....
While perfunctory congressional hearings may yet occur, a meaningful response -- one
that would demand accountability, for example -- is about as likely as a bipartisan resolution
to the impeachment crisis.
This implicit willingness to write off a costly, unwinnable, and arguably unnecessary war
should itself prompt sober reflection. What we have here is a demonstration of how pervasive
and deeply rooted American militarism has become.
Take seriously the speechifying heard on the floor of the House of Representatives in recent
days and you'll be reassured that the United States remains a nation of laws, with Democrats
and Republicans alike affirming their determination to defend our democracy and preserve the
Constitution, even while disagreeing on what that might require at present.
Take seriously the contents of the Afghanistan Papers and you'll reach a different
conclusion: we have become a nation given to misusing military power, abusing American
soldiers, and averting our gaze from the results. U.S. military expenditures and the Pentagon's
array of foreign bases far exceed those of any other nation on the planet. In our willingness
to use force, we (along with Israel) lead the pack. Putative adversaries such as China and
Russia are models of self-restraint by comparison. And when it comes to cumulative body count,
the United States is in a league of its own.
Yet since the end of the Cold War and especially since 9/11, U.S. forces have rarely
accomplished the purposes for which they are committed, the Pentagon concealing failure by
downsizing its purposes. Afghanistan offers a good example. What began as Operation Enduring
Freedom has become in all but name Operation Decent Interval, the aim being to disengage in a
manner that will appear responsible, if only for a few years until the bottom falls out.
So the real significance of the Post 's Afghanistan Papers is this: t hey invite
Americans to contemplate a particularly vivid example what our misplaced infatuation with
military power produces. Sadly, it appears evident that we will refuse the invitation. Don't
blame Trump for this particular example of Washington's egregious irresponsibility.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,will
be published next month.
The impeachment hearings were probably the reason the WaPo published when it did. After all,
the article tells us little that any semi-sentient observer hasn't known for over a decade
now.
Anyway, nobody likes a bipartisan fiasco that cannot be neatly blamed on Team R (or Team
D).
Then, today, we have another American trooper killed in Afghanistan, with many Afghans.
Then, we have Trump, jutting his jaw out, as usual, to show how tough he is and...by golly,
how tough America is. How patriotic! Damn it! Rah rah.
He pardons and receives a war criminal at the white house, one of those Seals that murdered
Afghans.
By military standards, there is supposed to be rules of engagement and punishment for
outright breaking of such rules. But no, Trump is one ignorant, cold dude and the misery in
numerous US invaded nations means nothing to this bum with a title and money. What a joke
this nations foreign policy is and the ignorant, don't care American people have become. Like
never before. There were years when people actually talked about subjects. Not now, if you
mention the weather they cower and look pained. The old days really were better.
One example aside from the above: compare President Kennedy to Trump. What a riot...
Well, these documents are highly unsurprising. Everybody has known the facts for a long time.
Everybody also knows that the US "government" will not change its ways. Its sole purpose and
mission is to obliterate everything except Israel, and these documents are evidence of
massive SUCCESS in its mission, not evidence of failure.
Were our senior government leaders more familiar with military service, especially as front
line soldiers, they might have been less inclined to dawdle in these matters, agree with
obfuscated results for political reasons, and waste so much effort.
This is also to say that misleading documents and briefings from the military about
progress in Afghanistan, while contemptible, did not cause the strategic failure.
Contemporary reports from the press and other agencies indicated the effort was not working
out plainly to anyone who wanted to pay attention. Our political leaders chose to ignore the
truth for political gain.
A more realistic temperament chastened by experience would have been more inclined to
criticize and make corrections, and summon the courage to cut our losses rather than crow
ignominiously about "cutting and running." Few such temperaments, it seems at least, make it
to the top thee days.
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
Pompeo has just four terms in the House of Representives befor getting postions of Director of CIA (whichsuggests previous involvement
with CIA) and then paradoxically the head of the State Department, He retired from the alry in the rank of comptain and never participated
in any battles. He serves only in Germany, and this can be classified as a chickenhawk. He never performed any dyplomatic duries in
hs life and a large part of his adult life (1998-2006) was a greddy military contractor.
1. It mentions
that it aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans". This however is very vague. Future is not the same as imminent which is
the time based test required under international law. (1)
2. Overall, the statement places far greater emphasis on past activities and violations allegedly commuted by Suleimani. As such
the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self defense.
3. The notion that Suleimani was "actively developing plans" is curious both from a semantic and military standpoint. Is it sufficient
to meet the test of mecessity and proportionality?
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Mat. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
Russia has closed major border crossings with China across the Far East due to the rapid spread of coronavirus. That constitutes
a significant blow to a trading relationship that had only just begun to fully blossom. The closures come just as new auto and rail
bridges spanning the Amur River are finally
reaching
completion.
The primary line of debate among Russia-China relations analysts is whether the "rapprochement" is robust and tending toward even
a genuine alliance or whether it is weak and has little to show for decades of cooperation other than a few rhetorical flourishes.
After all, the skeptics note, if this bilateral relationship is so robust, then why did it take so long to get those bridges built?
The China-Russia trading relationship does indeed remain underdeveloped and will evidently face additional headwinds in the near
future (along with all of China's trading relationships, so it seems). But
the importance of security ties
can hardly be disputed, especially if one takes the long view. Could China have fought the United States to a stalemate in the Korean
War without Soviet military assistance? Not a chance. More recently, Russia's sale of high-tech air and naval weaponry during the
1990s and 2000s created a solid foundation for today's muscle-bound dragon with both claws (DF-26) and sharp fangs (e.g. YJ-18).
But will it go further?
A tantalizing hint was offered by Russian president Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Conference in early October 2019. During his
remarks, he dropped the following bombshell: "I probably won't open a big secret. It'll become clear anyhow. We are now helping our
Chinese partners to create a missile attack warning system. This is a very serious thing, which will increase the defense capability
of the People's Republic of China in a fundamental way. Because now only the USA and Russia have such a system [Большой тайны, наверно,
не открою. Все равно это станет ясно. Мы сейчас помогаем нашим китайским партнерам создать систему СПРН – систему предупреждения
о ракетном нападении. Это очень серьезная вещь, которая капитальным, кардинальным образом повысит обороноспособность Китайской Народной
Республики. Потому что сейчас такую систему имеют только США и Россия]." This seemingly major step forward in Russia-China military
cooperation demands greater scrutiny. It also provides an interesting opportunity to gauge opinion among Russian strategists regarding
the long-term viability of a close military partnership with the Middle Kingdom.
One impressively comprehensive Russian appraisal begins
by stating that "Russia had to look for various options for answering Washington's actions" to withdraw from the INF Treaty. The
same article notes somewhat ominously that the United States is preparing in case of "accidental nuclear war with Russia." Employing
the Russian acronym "SPRN" literally "warning systems against rocket attack [системы предупреждения о ракетном нападении]" for early
warning system, this assessment also makes the important point that Russia's SPRN has only recently completed a long process of upgrades
meant to fill "gaps [разрывы]" caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, when key facilities for early warning were located in
non-Russian parts of the USSR.
The article quotes one Moscow defense expert, Igor Korotchenko [Игор Коротченко], as offering the following assessment: "This
is really a huge contribution of Russia to strategic stability, since China receives a powerful tool in order not to become a victim
of the first disarming blow from the United States." Another Russian expert, Konstantin Sivkov [Константин Сивков], maintained that
this move would enhance "global stability" but also articulated some concern with respect to Russia's long-term interests. "When
China has at its disposal all the technologies that Russia has at its disposal, or creates similar ones, it will cease to need Russia
as a defender," Sivkov said. "And this could adversely affect Russian-Chinese relations." Korotchenko, however, is more bullish on
the long-term prospects for the defense relationship with Beijing. He underlined the commercial prospects for Russian companies,
and added that the early warning initiative will "contribute to the further rapprochement of Russia and China, building a common
security policy [поспособствует дальнейшему сближению России и Китая, выстраиванию общей политики в области безопасности]."
That's an interesting disagreement among Russian security specialists, for sure, but another rather significant observation regarding
these developments was offered in this same article by the former deputy commander of Russia's air defense command, Alexander Luzan
[Александр Лузан]. He contends that Russia will benefit from the enhanced cooperation with Beijing on an early warning. Luzan explains
that the ground components of Russia's SPRN are comprised of []long range "Voronezh" [Воронеж] radars that can see out four thousand
to six thousand kilometers to detect ICBM launches. Short-range "Sunflower [Подсолнухи]" radars are more suitable for warning of
short-range launches, but also offer ship-detection capabilities. Directly reflecting on operational advantages for the Russian military,
Luzan observes: "Vladivostok and Primorye are protected here, but there is nothing 'in depth.' We once tried to deploy our facilities
in Mongolia, but it didn't work out very well. Therefore, if the Chinese close this 'tongue,' it will be very important for Russia
[Владивосток и Приморье у нас защищены, а 'в глубину' там ничего нет. Мы когда-то в Монголии пытались разместить свои комплексы,
но не очень получилось. Потому если китайцы этот 'язычок' закроют, то для России это будет очень важно]." Again citing this Russian
general, the article states that "a unified information space is created and data is exchanged with Chinese radars, [and therefore]
'the security of our country from the east will be even better.'"
Such interpretations are generally in accord with the analysis
of Vladimir Petrovsky [Владимир Петровский,], a senior fellow and military specialist at Moscow's Institute of the Far East of the
Russian Academy of Sciences. This analyst writes that many believe that Putin's announcement of this strategic cooperation initiative
at Valdai signals that "the military alliance between Russia and China . . . has finally become real." Petrovsky also notes that
other specialists have begun to speculate on the meaning of a "retaliatory strike" under such circumstances, wherein the early warning
is relayed by a third country. He quotes the Russian president (speaking at Valdai) further on the matter of motives for new missile
deployments in the Asia-Pacific region: "we suddenly heard from the American military that the first step in this direction would
be taken just in Asia. But that step also impacts on us, because we need to understand: where in Asia, will Russian territory be
endangered or not? By the way, it's immediately clear what was the root cause of the exit: not Russia and not mythical violations
of the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty by us. If they are going to put [U.S. missiles] in Asia, then Asia is the primary
reason for withdrawing from this Treaty [вдруг услышали от американских военных, что первый шаг в этом направлении будет сделан как
раз в Азии. Но он и нас затрагивает, потому что надо понять: где в Азии, будет доставать это российскую территорию или нет? Кстати
говоря, сразу понятно, что было первопричиной выхода: не Россия и не мифические нарушения нами Договора. Если они собираются ставить
в Азии, то Азия и является первопричиной выхода из этого Договора]." In other words, Putin's announcement of this initiative to accelerate
military cooperation with China is intended, in part, as a response to the United States' move to exit the INF accord.
Strongly hinting that Beijing might well gain access to Russian early-warning radars based in the Arctic, Petrovsky observes,
"Taking into account geography, it is quite possible to develop protocols for the exchange of data between national SPRN." He further
contends that this early warning cooperation will be "mutually beneficial and not without compensation [эта помощь -- взаимовыгодная
и небезвозмездная]." This military expert explains that China still can learn from Russian radar proficiency, but also implies that
the Russian side may gain some advantages from China's evident prowess in microelectronics, for example. Moreover, he suggests, "a
possible Chinese satellite constellation could be a good addition to Russian orbital facilities." Still, Petrovsky concludes that
Russia and China "are not creating a military-political alliance. It is rather a matter of coordinating the military policies." Playing
down the significance of this new initiative, this specialist also notes that Russia and China have been holding annual ballistic
missile defense command and staff exercises for about a decade already.
This back and forth on the battlefield is to be expected, especially with the direct support
provided by Turkey to the jihadis. However something changed today. Russian and Syrian air
attacks have increased with devastating results. Wild reports of a strike on a Turkish convoy
and/or positions with up to a hundred dead Turkish soldiers are flashing across social
media.
Up to this point Turkish casualties have been a few here and a few there every day. This is
a direct threat to Erdogan's authority. Twitter has been shut down within Turkey to hide the
news.
Turkish-Russian talks to redefine the Idlib deescalation zone have ended in failure. Erdogan
has told all jihadis to be prepared to go for broke and has declared all Syria to be a target
of the Grand Sultan's wrath.
Putin has told Erdogan that his presence on any Syrian territory is temporary. All Syria
will be ruled from Damascus.
I hope that the SAA withdrawal is in line with what they learned about conserving strength.
For this style of fighting I bet the SAA is better at it than the Turks.
CNN
CNN was practically in tears over the 'Syrian regime's attack' that killed 33 Turkish
soldiers, that both of them are in Syria is an unimportant detail. They then went on a long
segue over the Russians systematically bombing civilian targets in Idlib and showed footage
of a family living in a cave where the mothers have to keep watch at night to prevent
scorpions and snakes from attacking their children. The correspondent was in Istanbul so she
was relying on the usual suspects.
I don't know if the footage was fake but according to our MSM militaries other than
Russia, Iran, and Syria have mastered the art of non-disruptive advances to the degree that
the U.S. likes them.
IMO there is little chance that Trump will establish a no-fly zone in Idlib. Milley will
be making it clear to him that to do so is commit the US to fighting Russia. A declaration of
a no-fly zone, like a naval blockade, is an act of war which has to be enforced to have any
meaning. Russia is still a nuclear power. Trump has a lot on his plate nd will not add
something like this to his burden of risk. IMO Erdogan will back away after he loses some
more people. As I had previously written the lack of actual combat experience and repeated
political purges of the Turkish officer corps have made the TSK an easy mark for a small but
very experienced SAA.
If NATO is too feeble to defend Europe's borders from an Islamic invasion, Putin should to
step in.
Russia should simply assume Greece's debt and pay it over time with higher gas rates
charged to western Europe. Then fly in the necessary men an material. Maybe call for Orthodox
volunteers from Serbia and the Donbass and call it a coalition.
How many battalions would it take to close Greece's land border with Turkey?
Erdodog knows he will be toast if he retaliates on Russians. So he is now taking out his
wrath on the Kurds and their SDF allies near Tel Rifaat in the northern Aleppo Shabha Canton.
The Turks are heavily bombing (and shelling) there at Maranaz, Milkiyah, Alaqsah, Samouqa,
Sheikh 'Isa, al Shabah Dam, Hassiya, Dayr Jamal, Ziarah, Kafr Naya, Sheikh Hilal, and Umm
Hosh. Plus south of there they are bombing the Shiite cities of Nubl and Zahraa.
I saw a single report from the STEP news agency that Russian and US Chiefs of Staff were
meeting. But have not seen any verification of that in US news or in RT.
If NATO is too feeble to defend Europe's borders from an Islamic invasion, Putin should to
step in.
Why? It is Europe's business and responsibility. No foot of Russian servicemen should step
on European soil ever. Europe should enjoy its policies to the fullest--it is not Russia's
business. Europe got exactly what it wanted and, frankly, deserved. In fact, the calls for
Iron Curtain with Europe are stronger and stronger in Russia and I am not embellishing or
exaggerating. Never in my life did I think that overwhelming majority of Russians would look
at Europe with disdain and contempt, but this is precisely a mood in Russia. It also explains
why increasing number of West Europeans (not least of them Germans) choose to immigrate to
Russia.
Like it or not, Russia IS a European power, and by definition impossible to not step its
foot in European affairs. If you really believe that, than all military to military exchanges
with Belarus should also cease.
Saying that, I do agree with you that Russia should not assume more risk by getting in the
way of a EU collapse. Only after Greece comes to its senses and realizes that the EU
(bureaucracy) does not care about its plight as the Sultan directs more migrants its way,
should Greece seek Russian assistance, at which point Putin should think long and hard
whether its worth it on condition of Greece also leaving the hapless NATO organization.
Like it or not, Russia IS a European power, and by definition impossible to not step its
foot in European affairs. If you really believe that, than all military to military exchanges
with Belarus should also cease.
Russia has zero obligations to Europe other than economic contractual obligations and
referendum on April 22 (funny, B-day of Lenin, coincidence?)for amendments to Constitution
WILL solidify primacy of Russian Law over any international obligations. Those amendments are
accepted having primarily EU in mind. Belarus is a completely different case, since it is the
same, in fact, even stronger connection to Russia than that of Canada's to US. But even here,
Russia stopped being charitable (finally) for the benefit of Lukashenko's cottage industry
and it is conceivable, albeit not as probable as was the case with Ukraine, that some sort of
"color revolution" is possible there. Culturally, Russia has increasingly less and less in
common with modern Europe. Here is an exhibit A.
One doesn't talk with this people, one builds fortifications and cordon sanitaire. This is
the future of Europe. Or, if any resistance arises--other extremum. Either way--it is not
good.
"... I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party" ..."
I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern
in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this
Party"
Orchestration of military escalation in 2015 In 2015, Soleimani started to gather
support from various sources in order to combat the newly resurgent ISIL and rebel groups which
were both successful in taking large swathes of territory away from Assad's forces. He was
reportedly the main architect of the joint intervention involving Russia as a new partner with
Assad and Hezbollah. In 2015, Soleimani started to gather support from various sources in order
to combat the newly resurgent ISIL and rebel groups which were both successful in taking large
swathes of territory away from Assad's forces. He was reportedly the main architect of the
joint intervention involving Russia as a new partner with Assad and Hezbollah. [47][48][49][50]
According to
Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his
Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into
victory – with Russia's help. Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in
planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new
According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to
explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be
turned into victory – with Russia's help. Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first
step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and
forged a new According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of
Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad
could be turned into victory – with Russia's help.
Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was
the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war
and forged a new Iran–Russia
alliance in support of the Syrian (and Iraqi) governments. Iran's supreme leader, Ali
Khamenei also sent a senior envoy to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin. "Putin reportedly
told [a senior Iranian envoy] 'Okay we will intervene. Send Qassem Soleimani.'" General
Soleimani went to explain the map of the theatre and coordinate the strategic escalation of
military forces in Syria. [49]
Soleimani had a decisive impact on the theater of operations, which led to a strong
advance in southern Aleppo with the government and allied forces re-capturing two military
bases and dozens of towns and villages in a matter of weeks. There was also a series of major
advances
towards Kuweiris air-base to the north-east. [57] By mid-November,
the Syrian army and its allies had gained ground in southern areas of Aleppo Governorate,
capturing numerous rebel strongholds. Soleimani was reported to have personally led the drive
deep into the southern Aleppo countryside where many towns and villages fell into government
hands. He reportedly commanded the Syrian Arab Army's 4th Mechanized Division, Hezbollah,
Harakat Al-Nujaba (Iraqi), Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraqi), Liwaa Abu Fadl Al-Abbas (Iraqi), and
Firqa Fatayyemoun (Afghan/Iranian volunteers). [58]
In early February 2016, backed by Russian and Syrian air force airstrikes, the 4th
Mechanized Division – in close coordination with Hezbollah, the National Defense Forces
(NDF), Kata'eb Hezbollah, and Harakat Al-Nujaba – launched an offensive in Aleppo
Governorate's northern countryside, [59] which eventually
broke the three-year siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa
and cut off the rebels' main supply route from Turkey. According to a senior, non-Syrian
security source close to Damascus, Iranian fighters played a crucial role in the conflict.
"Qassem Soleimani is there in the same area", he said. [60] In December 2016,
new photos emerged of Soleimani at the Citadel of Aleppo , though the exact
date of the photos is unknown. [61][62]
... ... ...
In 2014, Qasem Soleimani was in the Iraqi city of Amirli , to work with the Iraqi forces to push
back militants from ISIL. [68][69] According to the
Los Angeles
Times , which reported that Amirli was the first town to successfully withstand an
ISIS invasion, it was secured thanks to "an unusual partnership of Iraqi and Kurdish
soldiers, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. warplanes". The U.S. acted as a force
multiplier for a number of Iranian-backed armed groups – at the same time that was
present on the battlefield. [70][71]
Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani prays in the Syrian desert during
a local pro-government offensive in 2017
A senior Iraqi official told the BBC that when the city of Mosul fell, the rapid reaction
of Iran, rather than American bombing, was what prevented a more widespread collapse.
[11] Qasem
Soleimani also seems to have been instrumental in planning the operation to relieve
Amirli in Saladin
Governorate, where ISIL had laid siege to an important city. [66]
In fact the Quds force operatives under Soleimani's command seem to have been deeply involved
with not only the Iraqi army and Shi'ite militias but also the Kurdish in the Battle of Amirli ,
[72] not only
providing liaisons for intelligence-sharing but also the supply of arms and munitions in
addition to "providing expertise". [73]
In the operation
to liberate Jurf Al Sakhar , he was reportedly "present on the battlefield". Some Shia
militia commanders described Soleimani as "fearless" – one pointing out that the
Iranian general never wears a flak jacket , even on the front lines.
[74]
In November 2014, Shi'ite and Kurdish forces under Soleimani's command pushed ISIS out of
Iraqi villages of Jalawla
and Saadia, in the Diyala Governorate . [67]
Soleimani played an integral role in the organisation and planning of the crucial
operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq
from ISIS. The city of Tikrit rests on the left bank of the Tigris river and is the largest
and most important city between Baghdad and Mosul, giving it a high strategic value. The city
fell to ISIS during 2014 when ISIS made immense gains in northern and central Iraq. After its
capture, ISIL's massacre at Camp Speicher led to
1,600 to 1,700 deaths of Iraqi Army cadets and soldiers. After months of careful preparation
and intelligence gathering an offensive to encircle and capture Tikrit was launched in early
March 2015. [76]
In view of event of Jan 7 it looks like Geraldo Rivera had the point. He beautifully cut the
neocon jerk by reminding him the role of the US intelligence agencies in unleashing Iraq war
FOX News correspondent Geraldo Rivera debated "Fox & Friends" hosts Brian Kilmeade and
Steve Doocy Friday about the assassination of Iranian special forces General Qassim al
Soleimani in Iraq, warning of dire consequences if Iran chooses to retaliate and telling
Kilmeade: "You, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like."
"Your arrogance is exactly what's wrong with the region," Geraldo said. "You're not a
front-line fighter that has to go back into Iraq again."
GERALDO RIVERA: We thought that when the de-escalation at the embassy happened a couple of
days ago that was the end of this chapter. The U.S., with it's firmness, had won the victory.
It wasn't going to be Benghazi, it wasn't going to be Tehran from 1980. We won that technical
victory.
Now we have taken this huge military escalation. Now I fear the worst. You're going to see
the U.S. markets go crazy today. You're going to see the price of oil spiking today. This is
a very, very big deal.
BRIAN KILMEADE: I don't know if you heard, this isn't about his resume of blood and death,
it was about what was next. That's what you're missing.
STEVE DOOCY: According to the Secretary of Defense.
GERALDO RIVERA: By what credible source can you predict what the next Iranian move will
be?
BRIAN KILMEADE: Secretary fo State and American intelligence provided that material.
GERALDO RIVERA: They've been excellent. They've been excellent, the U.S. intelligence has
been excellent since 2003 when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region for no real
reason. Don't for a minute start cheering this on, what we have done, what we have unleashed
--
BRIAN KILMEADE: I will cheer it on. I am elated.
GERALDO RIVERA: Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like.
BRIAN KILMEADE: That is not true, and don't even say that.
GERALDO RIVERA: If President Trump wanted a de-escalation --
BRIAN KILMEADE: Let them kill us for another 15 years?
GERALDO RIVERA: If President Trump wanted a de-escalation and to bring our troops
home--
BRIAN KILMEADE: What about the 700 Americans who are dead, should they not be happy?
GERALDO RIVERA: What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died since 2003? You
have to start seeing. What the hell are we doing in Baghdad in the first place? Why are we
there?
BRIAN KILMEADE: So you're blaming President Bush for the maniacal killing of Saddam
Hussein?
GERALDO RIVERA: I am blaming President Bush in 2003 for the fake weapons of mass
destruction that never existed and the con-job that drove us into that war.
This is the net result of Clinton policies. And it is
not a pretty picture. This is the net result of Clinton policies. And it is not a pretty picture.
It feels like the world has gone crazy. They push someone's wallet in our pocket, and then
shout "catch the thief!". We try to debunt this false flag, show surveillance footage, which
clearly shows the setup. But the continue shout in chorus - " thief, thief, thief!".
Acquaintances turn away, hide their eyes. Those "Western partners" iare numerous and they
silence our weak attempts to protest. We were driven into a corner...
Unfortunately, this is our new reality. For the next ten years. The questionis Why? Because
we are a force in international arena again. We're ruining their racketeering business. We are
a vivid example that it is possible to escape the system of the global racket in which they
feed, That there is an alternative.
So now there is a player who does not wan topay the raterrers, And he is still alive. This
means that others may not pay either. They hate suhc a situation, becuase it means that sonner
or later they might be force to live within this own meanss. They had long since lost the habit
of doing so. So they want to solve the problem with us now, while others are still afraid of
them.
Plus they have a new gang leader. Like all newbies, he wants to be the toughest. And raises
the stakes.
Let's face the truth.
They won't let us go easily. It's pointless to explain. We will be hunted, subjectione to
false flags, persecuted and sanctioned. And if they feel the slack – beated to the death
like in 1990th. The question of whether this can be avoided is no longer worth asking. Today
one question – how to survive?
We need finally exhale and turn on the brain... The key to victory, as Sun Tzu wrote –
is in knowing the enemy and knowing yourself.
What is their strength? First, there are many. And they have money. They can buy everything,
including witnesses and judges. We'll be blamed for for anything; they will attack and we will
be framed as the attacker.
Second, they scream loudly. In chorus. And propaganda works It is useless to argue
othersize. All out afruments are useless. They will fall of death ear. The label the guitly is
already put on us, before any investigation or god forbid judicial process. And most people on
the planet still take their word for it.
What is their weakness?
As opponents these guys, I mean thier elits are the second grade, the grey zone. Too fat and
too lazy. Their previous generation was much stronger. They respected us. And we them.
We do not respect this new neoliberal elite and they feel that. And we don't respect them
because they such mediocrities do not deserve any respect. And that they can scare us,
sometimes to death, but they will avoid open fight, unless the success guaranteed. We need to
ensure that such situation never occur.
Their nervousness, their fidgeting, their second-rate is felt by other countries who would
prefer to hedge their bet and join only a sure winner. They see that the outcome is not yet
decided.
In addition, our opponents are now enganged in brutal showdown with each other. Western
Eurole is laching over thier new chief. Half of them hate him. For how long he can stay in
power is completely unclear. But this is a new and unexpected development. .
And those in the second row are generally ready to leave the "battlied for democracy". It's
too expensive to catch hot potato for Uncle Sam. They were promised money, not a real fight
with a repextable opponnent.
What is our strength?
First of all we have no illusions. They can't repreat economic rape they committed in
1990th. Now we know what awaits us if we give up. They'll devour us completely. They will kick
the lying opponent with feet until it lose conscience. They won't let you go a second time.
We also have a grenade as the last resort. They know it, and they're terrified we'll pull
the pin.
They don't understand how we can be defeated, so they try new ways to make us surrender
without a fight. Looking for a weak spot.
What is our weakness?
Our first problem is that we are alone. We are very big, clumsy. Not very polite, not
refined enough. Incomprehensible, itself on mind. We are a difficult neighbor. Some people are
afraid of us.
Our second and main problem is money. We don't have enough money for the restoration of the
economy after 1990th rape. And nobody will give them to us, at least on acceptable conditions.
They already imposed sanctions under bogus pretext. They will impose more to slow down the
process. If we can solve this problem and restore the economy after 1990 collapse other
problems will be easier to take on.
Those who have money many friends at once. And everyone will hear us at once.
And now some paramic view on the situation
First of all out willingness to fight back is a guarantee that they will not get into a real
fight. We need to hold out for ten-twenty years or so. I think this is what we can expect for
neoliberalism to last.
But that doesn't solve all our problems. We need than they stop punching us with feets. I
mean sanctions. Better forever but, at least for the next twenty years. Until their racket
finally falls apart.
So the second goal is to learn to earn money need to reconstruction. And grow. Grow rapidly.
While there is time. We need to invest our money in growth and stop saving "for a rainy day" in
Western banks. Otherwise, this rainy day come way too soon.
Andrey Bezrukov is the associate Professor of the chair of applied analysis of
international problems, MGIMO
"... The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. ..."
"... In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power" or an agent a foreign power. ..."
"... The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. ..."
"... On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD ..."
"... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. ..."
"... Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he ..."
"... seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? ..."
"... "JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do." ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? ..."
"... BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true. ..."
"... Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that "Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign" , and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper's saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department's Inspector General's 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said "ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work." ..."
"... very profitable business ..."
"... Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama). ..."
"... Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. ..."
"... and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama ..."
"... Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.) ..."
"... There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. ..."
"... Reform is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion. ..."
"... The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State . ..."
Former US President
Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned
180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the
Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers
to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or
her own personal reasons. Either way, it's treason (crime that is intended to, and does,
endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being
actively investigated, as possibly having done this.
The Russiagate investigation, which had
formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the
prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer
in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he
committed any crime while he was in office.
A
December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely
condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential
election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence
investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with
Russia's Government. The Court's ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is
useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the
government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813,
governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an
order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to
grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it
provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power"
or an agent a foreign power.
The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that
is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on
electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its
heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this
Court's effective operation.
On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions
of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information
to NSD [National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported
or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in
which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to
their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign
power.
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News,
interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr , and asked him (at 7:00 in the video
) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama's FBI Director James Comey]
seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
"JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you
can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career
professionals to do."
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely
that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged
by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers
below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential
nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey's own boss, Obama), then
protecting himself could become Comey's top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his
former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon,
he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it's not yet clear whether that money came
from the Pentagon, which spends
trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable ), and at some point Trump's
campaign became a target of Halper's investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine
"The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests."
It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like
pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America's
'democracy' actually functions .
And, of course, America's
Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through
underworld organizations . That's just reality, not at all speculative. It's been this way
for decades, at least since the time of Truman's Presidency (as is documented at that
link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama's CIA Director John Brennan
and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have
been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was
involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss's -- and
here's why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump,
because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for
America's 'defense'-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey's entire
career had been in the service of America's Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason
why Comey's main
lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door
between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin .
For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War , is a very profitable business . It's called
by some "the Military-Industrial Complex," and by others "the Deep State," but by any name it
is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations,
such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in
the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the
Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump's campaign, and by weakening Trump's Presidency in
the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting
Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead
the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,
who as early as
20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party
primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama
himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to
increase the odds that Clinton -- not Sanders -- would become the nominee in 2016 to
continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz
became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails
indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which
favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She
was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey.
In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose
Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for
them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the
voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party's billionaires to help her
achieve this (be the Party's allegedly 'progressive' option), so that Sanders won't be able to
become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020.
He is telling
them whom not to help win the Party's nomination. In fact, on November 26th,
Huffington Post headlined
"Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report" and indicated that
though he won't actually say this in public (but only to the Party's billionaires), Obama is
determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his
choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it's anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it
remains what it was four years ago -- anyone but Sanders.
Comey's virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so
that he won't be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage,
he's free of any personal obligation to Obama -- Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who
clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable --
and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly
in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by
impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama -- and against the
entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will
already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between
him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That's not just political
cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an
actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic
Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually
inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball
against Trump, with "Russiagate," and then with "Ukrainegate"; Trump will now play hardball
against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster
against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to
replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes
the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second
American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's
hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly
increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political
realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since.
The US already has a
higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet.
Americans who choose a 'status-quo' option will produce less stability, more violence, not more
stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for
the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform.
Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform
is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will
be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led
by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the
dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid
a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic
Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the
Deep State .
That's the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after
the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime's
ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third
World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its
dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that
Deep State , and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus
has been having a string of the worst
Presidents -- and worst Congresses -- in US history. This is today's reality.
Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this
longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced
by a new direction for this country -- the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately
envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for
mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a
majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly
participate in its own -- or even the world's -- destruction. That could happen.
Democracy is a
prerequisite to peace, but it can't exist if the public are being systematically misinformed.
Lies and democracy don't mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
Darn Russians made people pay $1750 to $3200 to attend the debates last night and clap for
Bloomberg. The Russians also aired a long Bloomberg informercial and an anti-Medicare for All
commercial during the ad breaks - to divide us. Putin will stop at nothing.
The latest act in the comedy began Friday, just before voting opened in the Nevada
Democratic caucus. The Washington Post
ran a story -- sourced, I'm not joking, to "people familiar with the matter" -- explaining
that Bernie
Sanders had been briefed that " Russia is attempting to help his presidential
campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest."
Sanders was quick to see through the gambit. "I'll let you guess about one day before the
Nevada caucus," he said. "Why do you think it came out?" He pointed to a Post reporter:
"It was The Washington Post ? Good friends." The Post, after all, has spent years
dumping on Sanders , a fervent critic of the paper's billionaire creep of an owner, Jeff
Bezos.
Intelligence officials and pundits have been screeching for years that patriotism demands
voters reject the foreign agent Donald Trump and the Russian asset Bernie Sanders, and support
a conventional establishment politician. Voters responded by moving toward Trump in national
approval surveys and speeding Sanders to the top of the Democratic Party ticket. A more
thorough disavowal of official propaganda would be difficult to imagine.
Russiagate will soon be four years old. For the first three years, it pushed parallel
themes: that Russia had "interfered" in the 2016 election, and Trump conspired in the
fraud.
After this story died a violent death when Mueller's probe ended with no new charges,
conventional wisdom shifted to a new gospel: Russiagate was about foreign interference.
Russiagate from the start
smelled funny , like bad food. Multiple developments worsened the odor. Stories kept
coming up wrong. There were too many unnamed sources, too frequently contradicting one
another and/or overstating facts. Every hoof print was a zebra's. Outlets stopped worrying
about relaying unconfirmed rumors, which is how terms like "
blackmail ," "
Trump ," "
Russia " and even " Golden
Showers " kept appearing in headlines, without proof there ever had been blackmail.
Moreover, while ordinary citizens like Reality Winner went straight to jail
for leaking, senior government officials in the past four years repeatedly and with impunity
leaked Russia-related tales. The leaks often pushed still more incorrect narratives, like for
instance that that Trump aide Carter Page was a foreign agent.
But the biggest red flag of all was the way in which "Russia" over the past few years
became shorthand to describe any brand of political deviance. I wrote this two
years ago :
"Since Trump's election, we've been told Putin was all or partly behind the lot of it: the
Catalan
independence movement, the Sanders campaign, Brexit , Jill Stein's
Green Party run ,
Black Lives Matter , the resignations of intraparty Trump critics Bob Corker and Jeff
Flake "
The extraordinary thing about this campaign to identify basically the entire universe of
political thought outside of establishment Democrats in the U.S. as Russian assets has been
the obvious projection involved.
The plot running through all of these stories has been the idea that Russia is trying to "
undermine our democracy " by "
sowing division ." But these charges are coming from the same people who spent the past
four years describing Republicans as deplorable fascists, and progressives on the other side
as racist, sexist, Nazis, and "
digital brownshirts ."
This has resulted in a four-year parade of official cranks muttering about Russian efforts
to "divide" us, when their own relentless message has been that America is besieged by a pair
of Hitlerian movements on the left and right that must be put down at all costs. The only
vision of "unity" they promote is one of obedience to the crackpot anti-utopia of
neoliberalism that populations around the world are currently rejecting at the ballot
box.
The core of the argument about Russian interference rested upon two major news stories:
the hack of the DNC in 2016, and a campaign by the "Internet Research Agency" to push
"divisive" social media content.
The former is a leak of true information about the correspondence of senior Democratic
Party officials (Jeremy Corbyn was similarly accused of abetting Russian disinformation
efforts when
damning-but-real materials about the British National Health Service were leaked). The
latter? A story about a group of silly memes, amplified a billionfold by the American
commercial news reports about these same efforts.
Did the Russians actually do these things? Maybe. It's not confirmed either way. The
sourcing even today remains tied to the same people who've lied about a thousand other
things, both in the course of this story and before, from WMDs to the missile gap. As we saw
this week, when officials quietly began admitting their ideas about "what Russia wants"
rested upon perhaps "
overstated " interpretations of intelligence, many of these narratives have been
elaborate exercises in reading tea leaves. And they won't let us see the tea leaves.
But if there is an official Russian agency behind, say, the Internet Research Agency,
those efforts pale in comparison to the enormous institutional effort in the United States to
use the narrative for other ends.
The United States, whose spending on intelligence and the military alone nearly equals
Russia's GDP, could crush Russia for breakfast and take the rest of the day off for beer and
volleyball. But officials have spent the past few years furiously constructing a popular
vision of the Russian enemy far bigger than the actual country, which the likes of Rachel
Maddow and Barack Obama not long ago were correctly calling a " gnat on the butt of an
elephant ."
Last week was a perfect example. Intelligence officials briefed Sanders about a belief on
their part that Russia wanted to "help" his campaign, although the nature of this assistance
was not specific enough to be disclosed.
The Post noted "U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media
to boost Sanders' campaign against Hillary Clinton," a typically deceptive construction.
Prosecutors
asserted a Russian effort to boost Sanders rather than finding it as true. Nobody has
seen the "proof" of this story, not even the Russians charged by Robert Mueller with the
conspiracy to help Sanders. In fact, that evidence was deemed so sensitive that Mueller
sought to prevent the Russian defendants from seeing it in discovery. The proof was
somehow so dangerous, we had to overturn centuries of legal tradition to keep it hidden.
No matter, the press had no problem repeating the story, because why not? The notion that
Russians want to help Sanders always fit nicely into establishment propaganda.
As a result, we get situations like last week, where there was an assertion about an
unknown level of Russian support -- presumably, social media boosting -- that could not
possibly equal the impact of a single news story leaked to the Post on the eve of the
Nevada primary. Every news consumer in America heard that story last week. Russians could
only dream of such saturation.
The logic of Russiagate is now beyond absurd. Vladimir Putin, somehow in perfect sync with
American voting trends, seeks to elevate both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, apparently to
compete against himself in the general election, in a desperate effort to suppress the
terrifying political might of, say, Joe Biden. I doubt even Neera Tanden in the depths of a
wine coma could believe this plot now.
That this is a dumb story is characteristic. The people pushing it don't have any smart
arguments left for remaining in power. Through decades of corporate giveaways, trickle-up
economics, pointless wars, and authoritarianism, they've failed the entire population. They
are the ones directly threatened by any hint that the population is awakening to its
decades-long disenfranchisement.
They are also the ones who benefit most from "disinformation." Who's trying to divide us?
Our own leaders, and as results like the Nevada primary show, the public now knows it.
"... CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again." ..."
"... But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters." ..."
"... The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken." ..."
"... Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again? ..."
"... Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. ..."
"... The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means. ..."
"... The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. ..."
The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more?
Hint: not the Russians.
On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks
earlier, the ODNI
briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings
remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing
his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.
Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.
You didn't think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel "community" (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida
somewhere) weren't going to play their games again, and that they wouldn't learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect
amateurish. A salacious
dossier
built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics
befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London's pubs looking for young, fit
Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren't dumb enough to sleep with FBI
honeypots? You'd think after influencing
85 elections across the globe since World War II, they'd be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin
like Trump once, they would keep trying.
Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out
there that Trump offered
Wikileaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn't involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all
garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn't the Russians. And there was no offer of a
pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can't comment.
Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals,
so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer's
voice: "Previously, on Russiagate I "
Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and
WaPo . The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long
history of working with the media to influence elections).
CNN
concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic,
bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff
firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts,
another writer
said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The
NYT
fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for
a while, most boils dry up and go away)
said , "we are now in a
full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton
tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again."
It is clear we'll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November.
Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it's intel community 1,
Trump 0.
But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself
assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred,
saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."
Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he'll use it as cover for the Bros' online shenanigans, which were called out
at the last debate. That's playing with fire: it'll be too easy later on to invoke all this with "Komrade Bernie" memes in the already
wary purple states. "Putin and Trump are picking their opponent,"
opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.
Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election (adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who
is the cat and who is the mouse?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie "I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union"
Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist
sleeper
agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie's old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the
American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying
the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus
hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?
See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don't have any.
The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as
if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS
reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to
help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even
Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it.
Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets
are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free
claim "something something social media" again?
If you're going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you're obligated to provide a little
bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the
response is always something like "Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that
weakens national unity" as if we're all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a
second when it could all be shut down in an instant?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell
apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael
Cohen never met the
Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute
or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all
in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump's primary purpose in running for president
was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source -- the brave lads of the intelligence agencies --
legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support
Bloomberg? But don't let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once
again inside our election.
The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt
role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they
pivoted and drove us to
the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them.
Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have
learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian's marker for
how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections
from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.
I can't believe the media keeps accusing politicians they don't like of being Russian
assets. Trump, Tulsi, Bernie....seriously....how is CNN and MSNBC still on the air
relentlessly pushing crap like that....
Norwegian officials just came out in support of a Bernie Sanders presidency....they
democratically voted on it. So is Bernie a Norwegian asset? I actually would like that.
:p
🤨 Chris Matthews said Bernie supporters would hang him in Central Park and
compared his NV win to the Nazi conquest of France. He also suggested Dem leaders let Trump
win rather than Bernie take over the party. Chuck Todd called Bernie supporters "brwn shrts".
Bernie's Jewish and his family fled the Nazis to America. I can't even tell you the horrible
thing Jason Johnson said about women of color or YouTube will block the comment. This
👏🏾 Isn't 👏🏾 a 👏🏾News
👏🏾Channel.
My folks told me over and over about hiding under desks from the big one in the 50s.. This
tactic goes way back to freaking out the massive generation of children after WW2.
The CIA going back to their old routine now that it's becoming more and more clear that
they need to overhaul their first version of the cyborg candidate to make him more human
like.
0:42 Krystal reads Glenn's description of Rising: "The super-perky radical
trans-ideological 21st-century subversive sequel to the Katie Couric Matt Lauer Morning Today
Show in its heyday minus all that unpleasantness."
I'm glad to have been wrong - so far - it seems - about Russia backing off when the Turkish
forces and proxies went on the attack. It seems that after the initial Turkish advance,
Russia entered the battle and drove the attackers back. Erdogan seems to have gotten the
message that Russia wasn't going to abandon Syria to his tenderness. Turkey seems to be
sending mixed messages now; continuing bluster and talk of talking. Turkey also seems to be
bringing in a lot more weaponry, as if preparing to escalate. Is Russia ready for this? It
will be hard for Russia to bring anything in if Turkey shuts down the Bosphorus and the US
shuts down the eastern skies of Syria I think.
Paul, if Turkey shuts down the straits, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war. Would
Erdoğan want that? Would NATO want that? It would quickly lead to WWIII.
Bolton is a typical "Full Spectrum Dominance" hawk, a breed of chickenhawks that recently
proliferated in Washinton corridors of power and which are fed by MIC.
Notable quotes:
"... the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie. ..."
"... The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists. ..."
"... The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed. ..."
"... This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. ..."
President Trump's decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani back in January took the United
States to the brink of war with Iran.
Trump and his advisors contend that Soleimani's death was necessary to protect American
lives, pointing to a continuum of events that began on December 27, when a rocket attack on an
American base in Iraq killed a civilian translator. That in turn prompted U.S. airstrikes
against a pro-Iranian militia, Khati'ab Hezbollah, which America blamed for the attack.
Khati'ab Hezbollah then stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in protest. This reportedly
triggered the assassination of Soleimani and a subsequent Iranian retaliatory missile strike on
an American base in Iraq. The logic of this continuum appears consistent except for one
important fact -- it is all predicated on a lie.
On the night of December 27, a pickup truck modified
to carry a launchpad capable of firing 36 107mm Russian-made rockets was used in an attack
on a U.S. military compound located at the K-1 Airbase in Iraq's Kirkuk Province. A total of 20
rockets were loaded onto the vehicle, but only 14 were fired. Some of the rockets struck an
ammunition dump on the base, setting off a series of secondary explosions. When the smoke and
dust cleared, a civilian interpreter was dead and
several other personnel , including four American servicemen and two Iraqi military, were
wounded. The attack appeared timed to
disrupt a major Iraqi military operation targeting insurgents affiliated with ISIS.
The area around K-1 is populated by Sunni Arabs, and has long been considered a bastion of
ISIS ideology, even if the organization itself
was declared defeated inside Iraq back in 2017 by then-prime minister Haider al Abadi. The
Iraqi counterterrorism forces based at K-1 consider the area around the base an ISIS sanctuary
so dangerous that they only enter in large numbers.
For their part, the Iraqis had been warning their U.S. counterparts for more than a month
that ISIS was planning attacks on K-1. One such report, delivered on November 6, using
intelligence dating back to October, was quite specific: "ISIS terrorists have endeavored to
target K-1 base in Kirkuk district by indirect fire (Katyusha rockets)."
Another report, dated December 25, warned that ISIS was attempting to seize territory to the
northeast of K-1. The Iraqis were so concerned that on December 27, the day of the attack, they
requested that the U.S. keep functional its
tethered aerostat-based Persistent Threat Detection System (PTSD) -- a high-tech
reconnaissance balloon equipped with multi-mission sensors to provide long endurance
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and communications in support of U.S. and
Iraqi forces.
Instead, the U.S. took the PTSD down for maintenance, allowing the attackers to approach
unobserved.
The Iraqi military officials at K-1 immediately suspected ISIS as the culprit behind the
attack. Their logic was twofold. First, ISIS had been engaged in nearly daily attacks in the
area for over a year, launching rockets, firing small arms, and planting roadside bombs.
Second, according
to the Iraqis , "The villages near here are Turkmen and Arab. There is sympathy with Daesh
[i.e., ISIS] there."
As transparent as the Iraqis had been with the U.S. about their belief that ISIS was behind
the attack, the U.S. was equally opaque with the Iraqis regarding whom it believed was the
culprit. The U.S. took custody of the rocket launcher, all surviving ordnance, and all warhead
fragments from the scene.
U.S. intelligence analysts viewed the attack on K-1 as part of a continuum of attacks
against U.S. bases in Iraq since early November 2019. The first attack took place on November
9,
against the joint U.S.-Iraqi base at Qayarrah , and was very similar to the one that
occurred against K-1 -- some 31 107mm rockets were fired from a pickup truck modified to carry
a rocket launchpad. As with K-1, the forces located in Qayarrah were engaged in ongoing
operations targeting ISIS, and the territory around the base was considered sympathetic to
ISIS. The Iraqi government attributed the attack to unspecified "terrorist" groups.
The U.S., however, attributed the attacks to Khati'ab Hezbollah, a Shia militia incorporated
with the Popular Mobilization Organization (PMO), a pro-Iranian umbrella organization that had
been incorporated into the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. The PMO
blamed the U.S. for a series of drone strikes against its facilities throughout the summer
of 2019.
The feeling among the American analysts was that the PMO attacked the bases as a form of
retaliation.
The U.S.
launched a series of airstrikes against Khati'ab Hezbollah bases and command posts in Iraq
and Syria on December 29, near the Iraqi city of al-Qaim. These attacks were carried out
unilaterally, without any effort to coordinate with America's Iraqi counterparts or seek
approval from the Iraqi government.
Khati'ab Hezbollah units had seized al-Qaim from ISIS in November 2017, and then crossed
into Syria, where they defeated ISIS fighters dug in around the Syrian town of al-Bukamal. They
were continuing to secure this strategic border crossing when they were bombed on December
29.
Left unsaid by the U.S. was the fact that the al-Bukamal-al Qaim border crossing was seen as
a crucial "land bridge," connecting Iran with Syria via Iraq. Throughout the summer of
2019, the U.S. had been watching as Iranian engineers, working with Khati'ab Hezbollah,
constructed a sprawling base that straddled both Iraq and Syria. It was this base, and not
Khati'ab Hezbollah per se, that was the reason for the American airstrike. The objective in
this attack was to degrade Iranian capability in the region; the K-1 attack was just an excuse,
one based on the lie that Khati'ab Hezbollah, and not ISIS, had carried it out.
The U.S. had long condemned what it called Iran's "malign intentions" when it came to its
activities in Iraq and Syria. But there is a world of difference between employing tools of
diplomacy to counter Iranian regional actions and going kinetic. One of the reasons the U.S.
has been able to justify attacking Iranian-affiliated targets, such as the al-Bukamal-al-Qaim
complex and Qassem Soleimani, is that the Iranian entity associated with both -- the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC -- has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO), and as such military attacks against it are seen as an extension of the
ongoing war on terror. Yet the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself
predicated on a lie.
The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security
adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC)
interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a
unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were
pushing for a strong stance. But
representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings,
the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that
if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from
responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists.
The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put
forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed
policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these
meetings were "largely
incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official
claimed.
After the Pentagon "informally" requested that the NSC change the memoranda to accurately
reflect its position, and were denied, the issue was bumped up to Undersecretary of Defense
John Rood. He then formally requested that the memoranda be corrected. Such a request was
unprecedented in recent memory, a former official noted. Regardless, the NSC did not budge, and
the original memoranda remained as the official records of the meetings in question.
This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty
led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC
targets throughout the Middle East. The rocket attack against K-1 was attributed to an
Iranian proxy -- Khati'ab Hezbollah -- even though there was reason to believe the attack was
carried out by ISIS. This was a cover so IRGC-affiliated facilities in al-Bakumal and al-Qaim,
which had nothing to do with the attack, could be bombed. Everything to do with Iran's alleged
"malign intent." The U.S. embassy was then attacked. Soleimani killed. The American base at
al-Assad was bombarded by Iranian missiles. America and Iran were on the brink of war.
All because of a lie.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most
recently, Deal of the Century: How Iran
Blocked the West's Road to War (2018).
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Daniel
Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are
proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:
Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both
Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure
that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes,
guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf
states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.
Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic
enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on
"zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better
part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised
to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward.
Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to
a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal
for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks
never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in
the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more
aggressive measures.
The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious
diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez
is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez
has been a
booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles
that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has
never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about
making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.
Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this
imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:
That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran
confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President
Barack Obama's nuclear deal).
This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new
deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it
doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from
ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent
them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified
88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been
ratified with a
93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual,
made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it
had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump.
Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have
no interest in a diplomatic solution.
Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations
between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken
seriously.
And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied
scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that
"new deal" and demanding more?
A little bit off-topic, or very much off-topic but related with Hudson's favourite
theme. This is about potential bankruptcies derived from quarantines almost certainly not
covered by insurance: wouldn't this be an excellent case for debt forgiving?
I dunno. My impression is too much of corporate malfeasance involves the use of
debt. Consolidation, stock buybacks, leveraged everything, hostile
take-everything.
This stacked system is currently confronting two crises it has no good solution to.
One is Covid19 and the other is insurrection. Obama forgave the one percent's debts once
already. No more of that. I'm hoping this is "the great leveling" event.
I can not find a link but a comment here yesterday said China has announced it will
pay all healthcare costs related to Covid for those without insurance. I honestly don't know
if that's true but it lead me to understand that China has a hybrid public/private system
health insurance system. Wikipedia says China provides "basic" healthcare for 95% of the
population which covers roughly 50% of treatment costs. Hmmm I wonder what the treatments
cost
Sadly, promises to cover the cost of treatment are ineffectual without enough
facilities, supplies and healthcare workers.
With regard to the question of "corporate debt", a better way than "forgiveness" IMO
would be "temporary nationalization" by means of some public entity bidding on operating
assets (with, hopefully, the entity still functioning) at a liquidation auction. The senior
creditors (first in line, I think are employees with unpaid back wages due) would get
something; the shareholders -- given the degree of leverage that is customary today -- often
would be wiped out (which they would be in any event under the conditions in
view).
The publicly owned and operated businesses would go private again through conversion
to worker-owned cooperatives. This would take time, which would permit the bugs to be worked
out. I can't imagine that the transition would be smooth.
This kind of conversion from shareholder-owned to worker-owned enterprise has been
proposed previously (don't have links) as something that could be done as ongoing policy
through money creation by the central government and new forms of "eminent domain"
legislation, or simply by purchase of shares in the open markets, New private enterprises
could be created by the former owners using the funds received and, at such time as these
became sufficiently powerful to be problematic, could likewise be converted to cooperatives.
It might be an engine of innovation. Significant regulation would probably be needed to curb
clearly unproductive uses of funds.
Perhaps it's another way that this crisis is creating opportunities that we don't
want to allow to be wasted.
It will be interesting to see what the government of China does, as it will be the
first to face this problem at large scale. Will they turn into a "workers' party"? Hard to
imagine, but the paths out of the current turmoil may contain possibilities that could not be
realistically contemplated just months ago.
How do you prevent this feed-me-seymour financialization-economy from imploding?
Keep feeding it. Biden and his cronies, including little George, knew it. And that has to be
the reason why they passed laws preventing the process of bankruptcy. Like they placed their
bets on winning the war for oil in the middle east at the same time. Why did they think these
bad decisions would keep our economy stable?
Yes, neo-McCarthyism is a sign of the collapse of neoliberal ideology and the crisis within
the neoliberal ruling elite, which is trying to patch the cracks int he neoliberal facade of the
US society and require the control over the population (which rejected neoliberalism at voting
booth in 2016) with Russophobia
There's always a bit of judgment and vengeance inherent to the factional shenanigans of
Australia's Liberal party, but its refreshed vocabulary warrants inclusion as the fifth sign.
Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, has been
recorded in a dazzling rant declaring war on a "socialist" incursion into a party whose
leader is a former merchant banker who pledged to rule for "freedom, the individual and the
market" the very day he was anointed.
The reds may not
be under the beds quite yet, but if Sukkar's convinced some commie pinkos are already
gatecrashing cocktail events with the blue-tie set, they're certainly on his mind.
"... Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity: ..."
"... Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire. ..."
"... Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit. ..."
"... Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked. ..."
"... If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE : ..."
"... "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government." ..."
"... Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining. ..."
"... Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent. ..."
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He
is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's
stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher,
once said
: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have
watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying
to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the
acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened
-- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity
and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there
is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation
process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an
aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a
role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration
about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as
well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper
submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling
for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just
that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess
what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their
enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being
bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next?
Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry
streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President
Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that
Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national
intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been
tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The
real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled
in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional
intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more
difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary
dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence
should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National
Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien,
who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement,
Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence
community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of
Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national
security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global
security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question,
now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis,
regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had
trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper.
How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was
not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community
during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and
is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested
with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security
bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments
expect the screaming to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date
should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening.
The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected
President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President
pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very
similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied
around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration.
Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary --
notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal
opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a
war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply
clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration
of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge
who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades
they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the
country into Cold War II with a real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's
ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades
the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral.
Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII? BTW, Gulf Storm
doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially
landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed,
all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg
to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen
as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits
will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven
horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that
is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already
in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people
would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.
"... Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. ..."
"... Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews history
Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our "Greater United States."
This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is fine to just listen to as
you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom. ..."
"... The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood. ..."
"... Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back to the
earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme Court,
U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property, enter into contracts,
and to sue and be sued just like individuals. ..."
"... But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment ..."
"... The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all over
the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing 40 boys
and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and the Environmental
Protection Agency, combined. ..."
"... http://news.nidokidos.org/military-spending-20-companies-profiting-the-m... For a list of the 20 companies profiting most off
war... https://themindunleashed.com/2019/03/20-companies-profiting-war.html ..."
"... Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined ..."
"... Corporations are Religions Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The
Invisible Hand". They believe themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's
corporate dress codes, right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and
read. If you say something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas.
OF course they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god. ..."
Chris Hedges often says "The corporate coup is complete". Sadly I think he is correct. So this week I thought it might be interesting
to explore the techniques which are used here at home and abroad. The oligarchs' corporate control is global, but different strategies
are employed in various scenarios. Just thinking about the recent regime changes promoted by the US in this hemisphere...
The current attempts at the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Iranian coups are primarily conducted
using economic sanctions
.
The US doesn't even lie about past coups. They recently
released a report about the 1953
CIA led coup against Iran detailing the strategies. Here at home it is a compliant media and a new array of corporate laws designed
to protect and further enrich that spell the corporate capture of our culture and society. So let's begin by looking at the nature
of corporations...
The following 2.5 hour documentary from 2004 features commentary from Chris, Noam, Naomi, and many others you know. It has some
great old footage. It is best watched on a television so you have a bigger screen. (This clip is on the encore+ youtube channel and
does have commercials which you can skip after 5 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQYsk-8dWg
Based on Joel Bakan's bestseller The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power , this 26-award-winning
documentary explores a corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures.
One hundred
and fifty years ago, a corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic, and pervasive presence
in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, a corporation is today's dominant
institution.
Charting the rise of such an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals, the documentary also recounts
victories against this apparently invincible force.
Although corporations are legally a person (see history below), they are in fact an entity. The sole goal of that entity is
profit. There is no corporate conscience. Some of the CEO's in the film discuss how all the people in the corporations are against
pollution and so on, but by law stockholder profit must be the objective. Now these entities are global operations with no loyalty
to their country of origin.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the nature of our global expansion. The global expanse of US military bases is well-known,
but its actual territorial empire is largely hidden. The true map of America is not taught in our schools. Abby Martin interviews
history Professor Daniel Immerwahr about his new book, ' How To Hide An Empire ,' where he documents the story of our
"Greater United States." This is worth the 40 minute watch...I learned several new things. One more long clip. However this one is
fine to just listen to as you do things. This is a wonderful interview with Noam Chomsky. The man exudes wisdom.
So much of this conversation touches on today's topic of our corporate capture. Amy interviewed Ed Snowden this week... (video or text)
This is a system, the first system in history, that bore witness to everything. Every border you crossed, every purchase you
make, every call you dial, every cell phone tower you pass, friends you keep, article you write, site you visit and subject line
you type was now in the hands of a system whose reach is unlimited but whose safeguards were not. And I felt, despite what the
law said, that this was something that the public ought to know.
The oligarchy has been with us since perhaps the tribal origins of our species, but the corporation is a newer phenomenon.
A faceless, soulless profit machine. Ironically it is the 14th amendment which is used to justify corporate person-hood.
Corporations aren't specifically mentioned in the 14th Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. But going back
to the earliest years of the republic, when the Bank of the United States brought the first corporate rights case before the Supreme
Court, U.S. corporations have sought many of the same rights guaranteed to individuals, including the rights to own property,
enter into contracts, and to sue and be sued just like individuals.
But it wasn't until the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation
the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment
More recently in 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC): In the run up to the 2008 election, the Federal Elections Commission blocked the
conservative nonprofit Citizens United from airing a film about Hillary Clinton based on a law barring companies from using their
funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The organization sued, arguing
that, because people's campaign donations are a protected form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo) and corporations and people enjoy
the same legal rights, the government can't limit a corporation's independent political donations. The Supreme Court agreed. The
Citizens United ruling may be the most sweeping expansion of corporate personhood to date.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/how-supreme-court-turned-co...
Do they really believe this is how we think?
More than just using the courts, corporations are knee deep in creating favorable laws, not just by lobbying, but by actually
writing legislation to feed the politicians that they own and control, especially at the state level.
Through ALEC, Global Corporations Are Scheming to Rewrite YOUR Rights and Boost THEIR Revenue. Through the corporate-funded
American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state
laws that govern your rights. These so-called "model bills" reach into almost every area of American life and often directly benefit
huge corporations.
In ALEC's own words, corporations have "a VOICE and a VOTE" on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state.
DO YOU? Numerous resources to help us expose ALEC are provided below. We have also created links to detailed discussions of key
issues...
There is very little effort to hide the blatant corruption. People seem to accept this behavior as business as usual, after all
it is.
Part of the current ALEC legislative agenda involves stifling protests.
I think it started in Texas...
A bill making its way through the Texas legislature would make protesting pipelines a third-degree felony, the same as attempted
murder.
H.B. 3557, which is under consideration in the state Senate after passing the state House earlier this month, ups penalties for
interfering in energy infrastructure construction by making the protests a felony. Sentences would range from two to 10 years.
Lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced a bill on September 5 designed to chill protests around oil and gas pipelines and other energy
infrastructure in the state by imposing harsh criminal penalties for trespassing on or damaging the property of a broad range
of "energy providers."
Senate Bill 386 echoes similar "critical infrastructure protection" model bills pushed out by the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) and the Council of State Governments over the last two years to prevent future protests like the one against the
Dakota Access Pipeline.
And Chris was on the evening RT news this week discussing how the US empire is striking back against leaders who help their own
people rather than our global corporations.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense: more than $6 trillion dollars. The cost of these wars is just one element of
the $1.2 trillion the US government spends annually on wars and war making. Half of each dollar paid in federal income tax
goes towards some form or consequence of war . While the results of such spending are not hard to foresee or understand:
a cyclical and dependent relationship between the Pentagon, weapons industry and Congress, the creation of a whole new class of
worker and wealth distribution is not so understood or noticed, but exists and is especially malignant.
This is a ghastly redistribution of wealth, perhaps unlike any known in modern human history, certainly not in American history.
As taxpayers send trillions to Washington. DC, that money flows to the men and women that remotely oversee, manage and staff the
wars that kill and destroy millions of lives overseas and at home. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees and civilian contractors
servicing the wars take home six figure annual salaries allowing them second homes, luxury cars and plastic surgery, while veterans
put guns in their mouths, refugees die in capsized boats and as many as four million nameless souls scream silently in death.
These AUMFs (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and the wars have provided tens of thousands of recruits to international
terror groups; mass profits to the weapons industry and those that service it; promotions to generals and admirals, with
corporate board seats upon retirement ; and a perpetual and endless supply of bloody shirts for politicians to wave via
an unquestioning and obsequious corporate media to stoke compliant anger and malleable fear. What is hard to imagine, impossible
even, is anyone else who has benefited from these wars.
The United States is home to five of the world's 10 largest defense contractors, and American companies account for 57 percent
of total arms sales by the world's 100 largest defense contractors, based on SIPRI data. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, the largest
defense contractor in the world, is estimated to have had $44.9 billion in arms sales in 2017 through deals with governments all
over the world. The company drew public scrutiny after a bomb it sold to Saudi Arabia was dropped on a school bus in Yemen, killing
40 boys and 11 adults. Lockheed's revenue from the U.S. government alone is well more than the total annual budgets of the IRS and
the Environmental Protection Agency, combined.
The obvious industry which was not included nor considered is the fossil fuel industry. Here's another example of mutual corporate
interests.
"Capitalism, militarism and imperialism are disastrously intertwined with the fossil fuel economy .A globalized economy
predicated on growth at any social or environmental costs, carbon dependent international trade, the limitless extraction of natural
resources, and a view of citizens as nothing more than consumers cannot be the basis for tackling climate change .Little wonder
then that the elites have nothing to offer beyond continued militarisation and trust in techno-fixes."
The US military is one of the largest consumers and emitters of carbon-dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in history, according to an
independent analysis of global fuel-buying practices of a "virtually unresearched" government agency.
If the US military were its own country, it would rank 47th between Peru and Portugal in terms of annual fuel purchases, totaling
almost 270,000 barrels of oil bought every day in 2017. In particular, the Air Force is the largest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions and bought $4.9 billion of fuel in 2017 nearly double that of the Navy ($2.8 billion).
The fossil fuel giants even try to control the climate talks...
Oil and gas groups were accused Saturday of seeking to influence climate talks in Madrid by paying millions in sponsorship
and sending dozens of lobbyists to delay what scientists say is a necessary and rapid cut in fossil fuel use.
The corporations are so entwined that it is difficult to tell where they begin and end. There's the unity of private prisons and
the war machine. And it's a global scheme...this example from the UK.
One thing is clear: the prison industrial complex and the global war machine are intimately connected. This summer's prison
strike that began in the United States and spread to other countries was the largest in history. It shows more than ever that
prisoners are resisting this penal regime, often at great risk to themselves. The battle to end prison slavery continues.
The 2017 tax bill cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations
. It slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and its treatment of "pass-through" entities -- companies organized
as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations -- will translate to an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for
millionaires this year. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks, thanks in part to their tax
savings.
Even Robert Jackson Jr., commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Appointed to the SEC in 2017 by President Donald
Trump. Confirmed in January 2018 sees the corporate cuts as absurd.
"We have been to the movie of tax cuts and buybacks before, in the Republican administration during the George W. Bush era.
We enacted a quite substantial tax cut during that period. And studies after that showed very clearly that most corporations use
the funds from that tax cut for buybacks. And here's the kicker. That particular tax cut actually required that companies deploy
the capital for capital expenditures, wage increases and investments in their people. Yet studies showed that, in fact, the companies
use them for buybacks. So we've been to this movie before. And what you're describing to me, that corporations turned around and
took the Trump tax cut and didn't use it in investing in their people or in infrastructure, but instead for other purposes, shouldn't
surprise anybody at all."
So the corporations grow larger, wealthier, more powerful, buying evermore legislative influence along the way. They have crept
into almost every aspect of our lives. Some doctors are beginning to see the influence of big pharma and other corporate interests
are effecting the current practice of medicine.
Gary Fettke is a doctor from Tasmania who has been targeted for promoting a high fat low carb diet...threatened with losing
his medical qualifications. He doesn't pull punches in this presentation discussing the corporate control of big ag/food and big
pharma on medical practice and education. (27 min)
Corporations are Religions
Yes they are. They have ethics, goals, and priests. They have a god who determines everything "The Invisible Hand". They believe
themselves to be superior to the state. They have cult garb, or are we not going to pretend that there's corporate dress codes,
right down to the things you can wear on special days of the week. They determine what you can eat, drink and read. If you say
something wrong, they feel within their rights to punish you because they OWN the medium that you used to spread ideas. OF course
they don't own your thoughts... those belong to the OTHER god.
At least the crazy made up gods that I listen to don't usually
fuck over other human beings for a goddamn percentage. ON the other hand, if a corporation can make a profit, it's REQUIRED to
fuck you over. To do otherwise would be against it's morals. Which it does have, trust us... OH, and corporations get to make
fun of your beliefs, but you CANNOT make fun of theirs. Because that would be heresy against logic and reason.
In a local newspaper showed a couple coming out of a Wal-Mart with their carts piled high with big boxed foreign junk, then
shown cramming their SUV full of said junk. The headline read "Crazy Busy". It pretty much summed up what is wrong with the American
consumer culture. The next day's big headline spotlighted our senator's picture affixed to a LARGE headline boasting "$22 Billion
Submarine Contract Awarded". A good example of of what is wrong with the american war economy.
Thank you for your compilation Lookout! If we can get beyond the headlines, working at grass root and local solutions, maybe
even underground revolution, there may be hope for us. Barter for a better future.
My buddies always say about their mayor..."There's no way we will trade down after this election...but then we do." Perhaps
it is true for more than just their town.
The line running in my head is..."What if they gave a war and nobody came". I want to expand it to..."What if they made cheap
junk no one really wanted and nobody bought it". Or substitute junk food for cheap junk, or...
My point in today's conclusion is much as I try to walk away from corporate culture/control, I really can't totally escape...but
at least I spend most of my time in the open, breathing clean air, surrounded by forest. We do what we can.
Consumerism in our society is a plague, a disease perpetrated upon us by our corporate lords. It has taken over everything
about being an American.
I think the youth are catching on, as they are thrifting more, but they don't understand about food, and that's the rub. Our
youth will be more unhealthy until they understand what corporations are doing to us through food addictions.
We're expecting rain today for most of the day and actually it's just started. The person who will drill our well came by yesterday
and figured out some details. We are behind two other wells, so it will probably be the holiday week when it happens - we'll see.
I can wait til January and hope we do.
Ideas is that new deal of FDR's day had corporate opponents far different than those of today. Sanders does not seem to understand
that the corporations of yesterday, and what worked against them, will not work against the corporations of today. In the early part of the 20th century, corporations were still primarily domestic and local often with charters from the state
where they conducted their primary business, many times all of their business.
Regulation and unions were reasonable anti-dotes to the abuses of these local and domestic corporations. The state still had
some semblance of control over them.
But today corporations are global. They have no allegiance to, or concern for the domestic economy or local people. They do not fear of any anti-dotes that worked for years against domestic or local corporations. Global corporations just leave
and go elsewhere if they don't like the domestic or local situation if they have not managed to completely take over the government.
There is only one reason to incorporate in the first place. That is for the owner(s) of the business to avoid personal liability
or responsibility. The majority of people never understand this idea. Corporate owners are the people who are the genuine personal
responsibility avoiders. Not the poor. The only antidote to corporations these days is the total demise of the corporation and
its similar business entities that dodge personal responsibility. And the state must refuse to allow any such entities to do business.
It is the only way forward. Otherwise nation states will give way to corporate states. Corporate governance is the new feudalism
from which the old feudalism morphed.
Sanders isn't going to advocate doing away with corporate entities or other similar business entities. Nor will any of the
Democratic contenders. They all require corporations to rail against as the basis for their political policy.
...and I've always wondered just how Bernie would dismantle them. However like the impotence of the impeachment, is the impotence
of the primary process.
When the DNC was sued after 2016, they were
exonerated based on the ruling they were a private entity entitled to make rules as the wanted. The primary is so obviously
rigged I can almost guarantee Bernie will not be allowed the nomination, so the question to how he would change corporate control
is really moot.
@Lookout I probably
could get on board with a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as
a Democrat. If he loses the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent
run last time, I and many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College.
I thought last time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that would
be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a big enough
margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President and VP from different
parties.
if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then there
the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes, IMO.
#4.1 I probably could get on board with
a Sanders campaign if he would run as an Independent. But it is really hard to get on board with him as a Democrat. If he loses
the nomination, he will probably not run as an Independent once again. Once he bailed on an Independent run last time, I and
many others bailed on him. I would support his Independent candidacy just to screw with the Electoral College. I thought last
time an independent candidacy might have thrown the election to the House of Representatives. I could see a Democratically
controlled House voting for him over Trump in a three way EC split if the Democratic candidate took low EC numbers.
But he is so afraid of being tarred with the Nader moniker.
What I said many times on websites last election is that an EC vote is very similar to a Parliamentary Election. And that
would be an interesting change for sure. It would also be a means of having the popular vote winner restored if there is a
big enough margin in the House. And what would be equally cool is that the Senate picks the VP. So you could have President
and VP from different parties.
@Lookout The only
way the Democrats might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far
better way to beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on
how Sanders did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
#4.1.1 if Bernie got the nomination, I would vote for him, especially in this imaginary world, if Tulsi was his running mate. Then
there the question about your vote being counted? We'll just have to see what we see and make judgements based on outcomes,
IMO.
If it was Hillary "Dewey Cheatem & Howe" Clinton, all bets are off.
#4.1.1.1 The only way the Democrats
might beat Trump is to have Sanders run as an Independent and prevent Trump from reaching 270. That is a far better way to
beat Trump than impeachment. Would the house vote for the Democrat or an Independent? I guess it would depend on how Sanders
did in the popular vote and EC against his Democratic rival.
Good lord.that she did that is unbelievable. Great point. Boycott Fox News, but go on Stern's show. It's going to be fun to
watch how much lower she falls.
MSNBC invited on two former Hillary Clinton aides to criticize Bernie Sanders for taking a "long time to get out of the
race" and that he didn't do "enough" campaigning for her in 2016. pic.twitter.com/6Vsqo0DKZI
@TheOtherMaven They
have to choose from actual EC vote getters. So if she is not the candidate she could not win.
Having Sanders run as an Independent and Warren or Biden run as a Democrat would be a much better strategy to ensure a Trump
loss in the House. Of course it might take some coordination as in asking the voters to vote for the candidate who has the best
chance of beating Trump in certain states. But voters could probably figure that out.
Or a candidate could just withdraw from a state in which the other candidate had a better chance of beating Trump.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an article
about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
I like to travel on the old roads
I like the way it makes me feel
No destination just the old roads
Somehow it helps the heart to heal.
I hope your road trip is a good one. The less busy tracks are almost meditative....soaking in scenery as the world passes by.
Have fun and be careful.
Lookout as usual you have done an excellent job of giving me a lot of articles to read and think about this next week.
Of course I need to be loading my car and shutting this place down as I head to the Texas hill country. Will look for an
article about Kinder Morgan and small communities that are fighting the pipeline through their towns. The read was a little
hopeful.
Watching the weather and it looks like sunshine and clear skies as I travel. Thanks for all your work in putting this together.
Here are a couple of links to how free markets
help in the corporate takeover. Amazon a corp that has only made a profit by
never paying taxes and accounting fraud. It
became a trillion dollar corp through the use
of monopoly money(stock) it's nothing but the
perfect example of todays "unicorn" corp, i.e.
worth what it is w/out ever making a penny
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice. Unfortunately,
unions are just as likely to be on the corporations side to get jobs and wages, and bust heads if anything interferes with that.
If we protest we've seen the police ready to use deadly force at the drop of a hat, and get away with it. We get to vote on
candidates that some political club chose for us, and have little incentive to work for the 99%. The gov. has amassed so much
information on us we can't even fathom its depth. We have nowhere left, no unexplored lands out of reach of the government. We
think we own things, but if you think you own a home, see how long it is before the gov. confiscates it if you don't pay your
property taxes.
If I were younger, or a young person asked what to do, I would say.... learn some skill that would make you attractive for
emigrating to another country, because the US looks like it's over. It's people are only here to be exploited. And if Bernie were
to become president I hope he gets a food taster.
run to. No where to hide. As in the U.K., corporations are seeking to to dismantle the NHS and turn it into a for-profit system
like ours. Even as the gilllet-jaune protesters risk life and limb, Macron seeks to install true neoliberalism in France. And
the beat goes on.
Corporations can live far beyond a persons lifespan. Corporations can commit homicide and escape execution and justice.
Look at what chevron did to people in Borapol. I'm sure I spelled this wrong but hopefully people will know what I'm talking
about. They killed lots of people and poisoned their land for decades and the fight over it is still going on. How many decades
more will chevron get to skirt justice? Banks continue to commit fraud and they only get little fines that don't do jack to keep
them from doing it again. Even cities are screwing people. Owe a few dollars on your property taxes and they will take your home
and sell it for pennies on the dollar. How in hell can it be legal to charge people over 600% interest? What happened to usury
rules if that's the correct term.
The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled last week that a prior ruling by an Ecuadorean court that fined Chevron
$9.5 billion in 2011 should be upheld, according to teleSUR, a Latin American news agency. Texaco, which is currently a part of
Chevron, is responsible for what is considered one of the world's largest environmental disasters while it drilled for oil in
the Ecuadorian rainforest from 1964 to 1990.
https://www.ecowatch.com/will-chevron-and-exxon-ever-be-held-responsible...
The legal battle has been tied up in the courts for years. Ecuador's highest court finally upheld the ruling in January
2014, but Chevron refused to pay.
This is another thing that corporations get away with. Contaminating land and then just walking away from it. How many superfund
sites have we had to pay for instead of the ones who created the mess. Just declared bankruptcy and walked away. Corporations
are people? Fine then they should be held as accountable as the people in the lower classes. Fat chance though right?
Weren't people killed by a gas cloud released from the plant? I read something recently that said the case is still going
through the courts. How much money have they spent trying not to spend more?
Byedone just needs to pack it in and drop out already. Today he was defending the republican party after someone said something
about them needing to go away. Joe said that we need another party so one does not get more power than the other. Yeah right,
Joe. It's not like the Pubs are already weilding power they don't have and them dems cowering and supporting them.
Newsweek reporter quit after being censored on the OPCW story.
I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from another case where info inconvenient
to US govt was removed, though it was factually correct.
First frustrate us with gridlock. Then pass bills benefiting the corporate overlords. Then leading up
to elections pass bills like the one against animal cruelty (who doesn't love kitties and puppies?), or propose a bill to consider
regulating cosmetics. This second bipartisan effort is glaringly cynical since no one apparently knows what is in beauty products.
Sanders must have politicians worried for them to attempt something which has managed to go unregulated for so long.
All this bipartisanship is not even up to the level of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's more like wiping at
them with a dirty rag while the ship of state continues to sink. While animal cruelty and cosmetic safety are important issues,
they pale in comparison to the systemic ills America suffers. Our fearless leaders will continue to scratch the surface while
corruption and business as usual continue to fester. These bipartisan laws may look good on a politician's resume, but they won't
really help the 99%.
@snoopydawg
the propaganda to give NATO a raison d'tre for a pivot to China. This will be doomed to complete failure just as the Russian
pivot has.
But Putin and Xi Jinping are both much too skilled and intelligent to defeat. American WWE trash talkers are completely outclassed
by an 8th dan in judo paired with a Sun Tzu scholar.
Tomoe nage - use your opponent's weight and aggression against him.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent
is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he
is unprepared, appear where you are not expected ."
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
@Lookout
What they want is
a controlled collapse. If they can get the US to continue to overspend on war mongering rather than programs of social uplift
the country will rot from the inside.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
So much more to say really. Had to stop somewhere but as you know the corruption runs deep and is intermixed with the CIA/FBI/MIC
corporate government under which we live.
On we go as best we can!
There is great dignity in the objective truth. Perhaps because it never flows through the contaminated minds of the unworthy.
Corporate charters were initially meant to be for the public good if i'm not mistaken in recall, it was a trade-off for their
privilege to exist. Maybe a movement political leader could highlight this and move the pendulum back to accountability.
Had a conversation with good friend today, a 3M rep, and he was griping about his competitor's shady marketing product practices
apparently lying to manufacturers about the grades and contents of their competing products.
The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson
Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a
so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President
Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:
Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once
said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine,
come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their
best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who
until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .
But, of course, in
this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job:
overseeing the
dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their
jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When
good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and
character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than
national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.
Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and
research?
Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was
not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet
McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist,
wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.
Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:
On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard
Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some
current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that
move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in
discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had
never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.
Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210
days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the
Senate.
Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.
Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney
General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in
the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass
extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's
"RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or
coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided
that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law
enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd
is panicked.
The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is
the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia
meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie
Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the
night on the wintry streets of Chicago?
Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the
2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter
said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use
it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the
outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people
familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam
B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the
briefing.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the
conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European
security.
Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing
Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing
less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and
domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of
having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another
uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional
intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat
primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the
effectiveness of such "meddling."
If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of
meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of
Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor,
Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times
report.
NONE :
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President
Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in
an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.
"I have not seen that, and I get pretty
good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.
Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to
portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant,
unqualified political hack.
"The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as
the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second
acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats,
apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent
on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it
established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.
"The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in
a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and
independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than
ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best
intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who
has appointed him.
Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with
Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely
unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How
about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence
professional. He was career Foreign Service.
Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all
elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S.
foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to
clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the
bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his
Presidency.
Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And
persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied.
This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming
to intensify.
"When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."
Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this
confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll
prosecute their own leadership.
If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they
would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at
Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be
surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.
It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be
competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.
- on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis
in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot
more to the lecture than that -
"Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called
"The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and
maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now,
"resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying
military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not
legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the
politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as
the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years,
they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a
duly elected government."
That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and
Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more
than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's
held to then we may expect some dramatic results.
So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not
tearing him limb from limb.
Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump
loyalist.
This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair
looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button
gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to
win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a
real adversary.
Well done, Admiral!
Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your
beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been
a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be
ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen
years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.
You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since
WWII?
BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State
Troopers.
These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money,
transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts.
Fighting, not so much.
Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.
I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of
this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the
Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every
candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this
kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.
However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of
similar high profile pursuits will begin.
Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring
accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they
hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.
Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian
presence.
So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and
surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice",
social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail.
The left better come up with something better than that.
How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on
that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British
prince.
Although Trump decided to call this as "Iran standing down," analysts on both sides can work
the calculus of this test run. I have been suggesting that Iran's cheaper technology is quite
effective and an advantage near their "home court."
The Iranians used a third- or fourth-generation Fateh 110, which was generally given a range
of 300 km. But the Al Assad base is 370 km from the border, so it seems the Iranians squeezed
out some extra range. The fourth generation Fateh 100 carries a 650 kg warhead. Iran certainly
has missiles with more punch. The Quim 1 is essentially a similar missile.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/63ehLAg7mSU
Iran showed that it can put most of Iraq in range of these low-cost missiles should it
become a battleground. The Al Assad base is large and target-rich.
Leaked pictures taken by a Puerto Rican soldier of the damage to the Al-Asad US airbase in
Iraq, after being hit by Iranian missiles.
Meanwhile,
Russia offered Iraq its state-of-the-art S-400 air defense to defend its air space.
Besides the added range, the accuracy looks impressive.
"Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," said David Schmerler,
an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.
Numbers and production information relating to the Fateh 110 are currently uncertain, yet
Iranian media sources claim that facilities have been created to mass produce the weapon.
Michael Elleman, director of the Nonproliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme at the
International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimates that Iran has numbers "in the high
hundreds" of the Fateh-110.
Our takeaway is that this night demonstration is hardly a dud and will give Americans some
pause. It shows this key base at Al Assad will be vulnerable. If one night Iran threw a hundred
of these missiles up and aimed them at personnel, things could get ugly fast.
Observers are asking "where was the Patriot defense missile?" The problem is economic. The
cost of each missile is $2.75 million.
A Rand study estimated that a Patriot will need three rounds to take down basic short-range
ballistic missiles like the Fateh-110. That's 30 times more than the cost of Fateh. Iran would
hope the Patriot is wasted on Fatehs and Quims, and they would gladly run that kind of
cost-benefit math all over the region.
"For the time being, the Americans have been given a slap, revenge is a different issue,"
Iran's Fars News Agency quotes Iran's supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as saying Wednesday. "Military moves like this are not enough. The
Americans' corruption-stirring presence will come to an end."
Winter Watch Takeaway
U.S. vulnerability at Al Assad has now been well demonstrated. If anything -- especially as
more sanctions are being slapped on -- the War Party in Iran will be emboldened to run with
their advantages and do so well before more American troops and aircraft build up in the
theater.
"... Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included. ..."
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring
about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble,
funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative
in the Bush regime, President George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and concealed the
records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, those records are no
longer accessible to the public. [1] The Russian
coup plot was discussed in June 1991 when Yeltsin visited with Bush in conjunction with his visit to the United States. On that same
visit, Yeltsin met discreetly with Gerald Corrigan, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve.
[2]
Because of numerous Presidential Executive Orders, the ethically questionable Project Hammer was deemed legal. Many of Reagan's
executive orders were actually authored by Vice President Bush or his legal associates, and it is possible that Project Hammer was
created by Reagan's CIA Director, William Casey, who had directed OSS operations through Alan Dulles in Europe during World War II.
Prior to his OSS affiliation, Casey worked for the Board of Economic Warfare which allegedly targeted "Hitler's economic jugular."
[3] Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles,
was the Director of the CIA (1953-1961). He was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented
the Rockefeller Empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels.
Project Hammer was staffed with CIA operatives and others associated with the National Security apparatus. Covert channels were
already in place as a result of other illegal Bush activities. Thus, it was a given (1) that the project would use secret, illegal
funds for unapproved covert operations, and (2) that the American public and Congress would not be informed about the illegal actions
perpetrated in foreign countries. The first objective was allegedly to crush Communism, a growing political philosophy and social
movement that was initially funded by the usual group of international bankers who now supported their demise. To this end, the "Vulcans,"
under George H. W. Bush, waged war against the Soviet Union.
[4]
The Return of the Vulcans
In their reincarnation in the administration of George W. Bush, the Vulcans functioned as a supposedly benign group, led by Council
of Foreign Relations (CFR) member Condoleezza Rice, who attempted to augment and compensate for the Bush's lack of experience and
education concerning foreign policy during his presidential campaign. Rice had been President George H. W. Bush's Soviet and East
European Affairs Advisor in the National Security Council during the Soviet Union's dissolution and during the German reunification
(July 1, 1990). The resurrected Vulcan group included Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Rabbi Dov
S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. Other key campaign figures included Dick Cheney, George P. Shultz and Colin Powell,
all influential but not actually a part of the Vulcan Group. All of these people, associated with the George H. W. Bush administration,
returned to powerful, strategic positions in George W. Bush's administration.
Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have been accused of being agents for the Israeli government. Investigations by Congress and
the FBI have substantiated those allegations. Zakheim and his family were heavily involved in Yeshivat Sha'alvim, an educational
organization in which students are taught to render absolute commitment to the State of Israel.
[5]
Many of these individuals were also members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which was established in the spring
of 1997 with the intention of promoting American Global leadership at any cost. The chairman and co-founder was William Kristol,
son of Irving Kristol (CFR), considered the godfather of neo-conservatism which promotes the ideas of Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss,
a noted Zionist and professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Kristol's co-founder was Robert W. Kagan (CFR).
Kristol is also the editor and co-founder, along with John Podhoretz, of the Weekly Standard Magazine , established September
17, 1995 and owned by Rupert Murdoch until August 2009. This "conservative" magazine is edited by William Kristol and Fred Barnes
and promotes Middle East warfare and a huge military budget, a mentality that infects the most popular "conservative" talk show radio
hosts. Kristol is a trustee for the Manhattan Institute which was founded by CIA Director William Casey and was staffed with former
CIA officers.
The Vulcans had almost limitless financing from a cache known by several names – the Black Eagle Trust, the Marcos gold, Yamashita's
Gold, the Golden Lily Treasure, or the Durham Trust. Japan, under Emperor Hirohito, appointed a brother, Prince Chichibu, to head
Golden Lily, established in November 1937 before Japan's infamous Rape of Nanking , to accompany and follow the military. The Golden
Lily operation carried out massive plunder throughout Asia and included an army of jewelers, financial experts and smelters.
[6] The Japanese were allegedly very organized
and methodical. After the Allied blockade, Golden Lily headquarters were moved from Singapore to Manila where 175 storage sites were
built by slave laborers and POWs. Billions of dollars worth of gold and other plundered treasures were stockpiled in these underground
caverns, some of which were dis covered by the notorious Cold Warrior, Edward G. Lansdale who directed the recovery of some of the
vaults. Truman and subsequent presidents, without congressional knowledge, have used those resources to finance the CIA's chaotic
clandestine activities throughout the world. Much of the Middle East chaos is financed by those pillaged funds. A tiny portion of
that treasure was the source of Ferdinand Marcos' vast wealth. Marcos worked with the CIA for decades using Golden Lily funds to
bribe nations to support the Vietnam War. In return, Marcos was allowed to sell over $1 trillion in gold through Australian brokers.
[7]
In July 1944, the leaders of forty-four nations met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to plan the post-war economy and to discuss
organizing a global political action fund which would use the Black Eagle Trust ostensibly to fight communism, bribe political leaders,
enhance the treasuries of U.S. allies, and manipulate elections in foreign countries and other unconstitutional covert operations.
Certainly, those politicos who managed the funds also received financial benefits. This trust was headed by Secretary of War Henry
Stimson, assisted by John J. McCloy (later head of the World Bank) and Robert Lovett (later Secretary of Defense) and consultant
Robert B. Anderson (later Secretary of the Treasury).
[8] Anderson later operated the Commercial Exchange
Bank of Anguilla in the British West Indies and was convicted of running illegal offshore banking operations and tax evasion. Investors
lost about $4.4 million. Consequently, he was sent to prison for a token amount of time, one month. He was also under house arrest
for five years. He could have received a ten-year sentence but Judge Palmieri considered Anderson's "distinguished service" to the
country in the "top levels of Government." [9]
Between 1945 and 1947 huge quantities of gold and platinum were deposited in prominent banks throughout the world. These deposits
came to be known as the Black Eagle Trust. Swiss banks, because of their neutrality, were pivotal in maintaining these funds. These
funds were allocated to fighting communism and paying bribes and fixing elections in places like Italy, Greece, and Japan.
[10] Stimson and McCloy, both retired from government
service, continued their involvement in the management of the Black Eagle Trust. Robert B. Anderson, who toured the treasure sites
with Douglas MacArthur, set up the Black Eagle Trust and later became a member of Eisenhower's cabinet.
[11] In order to maintain secrecy about the
Trust, Washington officials insisted that the Japanese did not plunder the countries they invaded. Japanese officials who wanted
to divulge the facts were imprisoned or murdered in a way that made it look like suicide, a common CIA tactic.
[12] The Germans paid reparations to thousands
of victims while the Japanese paid next to nothing. Military leaders who opposed foreign policies that embraced exploitation of third
world countries were suicided or died from mysterious causes, which includes individuals such as George S. Patton, Smedley D. Butler
and James V. Forrestal.
The Vulcan's effort to crush Communism and end the Cold War was largely funded by that Japanese plunder. The Vulcans were resurrected
when George W. Bush was installed as president in 2000, facilitated by election maneuvers, probably lots of payoffs, and Jeb Bush's
purge of Florida voters. They conducted other illegal operations, like securities fraud and money laundering. This entailed murder
and false imprisonment to prevent penitent participants from divulging the activities of the group. During the process of accomplishing
the main objective of destroying the Soviet Union, the operatives made massive profits. In September 1991, George H. W. Bush and
Alan Greenspan, both Pilgrims Society members, financed $240
billion in illegal bonds to economically decimate the Soviet Union and bring Soviet oil and gas resources under the control of Western
investors, backed by the Black Eagle Trust and supported later by Putin who for the right price purged certain oligarchs. The $240
billion in illegal bonds were apparently replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers.
[13] To conceal the clearance of $240 billion
in securities, the Federal Reserve, within two months, increased the money supply to pre-9/11 numbers which resulted in the American
taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion. [14]
The Takeover of Russia's Oil Industry
BP Amoco became the largest foreign direct investor in Russia in 1997 when it paid a half-billion dollars to buy a 10 percent
stake in the Russian oil conglomerate Sidanko. Then in 1999, Tyumen Oil bought Sidanko's prize unit, Chernogorneft which allegedly
made BP Amoco's investment worthless. Tyumen offered to cooperate with BP Amoco on the development of Chernogorneft but BP Amoco
was not interested. [15] In October 1998, Halliburton
Energy Services had entered into an agreement with Moscow-based Tyumen Oil Company (TNK). Their efforts were focused on the four
western Siberia fields, the first one being the Samotlorskoye field.
[16] TNK has proven oil reserves of 4.3 billion
barrels and possibly as many as 6.1 billion barrels, with crude oil production and refining capabilities of 420,000 barrels/day and
230,000 barrels/day, respectively. TNK markets gasoline through 400 retail outlets.
[17] In 2002 Halliburton and Sibneft, Russia's
fifth largest crude oil producer, signed an agreement. Sibneft will use Halliburton's new technologies to improve well construction
and processing while Halliburton directs all project management.
[18]
Tyumenskaya Neftyanaya Kompaniya (Tyumen Oil Company) was established in 1995 by government decree. It is now TNK-BP, the leading
Russian oil company and ranks among the top ten privately owned oil companies worldwide in terms of crude oil production. The company,
formed in 2003, resulted from the merger of BP's Russian oil and gas assets and the oil and gas assets of Alfa, Access/Renova group
(AAR). BP and AAR each own fifty percent of TNK-BP. The shareholders of TNK-BP own almost fifty percent of Slavneft, a vertically
integrated Russian oil company. [19] This transaction
was the biggest in Russian corporate history and was managed by Vladimir Lechtman, the Moscow partner for Jones Day, a global law
firm with thirty offices and 2,200 lawyers worldwide. TNK-BP, Russia's second-largest oil company employs almost 100,000 people and
operates in Samotlor. [20]
Reportedly, Putin was financially rewarded by the collaborators and was happy to purge some annoying industrialists who stood
in the way. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the manager of Yukos, the company that he built into Russia's second-largest oil company after
acquiring it for $168 million when his Bank MENATEP, the first privately owned but notoriously corrupt bank since 1917 and wiped
out in August 1998, purchased it through a controversial government privatization auction in 1995. MENATEP was named as a defendant
in the Avisma lawsuit which was filed on August 19, 1999.
[21] The bank may have facilitated the large-scale
theft of Soviet Treasury funds before and following the USSR's collapse in 1991.
[22] His company had borrowed hundreds of millions
of dollars from western banks. [23] He was arrested
on October 25, 2003 and sentenced in June 2005 to eight years on fraud and tax evasion charges. He was allegedly targeted as a political
enemy by President Vladimir Putin who went after other big business owners who apparently made money by acquiring states assets.
Yukos was sold piecemeal to pay off $28 billion in back tax charges. Yukos was seized and given to Rosneft.
[24]
When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild
assumed Khodorkovsky's 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky's directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former
Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney's reign as CEO at Halliburton. Cheney, as President and CEO of Halliburton, automatically
had an association with the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) .
[25] In November 1997, Dick Cheney, in anticipation
of imminent events, had appointed Edgar Ortiz as president of Halliburton Energy Services, their global division.
[26]
The Yukos Oil Company merged with the smaller Sibneft Oil Company on October 3, 2003 which created Russia's largest oil and gas
business and the world's fourth-largest private oil company.
[27] On May 11, 2007 Halliburton announced they
had made an agreement with the Tyumen State Oil and Gas University to open a new employee-training center in Russia to grow their
business in that country and in the surrounding region. They are currently training students from five countries, Kazakhstan, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia and the United Kingdom.
[28] Halliburton was awarded a $33 million contract
by TNK-BP to provide oil field services to develop the Ust-Vakh field in Western Siberia.
[29]
September 11 – Black Op Cover-up
Three top securities brokers had offices in the World Trade Center, Cantor Fitzgerald, Euro Brokers and Garbon
Inter Capital. Flight 11 struck just under the floors where Cantor Fitzgerald was located. Cantor Fitzgerald, with possible
connections to the U.S. Intelligence apparatus, was America's biggest securities broker and apparently the main target. Within
minutes, an explosion in the North Tower's vacant 23 rd floor, right under the offices of the FBI and Garbon Inter
Capital on the 25 th floor caused a huge fire from the 22 nd through the 25 th floors. At
the same time, there was an explosion in the basement of the North Tower.
[30] A vault in the North Tower basement
held less than $1 billion in gold, much of which was reportedly moved before 9/11. However, the government had hundreds of
billions of dollars of securities which were summarily destroyed. The Federal Reserve, untouched by the crisis at its downtown
offices (as they had everything backed up to a remote location), assumed emergency powers that afternoon. The $240 billion
in securities were electronically cleared.
[31] Then, at 9:03, Flight 175 slammed into the 78 th floor of the South Tower just below the 84 th
floor where Euro Brokers were located. [32]
Brian Clark, the manager at Euro Brokers, heard numerous explosions, apparently unrelated to what he referred to as the oxygen-starved
fire caused by the plane crash.
The September 11 attacks related to the financial improprieties during the preceding ten years which spurred at least nine federal
investigations which were initiated in 1997-1998, about the same time that Osama bin Laden, after twenty years as a CIA asset, announced
a fatwa against the U.S. The records of many of those investigations were held in the Buildings Six and Seven and on the 23
rd floor of the North Tower. Those investigations were sure to reveal the black Eagle Trust shenanigans.
[33] Building Seven, not hit by a plane, collapsed
at 5:20:33 p.m. but was vacated as early as 9:00 when evacuees claimed to see dead bodies and sporadic fires within the building.
By 2008 and even earlier the covert securities were worth trillions. The securities used to decimate the Soviets
and end the Cold War were stored in certain broker's vaults in the World Trade Center where they were destroyed on September
11, 2001. They would have come due for settlement and clearing on September 12, 2001.
[34] The federal agency investigating
these bonds, the Office of Naval Intelligence was in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11. Renovations
at the Pentagon were due to be completed on September 16, 2001. However, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the entity
that often monitors war games, was hurriedly moved. If they were monitoring the simultaneous war games that morning, they would
have realized that the games were used as a distraction from the actual assault. Whatever hit the pentagon struck the Navy
Command Center and the offices of the Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP).
[35] There were 125 fatalities in the
Pentagon, thirty-one percent of them were people who worked in the Naval Command Center, the location of the Office of Naval
Intelligence. Thirty-nine of the forty people who worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence died .
[36]
On September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion, "We are, as they say, tangled in
our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.
We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are
inaccessible or incompatible." [37] It was forgotten
the following morning. Accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts who were in the section of the Pentagon being renovated met their
unexpected deaths. The destruction of accounting facts and figures will prevent discovery of where that money went. I am quite certain
someone knows where it is. Certainly this is not merely gross incompetence but private seizure of public funds.
[38] At the time Rabbi Dov Zakheim was chief-financial
officer for the Department of Defense. [39]
In 1993, Zakheim worked for SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor. His firm's subsidiary,
Tridata Corporation directed the investigation of the first "terrorist" attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
[40]
Certain National Security officials who had participated in the Cold War victory in 1991 thus comprised the collateral damage
of the Cold War. They, along with hundreds of innocent people were in the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Their deaths
were presumably required to conceal the existence of the Black Eagle Trust, along with the numerous illegal activities it had funded
for over 50 years. This massive destruction, and the lost lives, constitutes a massive cover-up and continued lawlessness by the
brotherhood of death, Skull and Bones, and their accomplices, the Enterprise.
[41] The Enterprise was established in the 1980s
as a covert fascist Cold Warriors faction working with other groups like Halliburton's private security forces and the Moonies. Citibank
is connected to the Enterprise, along with all the CIA front banks, Nugen Hand and BCCI.
Double Dipping
Alvin B. "Buzzy" Krongard was elected Chief Executive Officer of Alexander Brown and Sons in 1991 and Chairman of the Board in
1994. Bankers Trust purchased Alexander Brown and Sons in 1997 to form BT Alex Brown. Krongard relinquished his investments in Alex
Brown to Banker's Trust as part of the merger. He became Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust where he personally interacted with wealthy
clients who were intimately linked to drug money laundering. After a year of possible networking, Krongard joined (or as Michael
Ruppert suggests, rejoined ) the CIA in 1998 where his friend, Director George Tenet, concentrated his skills on private banking
ventures within the elite moneyed community. Senate investigations verify that private banking firms frequently engage in money laundering
from illicit drugs and corporate crime operations.
[42] On January 28, 2000 the Reginald Howe and
GATA Lawsuit was filed which accused certain U.S. bullion banks of illegally dumping U.S. Treasury gold on the market. The lawsuit
named Deutsche bank Alex Brown, the U.S. Treasury, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, and Citibank, Chase, as defendants. Gerald
Corrigan was accused of having private knowledge of the scheme.
[43] Krongard became the Executive Director
of the CIA, essentially the Chief Operating Officer, and the number three man on March 16, 2001. Krongard, while at the CIA, arranged
for Blackwater's Erik Prince to get his first contract with the U.S. government, and later joined its board.
Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert, estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed
through the WTC computers before and during the disaster on September 11, 2001. A Deutsche Bank employee verified that approximately
five minutes before the first plane hit the tower that the Deutsche Bank computer system in their WTC office was seized by an outside,
unknown entity. Every single file was swiftly uploaded to an unidentified locality. This employee escaped from the building, but
lost many of his friends. He knew, from his position in the company, that Alex Brown, the Deutsche Bank subsidiary participated in
insider trading. Senator Carl Levin claimed that Alex Brown was just one of twenty prominent U.S. banks associated with money laundering.
[44]
Andreas von Bülow, a Social Democratic Party member of the German parliament (1969-1994), was on the parliamentary committee on
intelligence services, a group that has access to classified information. Von Bülow was also a member of the Schalck-Golodkowski
investigation committee which investigates white-collar crime. He has estimated that inside trader profits surrounding 9/11 totaled
approximately $15 billion. Von Bülow told The Daily Telegraph "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end
up behind bars." Further, he said, "They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence they invented the story
of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation." He also said,
"I'm convinced that the US apparatus must have played a role and my theory is backed up by the [Washington] government's refusal
to present any proof whatsoever of what happened."
[45]
On September 26, CBS reported that the amount was more than $100 million and that seven countries were investigating the irregular
trades. Two newspapers, Reuters and the New York Times, and other mainstream media reported that the CIA regularly
monitors extraordinary trades and economic irregularities to ascertain possible criminal activities or financial assaults. In fact,
the CIA uses specialized software, PROMIS, to scrutinize trades.
[46]
Numerous researchers believe, with justification, that the transactions in the financial markets are indicative of foreknowledge
of the events of 9/11, the attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon. One of the trades, for $2.5 million, a pittance compared
to the total, went unclaimed. Alex Brown, once managed by Krongard, was the firm that placed the put options on United Airlines stock.
President Bush awarded Krongard by appointing him as CIA Executive Director in 2004.
[47]
Between September 6 and 7, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange received purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines
and only 396 call options. If 4,000 of those options were purchased by people with foreknowledge, they would have accrued about $5
million. On September 10, the Chicago exchange received 4,516 put options on American Airlines compared to 748 calls. The implications
are that some insiders might profit by about $4 million. These two incidents were wholly irregular and at least six times higher
than normal. [48]
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company, who occupied floors 43-46, 56, 59-74 of the World Trade Center, Tower 2, saw 2,157 of its
October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day
before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000
of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at
least $1.2 million. The U.S. government never again mentioned the trade irregularities after October 12, 2001.
[49] Catastrophic events serve two purposes
for the top criminal element in society – the perpetrators seize resources while their legislative accomplices impose burdensome
restrictions on the citizens to make them more submissive and silent.
[1] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, pp. 4-5 [2] Ibid, p. 20 [3] Ibid, pp. 4-5 [4] Ibid [5] September 11 Commission Report by E. P.
Heidner, 2008, p. 108 [6] Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery
of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, Verso Publishing, 2003, pp. 32-43 [7] Ibid, pp. 318 [8] Ibid, pp. 14-15 [9] Ex-Treasury Chief Gets 1-Month Term in
Bank Fraud Case by Frank J. Prial, New York Times, June 28, 1987 [10] Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery
of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, Verso Publishing, 2003, p. 5 [11] Ibid, p. 98 [12] Ibid, p. 102 [13] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, pp. 4-6 [14] Ibid, p. 29 [15] Tyumen Oil of Russia Seeks Links to
Old Foes After Winning Fight By Neela Banerjee, New York Times, December 2, 1999 [16] Halliburton Energy Services Enters Into
Alliance Agreement With Tyumen Oil Company, Press Release, October 15, 1998,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1998/hesnws_101598.jsp [17] Ibid [18] Halliburton Press Release, Halliburton
And Russian Oil Company Sibneft Sign Framework Agreement, February 7, 2002,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2002/corpnws_020702.jsp [19] TNK-BP, Our company,
http://www.tnk-bp.com/company/ [20] Russia's largest field is far from depleted
By Jerome R. Corsi, Word Net Daily, November 04, 2005,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47219 [21] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, p. 28 [22] Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, Source Watch,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mikhail_B._Khodorkovsky [23] Russia's Ruling Robbers by Mark Ames,
Consortium News, March 11, 1999, http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c031199a.html [24] "Sovest" Group Campaign for Granting
Political Prisoner Status to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, February 7, 2008 [25] Halliburton Man to Sub for Khodorkovsky,
Simon Ostrovsky, Moscow Times, April 30, 2004 as noted in the September 11 Commission Report, p. 233; See also Arrested Oil Tycoon
Passed Shares to Banker, Washington Times, November 2, 2003 [26] Halliburton Press Release, Ortiz Named
President Of Halliburton Energy Services, November 19, 1997,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/hesnws_111997.jsp [27] Russia: Yukos-Sibneft union forms world's
No. 4 oil producer, Global Finance, Jun 2003, http://mikhail_khodorkovsky_society.blogspot.com/ [28] Halliburton Opens Russia Training Center,
International Business Times, May 11, 2007,
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070511/halliburton-training.htm [29] Halliburton gets Russia work, Oil Daily,
January 26, 2006, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5579583_ITM [30] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 2 [31] Ibid, p. 29 [32] Ibid, pp. 2 [33] Ibid, p. 28-29 [34] "Sioux City, Iowa, July 25, 2005 TomFlocco.com
, According to leaked documents from an intelligence file obtained through a military source in the Office of Naval Intelligence
(ONI), on or about September 12, 1991 non-performing and unauthorized gold-backed debt instruments were used to purchase ten-year
"Brady" bonds. The bonds in turn were illegally employed as collateral to borrow $240 billion--120 in Japanese Yen and 120 in
Deutsch Marks--exchanged for U.S. currency under false pretenses; or counterfeit and unlawful conversion of collateral against which
an unlimited amount of money could be created in derivatives and debt instruments " from Cash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to
White House 9/11 finance, Tom Flocco, tomflocco.com [35] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, p. 45 [36] Ibid, p. 2 [37] Rumsfeld's comments were on the Department
of defense web site but have been understandably removed,
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.ht [38] The War On Waste Defense Department
Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds -- $2.3 Trillion,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml [39] September 11 Commission Report by E.
P. Heidner, 2008, p. 108 [40] Following Zakheim and Pentagon Trillions
to Israel and 9-11By Jerry Mazza, July 31, 2006, http://www.rense.com/general75/latest.htm [41] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 6 [42] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, p. 56 [43] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 28 [44] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247 [45] USA staged 9/11 Attacks, German best-seller
by Kate Connolly, National Post & London Telegraph, November 20, 2003 [46] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247 [47] Ibid, pp. 243-247 [48] Ibid, pp. 243-247 [49] Ibid, pp. 243-247
Comments: deannaATspingola.email
To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT
with the correct symbol to get a valid address.
Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must
not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must
also be included.
This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the
interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level
of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence
agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the
2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured
funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
Notable quotes:
"... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
"... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
"... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
"... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
"... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have
overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described
by the
Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."
The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's
formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance
during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to
CNN .
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that
Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump
get reelected .
The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020
election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work
with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at
reelecting Trump , the officials said.
" The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN.
"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference,
it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can
work with, he's a dealmaker." -
CNN
Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee,
which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be
reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her
characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to
provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.
To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked
to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked
back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.
Sound familiar?
No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of
treason
Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia,
executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever
dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk aboutoohlet's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm.just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe
tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure,
but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel
stupid president.
uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30
Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.
This is mostly fear mongering as an affective bioengineered virus will create a pandemic, but
the truth is that Anthrax false flag attack after 9/11 was not an accident...
Trump administration beahaves like a completely lawless gang (stealing Syrian oil is one
example. Killing Soleimani is another ) , as for its behaviour on international arena, but I do
not believe they go that far. Even for for such "ruptured" gangster as Pompeo
Notable quotes:
"... Consider that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be affected in such a scenario? ..."
"... "In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ..."
"... Additional notes: here , here , here , here , here and here . ..."
Interestingly, in the past, U.S. universities and NGOs went to China
specifically to do illegal biological experimentation, and this was so egregious to Chinese
officials, that forcible removal of these people was the result. Harvard University, one of the
major players in this scandal, stole the DNA samples of hundreds of thousands of Chinese
citizens, left China with those samples, and continued illegal bio-research in the U.S. It is
thought that the U.S. military, which puts a completely different spin on the conversation, had
commissioned the research in China at the time. This is more than suspicious.
The U.S. has, according to this
article at Global Research ,
had a massive biological warfare program since at least the early 1940s, but has used toxic
agents against this country and others since the 1860s . This is no secret, regardless of the
propaganda spread by the government and its partners in criminal bio-weapon research and
production.
As of 1999, the U.S. government had deployed its Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW)
arsenal against the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia,
Cuba, Haitian boat people, and our neighbor Canada according to this article at
Counter Punch . Of course, U.S.
citizens have been used as guinea pigs many times as well, and exposed to toxic germ agents and
deadly chemicals by government.
Keep in mind that this is a short list, as the U.S. is well known for also using proxies to
spread its toxic chemicals and germ agents, such as happened in Iraq and Syria. Since 1999
there have been continued incidences of several different viruses, most of which are presumed
to be
manmade , including the current Coronavirus that is affecting China today.
There is also much evidence of the research and development of race-specific bio-warfare
agents. This is very troubling. One would think, given the idiotic race arguments by
post-modern Marxists, that this would consume the mainstream news, and any participants in
these atrocious race-specific poisons would be outed at every level. That is not happening, but
I believe it is due to obvious reasons, including government cover-up, hypocrisy at all levels,
and leftist agenda driven objectives that would not gain ground with the exposure of this
government-funded anti-race science.
I will say that it is not just the U.S. that is developing and producing bio-warfare agents
and viruses, but many developed countries around the globe do so as well. But the United
States, as is the case in every area of war and killing, is by far the world leader in its
inhuman desire to be able to kill entire populations through biological and chemical warfare
means. Because these agents are extremely dangerous and uncontrollable, and can spread wildly,
the risk to not only isolated populations, but also the entire world is evident. Consider
that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and
verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic
agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be
affected in such a scenario?
All indications point to the fact that the most toxic, poisonous, and deadly viruses ever
known are being created in labs around the world. In the U.S. think of Fort Detrick, Maryland,
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, Horn Island, Mississippi, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, Vigo
Ordinance Plant, Indiana, and many others. Think of the fascist partnerships between this
government and the pharmaceutical industry. Think of the U.S. military installations positioned
all around the globe. Nothing good can come from this, as it is not about finding cures for
disease, or about discovering vaccines, but is done for one reason only, and that is for the
purpose of bio-warfare for mass killing.
The drive to find biological weapons that will sicken and kill millions at a time is not
only a travesty, but is beyond evil. This power is held by the few, but the potential victims
of this madness include everyone on earth. How can such insanity at this level be allowed to
continue? If any issue could ever unite the masses, governments participating in biological and
germ warfare, race-specific killing, and creating viruses with the potential to affect disease
and death worldwide, should cause many to stand together against it. The first step is to
expose that governments, the most likely culprit being the U.S. government, are planting these
viruses purposely to cause great harm. Once that is proven, the unbelievable risk to all will
be known, and then people everywhere should put their divisiveness aside, stand together, and
stop this assault on mankind.
"In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of
experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble
poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole
continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ~
George Orwell – 1984
"... In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're
trying to build a completely new society.' ..."
"... And there once again you have it one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. ..."
I'd never heard of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) until today, even though it turns out that one of its members
has the office next door to mine. Its
website says that
it seeks to respond to the challenge of East-West tensions by convening 'former and current officials and experts from a group of
Euro-Atlantic states and the European union to test ideas and develop proposals for improving security in areas of existential common
interest'. It hopes thereby to 'generate trust through dialogue.'
It's hard to object to any of this, but its latest
statement , entitled 'Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region', doesn't inspire a lot of
confidence. The 'twelve steps' the EASLG proposes to improve security in Eastern Ukraine are generally pretty uninspiring, being
largely of the 'set up a working group to explore' variety, or of such a vaguely aspirational nature as to be almost worthless (e.g.
'Advance reconstruction of Donbas An essential first step is to conduct a credible needs assessment for the Donbas region to inform
a strategy for its social-economic recovery.' Sounds nice, but in reality doesn't amount to a hill of beans).
For the most part, these proposals attempt to treat the symptoms of the war in Ukraine without addressing the root causes. In
a sense, that's fine, as symptoms need treating, but it's sticking plaster when the patient needs some invasive surgery. At the end
of its statement, though, the EASLG does go one step further with 'Step 12: Launch a new national dialogue about identity', saying:
A new, inclusive national dialogue across Ukraine is desirable and could be launched as soon as possible. Efforts should be
made to engage with perspectives from Ukraine's neighbors, especially Poland, Hungary, and Russia. This dialogue should address
themes of history and national memory, language, identity, and minority experience. It should include tolerance and respect for
ethnic and religious minorities in order to increase engagement, inclusiveness, and social cohesion.
This is admirably trendy and woke, but in the Ukrainian context somewhat explosive, as it implicitly challenges the identity politics
of the post-Maidan regime. Unsurprisingly, it's gone down like a lead balloon in Kiev. The notorious website Mirotvorets even
went so far as to add former
German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger to its blacklist of enemies of Ukraine for having had the temerity to sign the EASLG statement
and thus 'taking part in Russia's propaganda events aimed against Ukraine.' Katherine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group
commented on Twitter, 'As the idea of dialogue
becomes more mainstream, backlash to the concept grows fiercer.' 'In Ukraine, prominent pro-Western politicians, civic activists,
and media, have called Step 12 "a provocation" and "dangerous",' she added
Quinn-Judge comes across as generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian narrative about the war in Donbass, endorsing the idea that
it's largely a product of 'Russian aggression'. But she also recognizes that the war has an internal, social dimension which the
Ukrainian government and its elite-level supporters refuse to acknowledge. Consequently, they also reject any sort of dialogue, either
with Russia or with the rebels in Donbass. As Quinn-Judge notes in another Tweet:
An advisor to one of Ukraine's most powerful pol[itician]s told us recently of his concern about talk of dialogue in international
and domestic circles. 'We have all long ago agreed among ourselves. We need to return our territory, and then work with that sick
sick population.'
This isn't an isolated example. Quinn-Judge follows up with a couple more similar statements:
Social resentments underpin some opposition to disengagement, for example. An activist in [government-controlled] Shchastye
told me recently that she feared disengagement and the reopening of the bridge linking the isolated town to [rebel-held] Luhansk:
'I don't want all that trash coming over here.'
In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what?
We're trying to build a completely new society.'
And there once again you have it one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. You can fiddle with treating Donbass' symptoms as much as you like, la EASLG,
but unless you tackle this fundamental problem, the disease will keep on ravaging the subject for a long time to come. In due course,
I suggest, the only realistic cure will be to remove the patient entirely from the cause of infection.
All that you have described above is very sad, but not very surprising which is itself very sad. I think Patrick Armstrong is
right that a lot of the reason Ukraine is not and has never been a functional polity is because much if not most of the population
cannot accept that the right side won WWII.
Contempt and loathing towards the Donbass is a pretty popular feeling amongst Ukrainian svidomy. E.g., one of the two regular
pro-Ukrainian commenters on my blog.
To his credit, he supports severing the Donbass from Ukraine (as one would a gangrenous limb his metaphor) as opposed to
trying to claw it back. Which is an internally consistent position.
Same guy who doesn't consider Yanukovych as having been overthrown under coup like circumstances, while downplaying Poland's
past subjugation of Rus territory.
In Part I and II we saw how much truth is there in Herr Karlin's claim of being a model of the rrrracially purrrre Rrrrrrrussian
plus some personal views.
Part III (this one) gives a peek into his cultural and upbringing limits, which "qualify" him as an expert of all things Russian,
who speaks on behalf of the People and the Country.
" I left when I was six, in 1994 , so I'm not really the best person to ask this question of it should probably be directed
to my parents, or even better, the Russian government at the time which had for all intents and purposes ceased paying academics
their salaries.
I went to California for higher education and because its beaches and mountains made for a nice change from the bleakness of
Lancashire.
I returned to Russia because if I like Putler so much, why don't I go back there? Okay, less flippancy. I am Russian, I
do not feel like a foreigner here, I like living in Moscow, added bonus is that I get much higher quality of life for the buck
than in California ."
"I never went to school, don't have any experience with writing in Russian, and have been overexposed to Anglo culture ,
so yes, it's no surprise that my texts will sound strange."
The Russian branch of Carnegie Endowment did a piece on this issue. It mostly fits your ideas, but the author suggests it was
a compromise, short-term solution what steps can be taken right now, without crossing red lines of either side but compromise
is unwelcome among both parties. The official Russian reaction was quite cold too.
Upon a quick perusal of the website of the org at issue, Alexey Arbatov and Susan Eisenhower have some kind of affiliation
with it, thus maybe explaining the compromise approach you mention.
This matter brings to mind Trump saying one thing during his presidential bid only to then bring in people in key positions
who don't agree with what he campaigned on.
In terms of credentials and name status, the likes of Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Cohen and Jim Jatras, are needed in
Trump's admin for the purpose of having a more balanced foreign policy approach that conforms with US interests (not to be necessarily
confused with what neocons and neolibs favor).
Instead, Trump has been top heavy with geopolitical thinking opposites. He possibly thought that having them in would take
some of the criticism away from him.
The arguably ideal admin has both sides of an issue well represented, with the president intelligently deciding what's best.
On the BBC and on other media there are films of Ukrainians attacking a bus with people evacuated from China. These people
even wanted to burn down the hospital where the peoplew were taken (along with other unrelated patients)
This is a sign of a degraded society attacking people who may or may not be ill!!!
Ukraine will eventually break up
The nationalist agenda is just degrading the society.
-The economy is failing
-People who can, are leaving
-The elected government has no control over the violent people who take to the streets
It's clear Zelensky is a puppet no different to Poroshenko this destroys the idea that democracy is a good thing.
It's very sad that the EU and the Americans under Obama empowered these decisive elements and then blame Russia.
Crimea did the right thing leaving Ukraine Donbass hopefully will follow.
"And there once again you have it one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass"
[ ]
Only them?
[ ]
Yesterday marks yet another milestone on the Ukrainian glorious шлях перемог and long and arduous return to the Family
of the European Nations. The Civil Society of the Ukraine rose as one in the mighty CoronavirusMaidan, against the jackbooted
goons of the crypto-Napoleon (and agent of Putin) Zelensky. Best people from Poltava oblast' (whose ancestors without doubt, welcomed
Swedish Euro-integrators in 1709) and, most important of all, from the Best (Western) Ukrajina, who 6 years ago made the Revolution
of Dignity in Kiev the reality and whom pan Poroshenko called the best part of the Nation, said their firm "Геть вiд Москви!"
to their fellow Ukrainian citizens, evacuated from Wuhan province in China
The Net is choke full of vivid, memorable videos, showing that 6 years after Maidan, the Ukraine now constitute a unified,
эдiна та соборна country. You all, no doubt, already watched these clips, where a brave middle-aged gentleman from the
Western Ukraine, racially pure Ukr, proves his mental acuity by deducing, that crypto-tyrant (and "не лох") Zelensky wants to
settle evacuees in his pristine oblast out of vengeance, because the Best Ukrajina didn't vote for him during the election. Or
a clip about a brave woman from Poltava oblast, suggesting to relocate the Trojan-horse "fellow countrymen" to Chernobol's Zone.
Or even the witty comments and suggestions by the paragons of the Ukrainian Civil Society, " волонтэры ":
Shy and conscientious members of the Ukrainian (national!) intelligentsia had their instincts aligned rrrrrright. When they
learned about that their hospital will be the one receiving the evacuees from Wuhan, the entire medical personell of that Poltava
oblast medical facility rose to their feet and sang "Shenya vmerla". Democracy and localism proved once again the strongest suit
of the pro-European Ukraine, with Ternopol's oblast regional council voting to accept the official statement to the crypto-tyrant
Zelensky, which calls attempts to place evacuees on their Holy land "an act of Genocide of the Ukrainian People" (c)
That's absolutely "normal", predictable reaction of the "racially pure Ukrainians" to their own fellow citizens. Now, Professor,
are you insisting on seeking or even expecting "compromise" with them ? What to do, if after all these years, there is
no such thing as the united Ukrainian political nation?
"Ukraine's democracy is flourishing like never before due to the tireless efforts of grassroots, pro-democracy, civil-society
groups. Many Ukrainians say their country is now firmly set on an irreversible, pro-Western trajectory. Moreover, the country
has also undertaken a top-to-bottom cultural, economic, and political divorce from its former Soviet overlord.
Today, Ukraine is a democratic success story in the making, despite Russia's best efforts to the contrary."
Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal's foreign
correspondent based in Ukraine
This article fails to mention his most important contribution . He tipped off
Roosevelt that a fascist plot was being prepared to take over the American government "
The Wall Street Putsch, as it's known today, was a plot by a group of right-wing
financiers.
"They thought that they could convince Roosevelt, because he was of their, the patrician
class, they thought that they could convince Roosevelt to relinquish power to basically a
fascist, military-type government," Denton says.
4 hours ago
The US foreign policy was never about Spreading Democracy, it's always about elevating the dictator we can do business
with.
Always.
4 hours ago
Surprisingly, Butlers book The Plot to Seize the White House, where a cabal of bankers sought to use Butler as a front man
to oust FDR getS little to no notice.
If you fire 70% of the admirals and generals
you will increase the military capabilities of the US military by 40%.
They are incompetent hacks who are better on their knees in front of the MIC and Congress
then they are on any battlefield.
At least during WWII we had less of them and no one was hesitant to fire at least some of
them for incompetence. I say sum of them because many of the war hero generals needed to be
removed including Bradly, Eisenhower, Halsey, Nimitz, and even MacArthur.
But today, no one gets fired for anything.
Literally they have a special class of MBA's being generals and and strategic thinkers and
it has turned out to be a disaster for the military and the US.
An example by way of analogy is look at Boeing. How much better would Boeing be if they
fired all the MBA's and replaced them with engineers who loved air planes. Boeing would make a
lot less profit but its planes would be the best in the world.
The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful civilized
society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful empire for the
benefit of all humanity.
The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present state
of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of this empire
by sowing internal conflict.
This is why from Sanders to Warren to Gabbard to Bloomberg to Trump everyone is on the PUTIN
payroll or subconsciously exposed to some mind controlling rays he sends via satellite to the
USA.
The PUTIN is the invention by the Russian Federation after their successful evil attempt to
evade the good intentions of the EMPIRE to embrace Russia in its sphere of peaceful
tranquility.
I suppose when Jeff Bozo's Blog discovers that Putin is playing three-dimensional chess with
himself using Bernie Sanders as the White Side and Mike Bloomberg as the Black Side, it will
finally declare that to save the US from Russian meddling, the very notion and institution of
regular elections, and the massive organisation, funding systems and networks, and marketing
campaigns and promotions associated with the 4-year election cycle must finally be declared
harmful to American interests and done away with. WaPo will finally advocate for a one-man
police state. Democracy truly dies in the darkness of delirium and derangement. Thank you,
WaPo.
This is hilarious, 'nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
people' H L Mencken. But seriously, Putin does now have the power to decide US elections, he
simply makes his preferred choice [now the obvious loser]one day before the election. You
could not make this up.
"The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to
reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in
sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American
elections" WaPo, 2/21/20.
This level if clinical delusion is reminiscent of the Führer's last days in the
bunker.
I know, I know, it's a waste of time trying to ridicule the media when they're already doing
that to themselves. Satire is definitely dead when the Washington Post reports about "two
rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow". WaPo's attempts to explain that the purpose
of this bizarre behavior is "sowing division" makes it look even more incredible.
For years I have stressed the need for our leaders to make decisions based on
thoughtfulness and foresight -- not just emotion, or what may "feel good" in a given
moment. This is especially important in the area of foreign policy, as politicians' desire
to "do something" too often overrides careful consideration of the unintended consequences
of the actions they take. Time and time again, their poor judgment has led to worse
outcomes in the countries where we recklessly intervene, and for our own country's national
security.
An egregious lack of foresight also led to this counterproductive impeachment of
Trump.
Those who wish to lead our country should have had the foresight to know that this
result was inevitable. They need to understand that their decisions should not be dictated
by what makes them temporarily feel good or look good, but rather by what will be good for
the American people. Emotional gratification or political advantage should never determine
one's votes or actions.
Of course the 'sky is falling' Russia revelation/leak/false flag is part of the CIA's ongoing
(failed) coup against Trump. But most importantly these revelations are meant to destroy the
Bernie Sanders campaign as he gains an insurmountable lead and momentum. The desperate,
debauched CIA stooge Democratic Party launches another salvo in its ongoing coup against
Sanders. This is nothing to do with Russian interference of US elections, but the
interference by Intelligence, working for the Money Power, to preserve the status quo of
greed, and murder hope for change in its cradle.
IMO the "Russia meddling" trope is just cover for the real meddlers (ReMs) in our elections.
The ReMs don't bother with click bait ads, they use the most effective tool out there to
influence voters, candidates, and deep state operatives: the US$. The ReMs give cash to
candidates who prefer their policies, and if the candidate does toe the line on their
policies, they give the money to their opponent. This is the real meddling, but we don't hear
about it because any mention of it results in major shaming as "anti-*******" from the ReMs.
The ReMs (even though they are supporting a foreign country) do not have to register as
foreign agents in the US (very special treatment) due to specific legislation passed in
previous years. The ReMs have bragged about their "support of" (really, buying of) state and
federal level legislatures to the point of denying basic Constitutional rights and have been
vehemently protected by those bought off people.
This is the most effective fifth column, the principal criminal, not the Russkies.
Let's be honest with ourselves. We all know that American minds are extremely weak and
fragile and Americans cannot be exposed to any informations which they are far too helpless
to process correctly.
We absolutely need to be protected from any ideas that might derail our defenceless little
minds.
Thank heaven that the kindly US Government is defending us from wrongful ideas that we
cannot possibly handle ourselves.
I hate to break circe's bubble, but here's Saunders responding to a WaPoo trash article:
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
Sorry dear. Russia did not use internet propaganda to sow division in 2016.... the Dims
did it all by themselves. So Saunders is a.) delusional or b.) just another lying politician
or c.) hoping the J. Bozo drops a check in the mail?
Question: the WaPoo seems to have become the new National Inquirer, yes? Does J. Bozo
really need the money?
The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or
"commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.
I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like
war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under
complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
The American "D"emocracy is a theater of the absurd - not sure if it is a tragedy or a comedy
or a tragicomedy. But one thing I am absolutely sure about is the high level of intelligence
of the Sheeple.
Yesterday, Pepe Escobar made a similar entry on his Facebook page to which I replied as
follows:
"Why would Russia do that when Trump's doing such a good job of further ruining the USA
and Bloomberg would do an even better job of it, whereas Sanders would actually improve the
nation and make it a stronger competitor. 100% illogical and spastic!"
One of his entries today deals with the Iranian election which saw the "Conservatives"
gain ground, which in the circumstances was a likely result. And if you haven't yet, check
out Pepe's
article at Strategic Culture .
"... Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about
the validity of American elections..."
hell, I think there's been sizeable skepticism about the validity of US elections since
the Supreme Court pulled off a coup d'etat against Gore in 2000, and then went ahead again to
load the dice in Citizens United to give it all away to the oligarchs and Ruling Class with
their truck loads of money and dirty laundrying
no 'russian assets' need to add anything to that pathetic track record of American
'democracy'.... and that's just from the past short 20 years
I always thought the thing about 'sowing division in the US' was one of the Elites most
hilarious and laughable memes - what we need is a satirist as great as Moliere
To quote: "Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty
about the validity of American elections."
A democracy without division, really dissent, is not a democracy. "Hey hey we must not
have division over Wall Street or police abuse.....let's have harmony. No no no say no more
or you create division."
Want to get a prespective on American democracy? Ask African Americans and other minority
groups (such as Hispanics and the wrong sort of European immigrants) what has been done to
their right to vote and dissent both now (see Georgia) or in the past (see Jim Crow).
I said this back in 2016 when Russiagate started that it was a poisoned well that the
Democrats and the Deep State/National Security establishment would never stop returning to.
And here we are, within the space 72 hours the Democrats have accused Russia of "meddling" in
the 2020 election by supporting Trump AND Sanders, so I take it that from now on whenever any
candidate appears that might upset the establishment even a little bit, they will be accused
of being Russian puppets.
This gives the Democrat Party leadership yet another potential weapon to use against
Bernie Sanders in the event of a brokered convention, they'll just bleat out "we can't
nominate Bernie, the Russians tainted the process to support him". Trump at least can call
the Democrats out on their B.S. and call them liars right to their faces, but poor Bernie
wont have the courage to do that (at least from what I've seen so far). His own words about
Russian "meddling" in 2016 will haunt him, he'll say that the Russians shouldn't have meddled
but it won't have impacted his support, but they'll counter that the nomination process was
tainted and the DNC has no choice but to discuss how to proceed with the nomination process.
That's how they'll try to kill Bernie's candidacy, the "discussion" will just be a bunch of
declarations, ultimatums and public commitments they will extract from Bernie to try and
break Bernie from his base and either halt his movement's momentum or kill it outright.
I don't know if it will work but the DNC has a history of doubling down against the
people's favorite. If the DNC pursue this stratagem I imagine we'll see some talking heads
show up in March pushing for a discussion among the candidates on how to respond to Russian
meddling, maybe even some debate questions. Either way, Sander needs to come out swinging
against whatever the DNC suggests (ideally he should put forth his own suggestion and steer
the conversation down a path he choses). Rest assured whatever the DNC puts forth, the goal
won't be to protect the electoral process it will be to bog down the nomination process with
a dead horse debate in order to blunt Sander's momentum so that a brokered convention to pick
someone else won't be such an obvious democratic betrayal.
If the DNC succeeds in screwing Bernie (and more importantly Bernie's supporters) out of a
presidential nomination for an election they could have won, It will be a paradigm shift in
US internal politics, a second 9/11 that will radically alter how all elections within the US
are perceived by the public forever. in the same way 9/11 normalized the concept of the
Forever War within the US (also called "Generational War" for those who wish to obscure
truth), a "Milwaukee Screw job 2020" will normalize the concept of a moribund political
establishment within the DNC that will strangle even mild political reform movement conducted
within the system itself. While this will preserve the political establishment for a time,
the economic and political crises that created these movements will remain unresolved and
having de-facto declared maintaining these crises official party policy by blocking reform
efforts within the existing political system, these movements will become radicalized and
we'll see return of radical movements similar to those of the 1970s (or 1900s). Eventually
either the political system will be reformed or it will collapse, but this will take time (a
generation perhaps more). At the very least, this period time and all of the people who lived
during it will be robbed of their full political agency, a massive lose to US society and
political sophistication. In the worst case, it will result in a political collapse of the
US, which will entail a massive cost to the US's human, economic, political and international
capital comparable to Russian in 1917
The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what
intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing
division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections.
(In Rachel Maddow's voice.) Sounds crazy, but what if that's the whole point? What
if Russia is making all these nonsensical moves on purpose, knowing full well they'll be
detected by the U.S. intelligence and reported in the press, thus hurting the credibility of
the U.S. intelligence, as no sane individual will believe these allegations?
"... The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to between $150 and $200 trillion. ..."
Bossing, bullying, and nickel-and-diming won't make for an easy divorce. Donald Trump at
NATO Summit, Brussels, in 2018
According to Politico , the American delegation to the
illustrious Munich Security Conference -- the security counterpart to the elite World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland -- was apparently "dumbfounded" by the hostile reaction they
received from European speakers, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Steinmeier even took aim at the Trump administration's
hallowed "Make America Great Again" slogan, accusing the United States of "rejecting the idea
of the international community." Steinmeier characterized Trump's position this way: "Every
country should fend for itself and put its own interests over all others 'great again' -- even
at the expense of neighbors and partners."
Ironically, Steinmeier's acerbic comments seem to conclude that if the United States becomes
uncomfortable with continuing to effectively subsidize the defense of wealthy European states,
which have long been capable of being at least the first line of defense for themselves, it is
inflicting suffering on its allies and doesn't even believe in the "international community."
Steinmeier's grumbling is akin to that of an entitled young adult still living at home after
being told by his parents to get a job.
The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations
against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight
Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have
failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a
robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed,
NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military
remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than
that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a
GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national
debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to
between $150 and $200 trillion.
One might conclude from this that Trump's policy of angrily haranguing and belittling his
NATO allies into coughing up a few more dollars for their own defense is the right one. Trump
crudely understands the problem but has come up with the wrong solution. The many Eurocentric
analysts, who dominated the American foreign policy elite during the Cold War and are now
trying to hang on to relevance, keep hyping the general Russia threat by excessively demonizing
its president, Vladimir Putin, who is really just another tin-pot dictator.
A third way is still possible, one that avoids both placating the hand-wringing Eurocentric
establishment and the nickel-and-diming of NATO allies that Trump desires.
The worst fear of the Eurocentrics is that Trump will, before leaving office, withdraw from
the NATO alliance, much as he did with the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, the
international agreement on climate change, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. Yet this
is the proper, though radical, approach. It needs to be done immediately, so that it can't be
reversed by the next president. The problem is that Trump has been rude and obnoxious enough to
the Europeans that the divorce might very well make Britain's exit from the European Union look
like a walk in the park. The ideal would have been to have had a previously cordial
relationship with Europe, followed by a U.S. statement that the European economic miracle has
allowed them to withstand a stagnant Russia and they need to finally take primary
responsibility for their own defense.
This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing
government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to
hedge against a rising China. Such a change is critical, and it remains to be seen whether it
can be achieved.
Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the
Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. His new book, War and the Rogue
Presidency: Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure, was released in May
2019.
"Trump Should Get Out Of NATO Now, But Nicely" is spot on. The Obama Administration pivot to
the Pacific could have be continued in a cordial fashion but that is not the Donald way. The
US needs to make a treaty with Russia and leave Europe with the possible exception of
Ramstein AFB.
These goofy neocon statements won't buy you anything. Stop giving legitimacy to the
establishment's false narrative, it won't make the foreign policy elites accept you, you
can't oppose the elite and at the same time work within the confines of the paradigm they
created. Not only are such statements untrue, it's self defeating.
Is it really false to say that Russia is stagnant though? After all, Russia has a falling
population (population peaked in the early 1990s), a relatively low life-expectancy, an
economy that is smaller than that of Italy's in terms of nominal GDP, and a conventional
military capability that is a mere shadow of what it once was in Soviet times. Other
countries (China, the U.S. etc..) may have a low fertility rate as well, but China has a
massive population to start with, and the U.S. can attract immigrants fairly well. Note: I am
not saying that immigration is necessarily a good thing when it is used as a means of
demographic replacement to make up for a low fertility rate, but it is one way to cope with
the geopolitical and economic implications of a low birth rate, at least for a time.
Certainly, Russia is not doing too badly by Third World standards, and,to be fair, I do
think Putin has utilized a fundamentally weak geopolitical hand rather well. It's also pretty
clear that Putin played a significant role in bringing Russia back from the brink
economically and culturally following the degradation it suffered in the 1990s. For that
matter, I think his popularity is likely genuine among many people in Russia, even if he is a
dictator of sorts. Still, if you look at the fundamental, long-term economic, demographic,
and military trends, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Russia is a declining power.
Over a long enough time frame, it almost certainly is.
Given the fact that Russia has not had an above replacement fertility rate since the fall of
the USSR, and given that it's ability to attract immigrants is rather limited (how many third
world immigrants would choose Russia, over, say, Germany?), I don't see how a falling
population is not inevitable for Russia in the long term. This is especially a problem for
Russia given the vastness of its eastern regions, as well as how few people live in those
regions to begin with.
A consistent theme of Pat Buchanan's columns about Russia is that-- given the vast
population disparities involved--China is likely to start slowly colonizing Siberia at some
point, at least in an implicit, economic sort of way. I do wonder if this is a likely
outcome.
I said that it's doing well by Third World standards, not that it necessarily is itself a
Third World nation. Historically, Russia was considered a Second World country, which makes
sense.
Russia has an excellent education system, its medical services are good, it has a high
literacy rate, it is white and Christian, with conservative values, and it has few gun
massacres.
Leaving NATO is a no-brainer. The US and Russia have a common foe - the Chicoms.
The problem with disbanding NATO is that no one knows what will follow.
Would Europe go back to the intra power politics of the early 20th Century? In which case the
US will likely sucked into their next war.
Or would the EU integrate it's defense and foreign policy and create a Federal Europe? And if
they did, how long would it take Europe to be a peer competitor to the US?
How many European countries have territorial claims on each other? Few to none.
How many European countries are in competition for colonies? Few to none.
You don't need territorial issues for war, the US had no territorial issues with Iraq nor
Afghanistan in 2001, it didn't prevent the US from invading both countries.
I can easily see something like social dumping starting a cascade that takes Europe to
war. That is the main European fear about BREXIT.
I think Russia is more worried about its southern flank than its western one in the long term
especially once the US and its ambition is gone. Russia badly needs to get closer to Europe.
Germany will rule the E.U. just as they would have If Hitler had won the 2cd World war It
will be national socialist which the Muslims will like .. The remaining Jews will have to
leave or die
NATO should have been mothballed after the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. But the
vested interests of the military-industrial-financial complex have kept it expanding,
antagonizing Russia in its sphere of influence, seeking out new monsters (such as the unjust
and illegal war on Serbia), and it mainly exists now to enrich arms producers and to support
bureaucrats in Brussels with sinecures in their fancy headquarters building.
As an anti-war lefty, I just love this destruction of the intelligence community and hope
Trump really does abandon NATO... right before we drag him out of White House in shackles...
or some such thing.
It's curious the complaint about debt in this post... didn't everyone just agree to
increase the defense budget last year... again?
This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing
government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to
hedge against a rising China.
Why must the US hedge against a rising China in the Pacific ?
How is this a realistic plan of action?
China's rise has been through voluntary economic endeavors with other nations not through
force of arms. Asian issues must be solved via Asian nations engaging in dialectical dialogue
not US government gun-boat diplomacy.
The same logic that allows for a reduced US role in NATO (ie defending Europe) clearly
shows that America's allies in the Pacific (eg Japan, S.Korea, Indonesia, etc) have more than
recovered (eg Japan world's 3rd largest economy, S.Korea 12th largest, Indonesia 16th
largest) from the devastation of WWII and the Korea War and are quite capable of defending
themselves.
To paraphrase George Washington - trade with all entangling alliances with none.
The US has been running trillion dollar yearly deficits for over a decade with an
acknowledged 23 trillion dollar debt (as of 2020) along with hundreds of trillions of dollars
in unfunded future liabilities and deteriorating national infrastructure in need of over 3
trillion dollars in upgrades.
In order to meet these pressing issues the US government needs to stop garrisoning (ie
empire) the world under the tissue paper thin veneer of providing global stability and
security (of which it can not even provide in Baltimore Md 50 miles from DC) and return it's
myopic/megalomaniacal gaze to America.
I don't think Trump is really interested in leaving NATO. US has a stable & a dependable
market in Europe. US' presence in Europe prevents China & Russia spreading their wings
there. It will also assist US in containing these major powers along side its efforts in
South China Sea & the Info-Pacific. Internationally US gets the support of 27 Countries
in all international fora. To my mind, the very reason why US continually keeps projecting
Russia as an enemy is to ensure that the European countries remain tied to US.
Even if US is unwilling to let go Europe from the alliance, it is time EU abandons US
& takes responsibility for itself. Europe has the potential to become an important &
a powerful pole in a Multipolar world.
Russia presents more of a danger today than during the height of the Cold War: then the
Kremlin had a proper buffer zone, today it has not. There is the existential threat: the
reason nations to war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
While I agree that NATO is now irrelevant and a significant waste of US tax dollars, shifting
that expenditure to fight China might be an even bigger mistake. The US should withdraw its
military forces from the Western Pacific for the same reason we should leave NATO. Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines should be made responsible for making their own
accommodations with China.
"... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
"... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
"... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
"... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
"... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
"... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
"... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
"... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was
the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no
politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most
Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career
politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs
.
Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is
steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only
politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple
wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of
officially certified grievance groups control the public space.
It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.
The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir
Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of
favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find
the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be
into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style
democracy to the un-enlightened.
One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think
that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020
they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic
behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will
have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure
won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.
Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence
Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments"
speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were
inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The
Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin
labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin
called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a
great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that
the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a
closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing
tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."
Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration
of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was
undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's
"interference" in 2016, and to the
ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and
Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.
Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020
election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided
at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for
going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was
essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment
inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there,
and we don't have to fight Russia here."
Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son
sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if
someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used
to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they
deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The
Nation added that "For all the talk about
Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering
w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of
Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."
Over
at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering,
sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but
sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from
Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."
The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck
Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in
the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe
Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in
2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine
first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe
Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian
oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a
Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.
On Wednesday,
Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become
the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century
will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the
legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The
Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not
stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will
do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and
"Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much
more credible.
The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with
their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the
neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every
failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and
don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading
the tea leaves and
is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a
grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin
is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by
dint of military force."
Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering
nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of
that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is
essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point
of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence
Committee.
If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to
insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.
So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the
removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with
the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.
Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and
people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans,
and cutting off my kids genitalia.
It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump,
or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal,
mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump
wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election,
and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they
did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com
Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant
portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the
blame they deserve themselves.
lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep
ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not
worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will
go to war there is no way to let this continue.
The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like
"America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because
of it.
We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them
understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back
and further entrench that brainwashing.
It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will
make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only
Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.
The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country
Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we
expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with
all the Elitist Rights.
The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that
anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor
in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them
now.
@ RSH 66
[If] either are nominated - or any other of the current crop of losers - the Democrats will
lose against Trump, despite Trump making all kinds of incredibly stupid statements during the
campaign. Because, let's face it, Trump will do stupid stuff all during the election race -
and his supporters will no doubt ignore them or praise him for them. [;]
There is that Great Silent Majority made up of Independents, RINOs, DINOs, and Moderates
who are embarrassed by and are tired of Trump. Also, throw in those who will refuse to
participate in the rigged system. In 2020 this time it's different.
This story claims that it had five (5!) people criminally leaking alleged content from a
classified briefing. And why not, since no one gets prosecuted for these crimes. Still, we
have a serious problem with our supposedly professional "intelligence" and "oversight"
communities. https://t.co/zuAdwXpU2L
Until heads roll and hoaxers are sent to prison, the seditious Russian collusion hoaxers
will never stop. They will lie and leak and fabricate evidence, whatever it takes, to
prevent the American people from taking charge of their own government. https://t.co/wijJ07QKOO
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class
peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational
treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape
the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have
to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy
of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted
industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.
Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table?
"The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke,
authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first
acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest
its underlings revolt.
Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based
organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would
reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party
bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more
this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined
zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,
American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms;
they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the
Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are
capitalistically run enterprises.
Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces
of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.
The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does
not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized
proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian
war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.
In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital
Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to
excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free
society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after
World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the
ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist
(albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces
in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The
midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he
end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."
Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and
technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order"
of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent
impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President
Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been
nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability
of the vital center from polar extremes.
A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to
persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why
some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why
nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other
again in war.
Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship
to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor
with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with
being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover
story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the
reckoning being too great.
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
Damning new evidence that Dr Kelly DIDN'T commit suicide: The disturbing flaws in the
official government story surrounding the death of Blair's chemical weapons expert
https://t.co/izNiYtE8yI
At
the Munich Security Conference the U.S. and its allies had no idea of how to handle China, a
problem of their greed and stupidity. The West is divided, confused. What to do about Huawei?
Really, what to do with China?
So when Mike Pompeo proclaimed "we are winning," the largely European audience was silent
and worried in what sense "we" existed longer.
In the meantime, Europe, including the U.K, finds itself in a mincer between the U.S. and
China
Unfortunately for us. China has followed the U.S. playbook and has outplayed the West,
especially the U.S.
Walter Rostow of the Johnson administration, an avid anti-communist, wrote the playbook: How
can an undeveloped nation take its place among the leaders of the world.
The answer : Industrialize as rapidly as possible. Do whatever it takes. China did just
that.
In its five year plans, China acknowledged its debt to Rostow and started to industrialize.
While I have described this process many years ago, I again outline it briefly here.
First : China entered the W.T.O. Bill Clinton and Congress were accommodating and
instrumental:
Last fall, as all of you know, the United States signed an agreement to bring China into the
W.T.O, on terms that will open its markets to American products and investments.
Bill Clinton speaking before Congress, March 9, 1998
Second : China offered dirt cheap labor, labor that had no effective right to bargain
Third : China did not require a company to obey any environmental regulations.
Fourth : China often offered a ten-year grace period without any taxation. If there were taxes
they were less than those on its own indigenous firms.
Fifth : China manipulated its currency, making products cheaper to make but getting higher
profits in the West.
The net resul t: Massive trade imbalance in favor of China. CEOs and their henchmen made
enormous profits. Devastated American workers were told to go to school, to work harder, to make
themselves invaluable to their companies. A cruel joke.
In droves, Western companies outsourced to China, emptying one factory after another. Anything
that could be outsourced was outsourced. China, of course, was not the sole beneficiary of U.S.
foolishness. India, Mexico, Vietnam wherever environmental standards were non-existent, wherever
workers had no effective rights these were the third world countries the U.S. used. The health
and safety of third world workers was of no concern. They were many–and they were
expendable.
U.S. companies were so profitable that special arrangements were made to repatriate those
profits back to the states: pennies on the dollar. Many billionaires should really be thanking
China.
Americans were considered only consumers/ The more they consumed, the richer the rich became.
Credit was made easy. George Bush's answer to 911 was: Go out and shop.+
Between The Financial Modernization Act of 1999 and Free trade insanity, the working class of
American faced the crash of 2008.
China became the factory of the world, not through automation, but through dirt cheap labor.
China poisoned its atmosphere and polluted its water. Face masks were everywhere. Nonetheless,
China had become undeniable economic power, challenging the U.S.
At the same time, China educated great numbers of engineers, inventors, and scientists. Huwaii
became the problem really, Huwaii is just an emblem of it.
The U.S. in its greed had became lazy. It poured money into weapons. The U.S. decided to build
a space force. U.S. bullied countries with foolish sanctions if those countries did not make
their billionaire class more profitable. Sanctions instead of competition became last gasp, the
last grasp at profit. Flabby and greedy, the U.S.is no longer competitive. It has become just a
bully, a threat to everyone.
Trump, of course, played both sides of the problem. He railed against the outsourcing, but has
done little to correct it, giving instead massive tax breaks to the wealthy, gutting
environmental regulations laying waste to everything he touches. Pelosi and Schumer pretend to
care, but they have nothing to offer. Like Trump, they worry about China. Like Trump, they have
no answer, except for more wars and more sanctions.
Hillary and Bill should take a bow. They began this debacle. Once things were made in the
U.S.A. Go to any Walmart store and read the label: Made in China.
Pelosi and the free trade Democrats should take a bow as should all the Republicans. All of
them should hold hands, give each other a quick hug and smile. They and their friends are
rich.
To China belongs the future.
Terry , February 16, 2020 8:27 pm
Economics 101 says trade benefits all participants. The problem is not China but the United
States. The oligarchs have sucked up all the benefits of trade and have bought the government
to keep the good times going. Obama played along unlike FDR with the result that the oligarchs
came out stronger than ever while everyone else had a second rate rather than a third rate
health care system which Trump and the GOP are struggling to return to a third rate system. You
can blame China or the "laziness " of Americans, but the real problem is the moneyed class who
do not give a crap about the country or its citizens but only how to hang onto their privileged
existence. I hate to even think it but I do not see this thing ending peacefully.
MARK LOHR , February 16, 2020 8:27 pm
And in turn funding China's considerable, unabated, and ongoing military expansion.
The screws are turning; the noose tightening.
That Western governments of all leanings have not counter-vailed for many decades now is a tale
of enormous short-sightedness and cultural hubris.
davebarnes , February 16, 2020 9:24 pm
Didn't I read the same thing about Japan 20+ years ago?
MARK LOHR , February 16, 2020 10:50 pm
Yes. And to be sure, China faces all the limits inherent to a totalitarian system. However,
unlike Japan, they have remilitarized and have demonstrated expansionist goals –
artificial island military outposts, Belt and Road, etc.
Besides stealing/extorting etc our IP.
Mark,
Where do you get your information? China has one military base outside its borders. The U.S.
has over 800. China does not pour its money into a military budge; the U.S. does.
Try the actual facts, for a change.
likbez , February 17, 2020 9:34 am
To China belongs the future.
I think it is too early to write down the USA. Historically the USA proved to be highly
adaptable society (look at the New Deal). And I think that still there is a chance that it
might be capable of jumping the sinking ship of neoliberalism. Although I have problems with
Sanders's economic program, Sanders's victory might be instrumental for that change.
China adopted neoliberalism, much like the USA. It was just lucky to be on the receiving end
of the outflow of the capital from the USA. It has a more competent leadership and avoided the
fate of the USSR for which the attempt to the adoption of neoliberalism ( aka Perestroika )
proved to be fatal.
I suspect that the main problem for China is that Neoliberalism, as a social system, is
incompatible with the rule of the Communist Party.
Fundamentally what China has now is a variation of the Soviet "New Economic Policy" (NEP)
invented by Bolsheviks after the Civil War in Russia, and while providing a rapid economic
development, China has all the problems that are known for this policy.
One is the endemic corruption of state officials due to the inability of capital to rise
above a certain level of political influence and systematic attempts to buy this influence.
That necessitates periodic campaigns against corruption and purges/jailing of officials,
which does not solve the fundamental problem which is systemic.
The other problem is that the Communist Party is such mode degrades into something like
amorphous "holding company" staff for the country (managing state tier in the two tie economy
-- state capitalism at the top; neoliberalism at the middle and the bottom)
Which necessitates the rule of a strong leader, the Father of the Nation, who is capable to
conduct purges and hold the Party together by suppressing the appetite of local Party
functionaries using brutal repressions. But the Party functionaries understand that they no
longer conduct Marxist policies, and that undermines morale. That they are essentially
renegades, and that creates a huge stimulus for "make money fast" behavior and illicit
self-enrichment.
Which paradoxically necessitate the hostility with the USA as the mean to cement the Party
and suppress the dissent. So not only the USA neocons and MIC are interested in China, China,
China (and/or Russia, Russia, Russia) bogeyman.
That also creates for Chinese senior Communist Party leadership an incentive at some point
to implement "Stalin-style solution" to the problems with New Economic Policy.
So it looks like Neo-McCarthyism in the USA has a long and prosperous future, as both sides
are interested in its continuation
BTW another example of NEP as a policy was Tito Yugoslavia, which no longer exists.
Yet another example was Gorbachov's "Perestroika," which logically led to the dissolution of
the USSR. With the subjective factor of the total incompetence of Gorbachov as a leader -- with
some analogies as for this level of incompetence with Trump.
As well as general "simplification," and degeneration of Politburo similar to what we
observe with the USA Congress now: the USSR in the 1980th has become a gerontocracy.
But the major factor was that the top KGB officials and several members of Politburo,
including Gorbachov, became turncoats and changed sides attempting to change the system to
neoliberalism, which was at the time on the assent; Russia always picks the worst possible time
for the social change
While neoliberalism is definitely in decline and its ideology is discredited, I still think
there are fundamental problems in tis interaction with the Communist Party rule, that might
eventually cause the social crisis for China.
But only time will tell
BTW Professor Stephen Cohen books contain very interesting information about NEP, Russia
adoption of neoliberalism (and related dissolution of the USSR) and Russia social development
in general
Erdogan de facto supports al-Qaeda remnants while facing either humiliating retreat from or
total war against Syria
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, neo-Ottoman extraordinaire, is not exactly inclined to commit seppuku
, the Japanese act of ritual suicide.
But if not through the perspective of neo-Ottomanism, how to explain the fact he is de facto
supporting al-Qaeda remnants in Syria while facing two unsavory options – a humiliating
retreat from or total war against the Syrian Arab Army?
Everything about the slowly evolving, messy chessboard in Idlib hinges on highways: the
imperative for the government in Damascus to control both the M5 highway between Damascus and
Aleppo and the M4 highway between Latakia and Aleppo. Fully reclaiming these two crucial axes
will finally turbo-charge the ailing Syrian economy.
Very few players nowadays remember the all-important Sochi
memorandum of understanding signed between Russia and Turkey in September 2018.
The Western spin was always about whether Damascus would comply. Nonsense. In the
memorandum, Ankara guaranteed protection of civilian traffic on both highways. It's Ankara that
is not complying, not only in terms of ensuring that "radical terrorist groups" are out of the
demilitarized zone, but especially on point number 8:
"In the interests of ensuring free movement of local residents and goods, as well as
restoring trade and economic ties, transit traffic along the routes M4 (Aleppo-Latakia) and
M5 (Aleppo-Hama) will be restored before the end of 2018."
Vast stretches of Idlib are in fact under the yoke of Hayat Tahrir al Shams (HTS), shorthand
for al-Qaeda in Syria. Or "moderate rebels," as they are known inside the Beltway – even
though the United States government itself brands it as a terror organization.
For all practical purposes, the Erdogan system is supporting and weaponizing HTS in Idlib.
When the SAA reacts against HTS's attacks, Erdogan goes ballistic and threatens war.
The West uncritically buys Ankara propaganda. How dare the "Assad regime" take back the M5,
which "had been under rebel control since 2012"? Erdogan is lauded for warning "Iran and Russia
to end the support for the Assad regime." NATO invariably condemns "attacks on Turkish
troops."
The official Ankara explanation for the Turkish presence in Idlib hinges on bringing
reinforcements to "observation posts." Nonsense. These posts are not meant to go away. On top
of it, Ankara demands that the SAA should retreat to the positions it held months ago –
away from Idlib.
There's no way Damascus will "comply" because these Turkish troops are a de facto occupation
body-protecting "moderate rebels" fighting for "democracy" who were decisively excluded by
Moscow – and even Ankara – from the Sochi memorandum. One can't make this stuff
up.
Got airpower, will travel
Now let's look at the facts on the ground – and in the skies. Moscow and Damascus
control the airspace over Idlib. Su-34 jets patrol all of northwest Syrian territory. Moscow
has warships – crammed with cruise missiles – deployed in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
The whole SAA offensive for these past few months to liberate national territory has been a
graphic demonstration of top Russian intel – planning, execution, logistics.
What's being set up is a classic cauldron – a Southwest Asia replica of the cauldron
in Donbass in 2014 that destroyed Kiev's army. The SAA is encircling the Turks from the north,
east and south. There will be only one way out for the Turks: the border crossing at Bab
al-Hawa. Back to Turkey.
Facing certified disaster, no wonder Erdogan had to talk "de-escalation" with Putin on
Tuesday. The red lines, from Moscow's side, are immutable: the highways will be liberated
(according to the Sochi agreement). The neo-Ottoman sultan can't afford a war with Russia. So,
yes: he's
bluffing .
But why is he bluffing? There are three main possibilities.
Washington is forcing him to, pledging full support to "our NATO ally."
The Turkish Armed Forces cannot afford to lose face.
The "moderate rebels" don't give a damn about Ankara.
Option 1 seems the most plausible – even as Erdogan is being actually forced to
directly confront a Moscow with which he has signed extremely important economic/energy
contracts. Erdogan may not be a General Zhukov, but he knows that a bunch of jihadis and only
6,000 demoralized Turkish soldiers stand no chance against the SAA and Russian airpower.
It's enlightening to compare the current Turkish predicament with the Turk/Free Syrian Army
(FSA) proxy gang alliance when they were fighting the Kurds in Afrin.
Ankara then had control of the skies and enormous artillery advantage – from their
side of the border. Now Syria/Russia rules the skies and Turkish artillery simply cannot get
into Idlib. Not to mention that supply lines are dreadful.
Neo-Ottomanism, revisited
So what is Erdogan up to? What's happening is Erdogan's Muslim Brotherhood network is now
managing Idlib on the ground – a fascinating repositioning gambit able to ensure that
Erdogan remains a strongman with whom Bashar al-Assad will have to talk business when the right
time comes.
Erdogan's partial endgame will be to "sell" to Assad that ultimately he was responsible for
getting rid of the HTS/FSA jihadi nebulae. Meanwhile, circus prevails – or, rather, a
lousy opera, with Erdogan once again relishing playing the bad guy. He knows Damascus has all
but won a vicious nine-year proxy war – and is reclaiming all of its sovereign territory.
There's no turning back.
And that brings us to the complex dynamics of the Turkish-Iranian puzzle. One should always
remember that both are members of the Astana peace process, alongside Russia. On Syria, Tehran
supported Damascus from the start while Ankara bet on – and weaponized – the
"democratic freedom fighter" jihadi nebulae.
From the 16th century to the 19th, Shi'ite Iran and the Sunni Ottoman empire were engaged in
non-stop mutual containment. And under the banner of Islam, Turkey de facto ruled over the Arab
world.
Jump cut, in the 21st century, to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who codified
neo-Ottomanism. Davutoglu came up with the idea that eastern Anatolia did not end with the
borders with Armenia and Iran but extended to the western coast of the Caspian Sea. And he also
came up with the idea that eastern Anatolia did not end at the borders with Iraq and Syria
– but extended all the way to Mosul.
Essentially, Davutoglu argued that the Middle East had to be Turkey's backyard. And Syria
would be the golden gate through which Turkey would "recover" the Middle East.
All these elaborate plans now lie in dust. The Big Picture, of course, remains: the US
determined by all means necessary to prevent Eurasian unity, and the Russia-China strategic
partnership from having access to maritime routes, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean
through Syria via Iran.
The micro-picture is way more prosaic. It comes down to Erdogan making sure his occupying
troops do not get routed by Assad's army. How the mighty (neo-Ottoman) have fallen.
The Trump administration's
legal justification for the Soleimani assassination is as preposterous as you would expect it to be:
The White House delivered its legal justification for the January airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, arguing
that President Donald Trump was authorized to take the action under the Constitution and 2002 legislation authorizing the Iraq
war.
The administration is no longer pretending that the assassination had anything to do with stopping an "imminent" attack. They
no longer claim that this is why the assassination was ordered. That by itself is a remarkable admission of the illegality of the
strike. If there was no "imminent" attack, the U.S. was taking aggressive action against a high-ranking official from another country.
There is no plausible case to be made that this was an act of self-defense. Not only did the president lack the authority to do this
on his own, but it would have been illegal under international law even if he had received approval from Congress before doing it.
The administration spent weeks hiding behind the "imminent" attack lie because without it there was no justification for what they
did.
Abandoning the "imminent" attack claim also means that the administration is trying to lower the bar for carrying out future strikes
against Iran and its proxies. Ryan Goodman points this out in his
analysis of the administration's statements:
The absence of an imminent threat is relevant not only to the legal and policy basis for the strike on Jan. 2. It is also relevant
for potential future military action. The administration's position appears to boil down to an assertion that it can use military
force against Iran without going to Congress even if responding to a threat from Iran that is not urgent or otherwise imminent.
In short, Trump and his officials want to make it easier for them to commit acts of war against both Iran and Iraqi militias.
Trying to distort the 2002 Iraq war AUMF to cover the assassination of an Iranian official just because he happened to be in Iraq
at the time is ridiculous. Congress passed the disgraceful 2002 AUMF to give George W. Bush approval to attack and overthrow the
Iraqi government. That did not and does not give later presidents carte blanche to use force in Iraq in perpetuity whenever they
feel like it. The fact that they are resorting to such an obviously absurd argument shows that they know they don't have a leg to
stand on. The Soleimani strike was illegal and unconstitutional, and there is not really any question about it. The administration's
own justification condemns them.
The president's lawlessness in matters of war underscores why it is necessary for Congress to reassert its proper constitutional
role. The Senate
passed S.J.Res. 68, the Tim Kaine-sponsored war powers resolution, by a vote of 55-45 to make clear that the president does not
have authorization for any further military action against Iran:
In a bipartisan rebuke of President Trump on Thursday, a Senate majority voted 55 to 45 to block the president from taking
further military action against Iran -- unless first authorized by Congress. Eight GOP senators joined every Democrat to protest
the president's decision to kill a top Iranian commander without complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The president has already said that he will veto the resolution, just as he vetoed the antiwar Yemen resolution last year. He
is proving once again beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no respect for the Constitution or Congress' role in matters of war.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in this and why nobody is taking that route, given that the US has signed the UN Charter,
to get a judicial review and sanction of president's actions?
I posted this on an earlier thread, but it is relevant here.
I have been a working full time in Emergency Medicine for over 20 years. I was a "Flight Surgeon" in the Army. Soldiers are
notorious for playing up any combat related injury in order to qualify for disability and the financial benefits that flow from
being categorized as being disabled. As far as we know, the most serious claimed injuries were "concussions." As a practicing
specialist in Emergency Medicine, I can explain that the diagnosis of "concussion" means, by definition, that no abnormality is
seen on CT scanning of the brain. The diagnosis is made based on the injured person's purely subjective complaints, i.e. whatever
the allegedly injured person says. If the allegedly injured person says the right things, then a physician may call the symptoms
that of a concussion.
So, ultimately, a soldier would be diagnosed with a concussion because the soldier (who has financial benefits to gain) says
so, and a physician does not dispute it.
I have seen hundreds if not thousands of diagnoses of "concussion". That diagnosis does not have to be supported by any specific
findings or even a proper understanding of the diagnosis. It simply has to be entered in the record by a licensed physician. Once
that diagnosis is on the medical record, it is up to subsequent providers to refute that diagnosis if they desire to do so.
This is something subsequent providers are very unlikely to want to dedicate the time and effort required to accomplish. There
is usually no financial or professional incentive to do so – often the opposite. There is no specific test to definitively say
one way or the other if a person had a "concussion". Like PTSD it is a "functional" diagnosis based mainly on subjective symptoms
and not objective test results. This is not to say such things do not exist. They do exist. It is only to say that they can be
faked or misinterpreted and that will happen if there is a financial incentive to do so.
@The Scalpel I'm sure your assessment is accurate, and is symptomatic of a much more general problem affecting the axis of
medicine, insurance, pharma, and state pension systems (military or civilian), not to mention all corporations and agencies to
various degrees.
When doctors' medical opinions are considered sacrosanct and sufficient to secure payouts, excuse time off from work, and add
one's name to the list of medically "made men," they are certain to be pursued like bounty on the high seas. No small number of
doctors are content to play along with this system, as it secures a steady stream of income for them as well. Foreign doctors,
who are often perfectly comfortable with graft and fraud, are especially bad in this regard.
Employers are left with no recourse except to eat the cost of malingering employees and ever swelling pension rolls, which
no employeer can long afford at the micro level and which society itself cannot afford at the macro level.
Another complicating factor is added by the cultural obsession with business efficiency. When the VA scandal broke in 2014,
a lot of people were upset by the thought that veterans were receiving shoddy care and insisted that "more must be done," not
realizing that this very insistance was at the root of the problem. I said at the time that the real lesson here was that the
VA had been "Six-Sigma'ed" by incompetent management who demanded faster claims processing and unrealistic expenditure reductions.
These schizophrenic cultural trends -- viz. , on the one hand, greater and greater demands for doles by an aging and
sickening population; and, on the other hand, the feckless attempts to mitigate the very real unaffordability of this by an oligarchic
business philosophy that knows only how to downsize, offshore, and automate based on a naive reliance on the dubious benefits
of technology -- are going to culminate in an epic breakdown of social functioning over the next decade.
@The Scalpel Perhaps you need to return to medical school for a refresher. A "concussion" may, or may not, be seen as an abnormality,
usually subdural haematoma, on a CT scan. The reason for requesting the CT scan would be from the patient reported complaints,
but also from the objective medical examination for things like pupils and reaction. Radiation is not good for you. If you are
ordering CT scans before examination, you've got it backwards.
There are no causalities you guys over estimate the steadfastness of the US military.
Purple heart = disability cheque.
No one can disprove a concussion.
And that's the real embarrassment that the Pentagon is trying to hide.
These guys (US forces) teach other how to fake PTSD to get on disability. I've seen it countless times in Western armed forces.
Its how I know Iran will never be invaded or even bombed back to the stone age. You have to have balls for that and clearly the
West and Israel have none. (Bush invaded Iraq on the premise of an empty vial; the Iranian counterattack was a legit no-shit missile
attack on US forces and . NOTHING HAPPENED).
As for reality I have colleagues who are so disconnected from international politics that reality (past their 9-5 job) means
nothing. Reality won't kick in until it comes home to bite them in the ass. It's that simple. A programmer who does nothing for
10 years but play games and write software, what does he care about causalities in Iraq? Seriously. For him that was a 20 second
twitter feed which entertained him on his way to work and that's it.
@Curmudgeon Perhaps you have heard the old proverb, "It is best to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect you are ignorant,
than to open it and prove to people that you are ignorant"
A subdural hematoma is (let me say this slowly for you) a sudural hematoma. A concussion is (again slowly) a concussion. They
are two separate diagnoses.
Pretty good chance you don't know what these codes mean. If not, there is this thing called Google. Look it up.
"things like pupils and reaction"
WTF? I think you might be trying to describe testing for pupils being reactive to light (the normal state of affairs.) Abnormally
reactive pupils are not required for the diagnosis of concussion and, in fact, are not usually present.
Radiation is not good for you. If you are ordering CT scans before examination, you've got it backwards.
That, in fact, is all true. What is not true is that I made any sort of suggestion at all to order tests before an exam. You
need to lay off the hash pipe.
FYI:
Concussion: A concussion is a type of brain injury. It is a short loss of normal brain function in response to a head injury.
Concussions are a common type of sports injury. You can also suffer from one if you suffer a blow to the head or hit your head
after a fall. After a concussion, you may have a
headache or neck pain. You may also experience nausea, ringing in your ears, dizziness, or tiredness. You may feel dazed
or not your normal self
All these symptoms are subjective, i.e. they are basically what the patient reports – truthfully or not.
FWIW, I have found the most reliable symptom in diagnosing concussion is short term memory loss. The patient asks the same
question over and over as if he never got an answer.
@The Scalpel I'm well aware of what a CT is, I was doing them more than 40 years ago, likely before you were in med school.
I know what a concussion is, I've had one, and went through the examination. If you actually read my response, I did not say that
every concussion resulted in a subdural haematoma.
Patient reaction includes memory loss. Dizziness is what a patient reports. Of course what patients report is subjective, just
as pain tolerance is, but it doesn't invalidate them.
I never said or implied that you did not know what a CT scan is. I think I get it now. You really are a curmudgeon (as in elderly)
and your cognitive abilities are flagging. I am sorry for being rude earlier. As you may recall, the point being made was that
a simple concussion is not visible on CT scan. A subdural hematoma is visible – as well as many other traumatic brain injuries,
. A concussion is not visible. Subjective complaints are not invalid. They are as honest as the person making the complaint.
@The Scalpel Are you suggesting that The Greatest Fighting Force in the Galaxy in All of History, the military of the world's
Exceptional Nation, is riddled with grifters?
"... However, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed in his report that the dossier was used in the Obama administration's 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As stated in the IG report, there were discussions by top intelligence officials as to whether the Steele dossier should be included in the ICA report. ..."
"... But upon careful inspection of Horowitz's report, on page 179, investigators ask former FBI Director James Comey if he discussed the dossier with Brennan and whether or not it should be given to President Obama. According to the report, Comey told investigators that Brennan said it was "important" enough to include in the ICA -- clearly part of the "corpus of intelligence information" they had. ..."
"... "Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result -- and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said." ..."
"... Brennan's assessment stated that Putin wanted to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." It also stated that Putin "developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." ..."
"... Durham's investigation appear to have many tentacles. For example, he has expanded his probe to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. According to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com he is carefully scrutinizing money paid through the office to former FBI confidential informant Cambridge academic Stefan Halper. Halper, who worked in previous U.S. administrations and is an academic, is connected to three of President Donald Trump's campaign officials that were wrapped up into the FBI's probe, most notably Carter Page. ..."
"... Halper, along with others such as former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, founded the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, in England at Cambridge University. According to several sources, Durham has questioned officials at the Office of Net Assessment about Halper's contracts, how the money was utilized and what agency actually awarded the contract. ..."
"... Durham's criminal investigation into the FBI , CIA, as well as private entities is ongoing. Known by its acronym ONA, the secretive office is run by Director James Baker, who has been in the role since being appointed by the Obama Administration in 2015. In a January letter to Baker, Grassley asks a litany of questions as to Halper's role within ONA, his contracts, his foreign contacts and whether the FBI, or CIA, used the ONA office to pay Halper for spying on Trump campaign personnel. ..."
"... "Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia," Grassley asks Baker. ..."
"... Ironically, documents obtained by SaraACarter.com suggest that during Halper's tenure with the seminar, he had also invited senior Russian intelligence officials to co-teach his course on several occasions. Further, according to news reports, he also accepted money to finance the course from a top Russian oligarch with ties to Putin. ..."
"... Several course syllabi from 2012 and 2015 obtained by this outlet reveal Hapler had invited and co-taught his course on intelligence with the former Director of Russian Intelligence Gen. I. Vyacheslav Trubnikov. ..."
"... However, there is evidence that Halper had similar sources to former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier. Based on hand written notes from an interview the State Department's Kathleen Kavalec states two of Steele's dossier sources; "Trubnikov" and "Surkov." ..."
U.S. Attorney John Durham – charged with the criminal probe into the FBI's Russia
investigation of the Trump campaign – has been questioning CIA officials closely involved
with John
Brennan's 2017 intelligence community assessment regarding direct Russian interference in
the 2016 election, according to U.S. officials.
In May 2017, Brennan denied during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence that its agency relied on the now debunked Christopher Steele dossier for the
Intelligence Community Assessment report. He told then Congressman Trey Gowdy "we didn't"
use the Steele dossier.
"It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had," Brennan
stated.
"It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment that was
done. It was -- it was not."
However, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed in his report that the dossier was
used in the Obama administration's 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As stated in
the IG report, there were discussions by top intelligence officials as to whether the Steele
dossier should be included in the ICA report.
But upon careful inspection of Horowitz's report, on page 179, investigators ask former
FBI Director James Comey if he discussed the dossier with Brennan and whether or not it should
be given to President Obama. According to the report, Comey told investigators that Brennan
said it was "important" enough to include in the ICA -- clearly part of the "corpus of
intelligence information" they had.
According to a recent report by The New York Times, Durham's probe is specifically looking
at that January 2017 intelligence community assessment, which concluded with "high confidence" that
Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016."
"Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director
John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular
result -- and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest
they interfere with that goal, the people said."
Sources with knowledge have said CIA officials questioned by Durham's investigative team
"are extremely concerned with the investigation and the direction it's heading."
Brennan's assessment stated that Putin wanted to "undermine public faith in the U.S.
democratic process, denigrate former Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her
electability and potential presidency." It also stated that Putin "developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump."
But not everyone agreed with Brennan. The NSA then under retired Adm. Mike Rogers stated it
only had "moderate confidence" that Putin tried to help Trump's election. As stated in the
New York times Durham is investigating whether Brennan was keeping other intelligence
agencies out of the loop to keep his narrative that Putin was helping Trump's campaign
public.
"I wouldn't call it a discrepancy, I'd call it an honest difference of opinion between
three different organizations, and, in the end, I made that call," Rogers
told the Senate in May 2017.
"It didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources."
According to The Times Durham is reviewing emails from the CIA, FBI, and National Security
Agency analysts who worked on the January, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russia's
interference in the election.
Durham's office could not be reached for comment. DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec also could
not be reached for comment.
However, Brennan told MSNBC's "Hardball" last week,
that Durham's questioning is dangerous.
"It's kind of silly," he said.
"Is there a criminal investigation now on analytic judgments and the activities of C.I.A.
in terms of trying to protect our national security? I'm certainly willing to talk to Mr.
Durham or anybody else who has any questions about what we did during this period of 2016
."
Durham And FBI Spy Stefan Halper
Durham's investigation appear to have many tentacles. For example, he has expanded his
probe to the Pentagon's
Office of Net Assessment. According to sources who spoke to SaraACarter.com he is carefully
scrutinizing money paid through the office to former FBI confidential informant Cambridge
academic Stefan Halper. Halper, who worked in previous U.S. administrations and is an academic,
is connected to three of President Donald Trump's campaign officials that were wrapped up into
the FBI's probe, most notably Carter
Page.
Halper, along with others such as former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, founded the
Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, in England at Cambridge University. According to several
sources, Durham has questioned officials at the Office of Net Assessment about Halper's
contracts, how the money was utilized and what agency actually awarded the contract.
Further, Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is also
investigating the over $1 million in contracts Halper received from the ONA, as
first reported at SaraACarter.com. It is, of course, a separate investigation from Durham's
but on the same issues.
The Office Of Net Assessment, according to sources with knowledge, is sometimes used as a
front to pay contractors, like Halper, who are conducting work for U.S. intelligence agencies.
It is for this reason, that Durham is investigating the flow of money that Halper received and
whether or not agencies other than the FBI were involved in the investigation into Trump's
campaign and whether or not, the contracts were accurately accounted for in the reports
received by Grassley.
Durham's criminal investigation
into the FBI , CIA, as well as private entities is ongoing. Known by its acronym ONA, the
secretive office is run by Director James Baker, who has been in the role since being appointed
by the Obama Administration in 2015. In a January letter to Baker, Grassley asks a litany of
questions as to Halper's role within ONA, his contracts, his foreign contacts and whether the
FBI, or CIA, used the ONA office to pay Halper for spying on Trump campaign personnel.
"Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DoD to
recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked
theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia," Grassley asks Baker.
But it is Halper's role overseas and concern that the CIA may have been involved that is
leading to more questions than answers. In 2016, in what appeared to be an unexpected move,
Halper left the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. He
told papers in London – at the time – that it was due to "unacceptable Russian
influence."
Ironically, documents obtained by SaraACarter.com suggest that during Halper's tenure with the
seminar, he had also invited senior Russian intelligence officials to co-teach his course on
several occasions. Further, according to news reports, he also accepted money to finance the
course from a top Russian oligarch with ties to Putin.
Several course syllabi from 2012 and 2015 obtained by this outlet reveal Hapler had
invited and co-taught his course on intelligence with the former Director of Russian
Intelligence Gen. I. Vyacheslav Trubnikov.
Moreover, the New York Times recent report suggests that Durham's probe into Brennan is also
looking closely at an alleged secret source said to have direct ties to the Kremlin. It is not
certain if the same secret Kremlin source discussed by Brennan is the same source used by
Halper in his reports.
However, there is evidence that Halper had similar sources to former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele, who compiled the dossier. Based on hand written notes from an interview the State
Department's Kathleen Kavalec states two of Steele's dossier sources; "Trubnikov" and
"Surkov."
Interesting, isn't it.
Surkov is Vladislav Surkov, an aide of Vladimir Putin who is on the U.S.'s list of
sanctioned individuals, and Trubnikov is none other than Vyacheslav Trubnikov. Trubnikov was
the First Deputy of Foreign Minister of Russia and he formally served as the Director of
Foreign Intelligence Service. He is also a source of Halper.
Actions of Trump are dictated by his
handlers. He is just a marionette.
Notable quotes:
"... wealth on tap. ..."
"... There's more than an echo of McCartthism in this -- policies are championed to further the business and ideological interests of powerful individuals that don't necessarily reflect the priorities and interests of the country as a whole. People, often those who really should know better, then bandwaggon on those policies, not only to avoid being labeled unpatriotic but to also prove that they're just as or even more patriotic than the people originally promulgating them. We've seen this time and again, probably the most egregious recent example being the miasma of lies that were used to invade Iraq. Its a mindset that might appear to work but I believe that its ultimately a road to nowhere. ..."
During every presidential election cycle, pundits argue that foreign policy will play a decisive role. Every time -- at least
in my experience of 14 election cycles, nine in campaigns -- they have been proved wrong. This year will almost surely be no different.
On the hustings, presidential candidates rarely get questions from voters on foreign policy. However, during the
televised debates , journalist-questioners looking to make news quiz candidates on what they might do in thus-and-so circumstance,
although they can't possibly know until faced in the Oval Office with real-world choices.
Election Campaign Damage: Israel and Palestine
By contrast, presidential campaigns often have a serious impact on U.S. national security interests. This year, three foreign
policy issues tightly linked to U.S. domestic politics stand out. First, last week, Trump joined with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu at the White House to launch the "
deal of the century
" on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The deal is so one-sided as to be risible and is " dead on arrival." It's good politics
for Trump with U.S. constituencies that are strongly pro-Israel, though with less impact with American Jews (most of whom are almost
certain to vote for the Democratic nominee) than with many American evangelicals.
But does it matter that, with Trump's proposal, the United States has abandoned any pretense of being an " honest broker" in the
Middle East? To be sure, keen observers rightly note that most Arab governments give no more than ritual support to the Palestinian
cause. Many have joined Israel in seeing Iran as their common enemy, and the Palestinians be damned.
But most Arab leaders still must look over their shoulders: can they be sure that their populations will forget about the Palestinians'
decades-long perception of humiliation by Israel, the United States, and most Arab leaders? Thus, to guard against giving a hostage
to fortune, both the
Arab League
and the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIG) have formally rejected the Trump plan.
Still, a third Palestinian Intifada (or "uprising") has so far not started. But these are early days. In any event, U.S. chances
of promoting stability in the region have been seriously damaged.
Damage: Iran
More consequential is the standoff between the Trump administration and Iran ' s clerical leadership, with the U.S. being egged
on by regional partners. Trump
probably does not want an open war with Iran. But heightened tensions raise doubts that either Trump or the Iranians can control
the pattern of escalation/de-escalation. Little would be needed to spark a major conflict, even by accident. After the United States
assassinated
Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, Iran
responded only by launching pin-prick missile attacks against two Iraqi airbases used by the U.S. military, with advanced warning
to keep from killing Americans. Trump -- and the world -- might not be so lucky next time.
It takes strong nerves to bet that the Trump administration ' s " maximum pressure" strategy against Iran will remain
controlled , much less that Iran will accede to U.S. demands before negotiations even begin. Meanwhile, following Trump ' s amazing
folly two years ago of
withdrawing from the
Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA), which effectively trammeled any chance that Iran could get nuclear weapons for at least a decade, Iran
is now ramping up its nuclear activities. Given that Trump has
pledged that " Iran will
never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," at some point a " red line" can get crossed, not just in politics-driven perceptions
but in reality. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo still has on the table
12
demands that Iran must meet before any negotiations can begin. No country will accept unconditional surrender as the opening
bid for talking.
Several of the Democratic candidates for president, while deeply concerned about Iran's behavior,
oppose the Trump-Pompeo approach, with all of the risks of open conflict. Amid deep unease on Capitol Hill, the Democratic-controlled
House has voted to repeal the 2002 Authorization
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), originally the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq, and to prevent funding of military action
against Iran without congressional authorization. (Yet neither House bill has much chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate.)
But these concerns could be swept aside if an incident in the Persian Gulf region led to Americans getting killed, provoking a national
outcry. So long as Trump favors confrontation with Iran over any consideration of compromise or conciliation, the dangers will continue.
"Hair trigger" continues to be an apt metaphor.
Damage: The Democrats on Russia
It's not just the White House that is doing serious damage to U.S. interests abroad during this year's election campaign. Of even
greater consequence (absent a new Middle East war) is the U.S. relationship with Russia. It's currently unthinkable that Washington
will try to move beyond the status quo, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin were prepared to do so. Even before Trump was inaugurated,
many Democrats began calling for his
impeachment . Leading Democrats
laid
Hillary Clinton ' s defeat at the feet of Russian interference in the U.S. election -- a claim that stretched credulity past
the breaking point. Further, as Democrats looked for grounds to impeach Trump (or at least terminally to reduce his reelection chances),
the " Russia factor" was the best cudgel available. Charges included the
notion that " Putin has something on Trump," which
presumes he would sell out the nation ' s security for a mess of pottage.
All this domestic politicking ignores a geopolitical fact: while the Soviet Union lost the Cold War and, for some time thereafter,
Russia could be dismissed, it was always certain that it would again become a significant power, at least in Europe. Thus, even before
the Berlin Wall fell, President George H. W. Bush proposed
creating a " Europe whole and free" and at peace. Bill Clinton built on what Bush began. Both understood that a renascent Russia
could embrace revanchism, and for several years their efforts seemed to have a chance of succeeding.
Then the effort went off the rails. Putin took power in Russia, which made cooperation with the West difficult if not impossible.
He worked to consolidate his domestic position, in part by alleging that the West was " disrespecting" Russia and trying to encircle
it. For its part, the U.S. played into the Putin narrative by abandoning the Bush-Clinton vision of taking legitimate Russian interests
into account in fashioning European security arrangements. The breaking point came in 2014, when Russia
seized Crimea and sent
" little green men" to fight in some other parts of Ukraine. The West necessarily responded, with economic
sanctions and NATO's
buildup of " trip wire" forces in Central Europe.
But despite the ensuing standoff, the critical requirement remains: the United States has to acknowledge Russia's inevitable rise
as a major power while also impressing on Putin the need to trim his ambitions, if he is to avoid a new era of Russian isolation.
There is also serious business that the two countries need to pursue, including strategic arms control, the Middle East (especially
Iran), and climate change. Despite deep disagreements, including over Ukraine and parts of Central Europe, the U.S. needs to engage
in serious discussions with Russia, which means the renewal of diplomacy which has been in the deep freeze for years.
All of this has been put in pawn by the role that the "Russia factor" has been permitted to play in American presidential politics,
especially by Democrats. Longer-term U.S. interests are suffering, along with those of the European allies and Middle East partners.
The task has been made even more difficult by those U.S. politicians,
think tanks , and
journalists who
prefer to resurrect the term "cold war" rather than clearly examining the nation's strategic needs because of the blinkers imposed
by domestic politics. Open discussion about alternatives in dealing with Russia is thus stifled, at serious cost to the United States
and others.
In all three of these areas, the U.S. is paying a high price in terms of its national interests to the games political leaders,
both Republicans and Democrats, are playing. Great efforts will be needed to dig out of this mess, beginning with U.S. willingness
to do so. Leaders elsewhere must also be prepared to join in -- far from a sure thing! Unfortunately, there is currently little hope
that, at least in the three critical areas discussed above, pursuit of U.S. interests abroad will prevail over today's parochial
domestic politics. David G. Horsman
You apparently
do not appreciate these sociopaths live for this crap. It keeps their juices flowing. Cackling Killary may yet get on Stop and Frisk
your Bloomer's ticket and be VP. For a price of course.
This is a fantasy. Once fascism gets established it is nearly impossible to stop it if history teaches us anything.
Pseudo-religious talk about Karma is very reminiscent of the decent Christians comforting themselves that all those badies will be
punished in hell for an eternity. IE. Because they won't be in this life.
It's a way of coping with total defeat after 50 years of neoliberalcon supremacy and proto fascism. After a 100 year war on labour.
It's already over. What do think this is? France
?
I don't fight fascism because I believe we will win. It's because they are fascist. And we know who has all the guns.
Gezzah Potts
How many human
beings have now died as a result of the draconian sanctions unleashed on the Venezuelan people by this rogue terrorist state?
I also wonder how the people of Detroit are faring considering 33.4% live below the poverty line, or in Cleveland where 35% live
in poverty.
And yet Trump brags of defending 'American liberty' (oxymoron) by spending $2.2 trillion dollars in maintaining the hegemony of this
debauched Empire.
Yet, in the land of the free (another oxymoron) vast swathes of people live in poverty or live in their cars, or in the burgeoning
tent cities.
How's the water in Flint? Is it still undrinkable?
As if any of the creatures in Washington care about any of this. Anything to maintain control over much of the Planet. Tim Jenkins
And with the
highest incarcerated prison population and highest record in private prison profits in California, most recent, it seems the solution
to corporate 'societal' wealth is to have 50,000 homeless on the streets in L.A. , just 'hanging' around, the corner . . .
wealth on tap.
(datsa' rap trap 😉 ) 5 0 Reply Feb 16, 2020 9:24 AM
Gezzah Potts
Just watched
John Pilger's searing documentary 'The Dirty War On The NHS' which included segments on the wondrously caring and compassionate US
'health system' in places like Chicago and such quaint notions as 'patient dumping' where, to further save costs, and make more billions
$$$$ patients are evicted from hospitals early and dumped at homeless shelters.
My god, the barbarians are not just at the gate. They're already inside the building.
These completely dehumanised psychopathic neoliberal ideologues who only care about money and profits.
More and more for us and all you useless eaters can just fuck off and die.
That's the mentality. It's so sick.
No, that wasn't a pun. It is truly sick how warped society has become. Seamus Padraig
Despite the turmoil Trump has experienced since 2016, it has been his karmic responsibility to grow from those challenges,
to use each obstacle as a path to align with a higher vibration and become a more conscious person, fully aware of his global
responsibility to humanity that has not appeared to have happened.
What appears to have happened is that Trump finally caved in to the Deep State, and that's why things are going better for him.
I am starting to suspect we may see a war against Iran in Term II.
Pelosi and the Dems have also created 'bad' karma with their own abuse of power; they too will reap the results of their own
behavior.
What they're gonna reap is more Trump after next November! Martin Usher
There's more
than an echo of McCartthism in this -- policies are championed to further the business and ideological interests of powerful individuals
that don't necessarily reflect the priorities and interests of the country as a whole. People, often those who really should know
better, then bandwaggon on those policies, not only to avoid being labeled unpatriotic but to also prove that they're just as or
even more patriotic than the people originally promulgating them. We've seen this time and again, probably the most egregious recent
example being the miasma of lies that were used to invade Iraq. Its a mindset that might appear to work but I believe that its ultimately
a road to nowhere.
I'm less concerned about the current emphasis on military spending than I would have been in the past because I sincerely doubt
the ability of the US to carry through on these plans. The writing's been on the wall for some time and they can certainly spend
the money but the chronic shortage of engineering talent, the systematic shortchanging of education and our steady erosion of manufacturing
knowhow will limit our ability to turn political wishful thinking into reality. Sure, we'll still be able to produce boutique products,
eye-wateringly expensive munitions that we can use to intimidate people who can't shoot back, but we're already in an era where serious
cost overruns and performance deficiencies are the rule rather than the exception. This problem has been brewing for a generation
or more and it will take a generation or more to fix it. Unfortunately our politicians are still living in the reflected glory of
past empires, they seem to be unable to recognize that WW2 was 75 years ago, so I expect we'll stumble along business as usual alienating
more and more people until all we have left are those we can buy with our increasingly useless dollars.
It seems that history is about to repeat. The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters
evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar
scenes in Iraq.
A final warning has been issued to US troops there – 40 days after Soleimanis
assassination – the Resistance is ready to move, an irresistible force about to meet a
not so immovable object.
Along with Idlib and Allepo its been amazing start to 2020. And its not even spring!
Looking at various indices like median household income and average wage, it seems as if living standards in Russia are substantially
below western European levels and even slightly below central Europe. (Estonia and Poland are consistently slightly higher, Hungary
often a bit lower.) Compared to China, going by the same sources and others, Russian wages are roughly twice as high as China's
That creates separatist movements within the country, including Islamist movements in Muslim-dominated regions.
So their posture is strictly defensive, and probably is not much more than a mild defensive reaction to "Full-spectrum Dominance"
doctrine and the aggressive foreign policy conducted by the USA neocons (which totally dominate NSC and the State Department, as
we saw from Ukrainegate testimonies)
The USA coup d'tat in Ukraine actually have a blowback for the USA -- it neutralized influence and political status of Russia
neoliberal fifth column (neoliberal compradors), and if not Putin (who is paradoxically a pro-Western neoliberal; although of "national
neoliberalism" flavor similar to Trumpism ) some of them probably would be now hanging from the lamp posts. They are really hated
by population after hardships, comparable with WWII hardships, imposed on ordinary Russian during Western-enforced neoliberalization
under marionette Yeltsin government and attempt to grab Russian resources for pennies on a dollar. "Marshall plan" for Russia instead
of economic rape would be a much better policy.
I think Obama-Nuland plot to turn Ukraine into the USA vassal state was yet another very dangerous move, which hurts the USA national
security and greatly increased chances of military confrontation with Russia (aka mutual annihilation)
It was worse then a crime, it was a blunder. And now the USA needs to support this vassal with money we do not have.
The role of NSC in militarizing the USA foreign policy is such that it neutralizes any impulses of any US administration (if we
assume they exist) to improve relations with Russia.
Neoliberal Dems now is a second war party which bet on neo-McCarthyism to weaken Trump. They went into the complete status of
psychosis in this area. I view it as a psychotic reaction to the first signs of the collapse of the USA-centered global neoliberal
empire (which will happen anyway independently of Russian moves)
That's actually a very dangerous situation indeed, and I am really afraid that the person who will replace Putin will not have
Putin steel nerves, diplomatic talent, and the affinity with the West. Then what ? another Sarajevo and another war?
With warmongering "raptured" crazies like Mike, "we killed up to 200 Russians" Pompeo, the situation can really become explosive
like before WWI. Again, after Putin leaves the political scene, the Sarajevo incident is easy to stage, especially with such incompetent
marionette of the military-industrial complex like Trump at the helm.
I believe antagonizing Russia was a reckless, very damaging to the USA interest move, the move initiated by Clinton administration
and supported by all subsequent administration as weakening and possibly dismembering Russia is one of the key aspect of Full Spectrum
Dominance doctrine. . And we will pay a huge price for this policy.
See also Professor Stephen Cohen books on the subject.
Why do you pose this as antagonizing either Russsia or Iran? They are somewhat allied, so in fact antagonizing Iran as we are
doing also antagonizes Russia.
Likbez,
The relative economic position of Russia in terms of median income is no different today than it was 30 years ago before Yeltsin,
except for the rise of China. It was behind the European nations to its west, both those that were under its domination and those
that were not, and it still is. So no big deal.
And somehow you have this fantasy that if it were not for Obama-Nuland, Ukrainians would just loooove to be under Russian
domination.
f you think this, you ser both foolish and very ignorant.
likbez February 16, 2020 10:30 pm
And somehow you have this fantasy that if it were not for Obama-Nuland, Ukrainians would just loooove to be under Russian
domination. f you think this, you ser both foolish and very ignorant.
I might well be foolish and ignorant (I am far from being the specialist in the region), but I suspect Ukrainians do prefer
the exchange rate ~8.5 hrivnas to a dollar (before the coup) to the current 25 hrivnas to a dollar.
Especially taking into account stagnant salaries and actual parity of prices in dollars for many types of food (especially
meat), industrial products, and services between the USA and Ukraine.
I recently talked with one Ukrainian woman who told me that the "bribe" (unofficial payments due to low salaries for doctors
and nurses in state clinics) for the child delivery was $1000 in Kiev in 2014 and she gave birth exactly at the time when hrivna
jumped from 8.5 to over 20 per dollar. That was a tragedy for her and her family.
And please remember that the average SS pension in Ukraine is around 1500 hrivna a month (~ $60). So to me, it is completely
unclear how pensioners can survive at all while the government is buying super expensive American weapons "to defend the country
from Russian aggression."
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the
Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their
foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to
this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against
Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and
Iran.
When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED
STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"
How should one analyze this?
Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based,
ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not
only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.
There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world.
But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the
specific conditions in the individual country and region.
Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the
product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of
what the peoples themselves have wanted.
During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create
a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that
had strong popular support at the time.
King Abdallah I
of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and
Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted
to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics
.
In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called
the Arab Federation
. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a
state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish
state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.
Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state
of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur
Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration
, which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people."
But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites
for success or failure?
The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power
relations between them
Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism
– the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of
the era of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The
merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
"finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the
export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international
monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial
division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least
because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.
After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative
strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a
redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as
Lenin states :
The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the
other?"
The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships
between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism
lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had
the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not
once, but twice.
Versailles and Yalta
The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of
the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the
Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor
treaties.
Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)
This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:
At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the
Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how
Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was
envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.
Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as
"a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both
the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.
The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union
fell
In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers.
The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport
routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves
according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.
If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void.
Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the
fear of empty space.
And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet
Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was
broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for
re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all
the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.
Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål
Steigan, 1999
"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either
part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality
collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty
space.
This laid the foundation for the American
Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian
continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been
the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine,
and Syria.
The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO
eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part
of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with
Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop
until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.
So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and
there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What
creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism.
The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger
markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.
The results of two terrible wars are
again up for grabs
World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many
wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are
approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are
talking about this order of magnitude.
The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below
100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.
Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer
"the void". Donald Trump
recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8
trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new
distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.
"The Rebellion against
Sykes-Picot"
In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to
appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the
artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these
borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for
these boundaries to be revised now?
In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the
Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to
bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning
Iraq.
Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the
entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to
dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.
It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders
from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are
initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater
game.
This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.
Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the
Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of
Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an
extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in
their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.
Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after
Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.
The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003,
helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich
north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that
was their tool in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also
undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States.
And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali
admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .
And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide
Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil.
What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".
As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27
percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD
invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States
to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.
Preparations for a New World War
Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as
much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area,
which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social
movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive
training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.
There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move
will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and
maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.
The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will
require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen
without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.
And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about
100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it.
The Kurdish question is not worth that much.
This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social
and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle
East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company.
The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the
United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.
It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of
national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was
France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to
Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and
internal self rule.
All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the
battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid
the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a
hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more
details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had
created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)
Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to
support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March
in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind
it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to
arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be
developed.
And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and
Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this
project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely
multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police
under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.
The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to
be seen.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
George Mc ,
Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:
The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage
No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What
more could they do?
Dungroanin ,
Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae-
phobe.
The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in
the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.
Ready?
'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of
Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann
and his colleagues:
"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as
the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which
the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."
Got that – AUGUST?
Dungroanin ,
The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim
Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained
an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the
Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including
David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
Dungroanin ,
Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner
Signatories
Arthur James Balfour
Recipient
Walter Rothschild
Dungroanin ,
'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of
the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in
Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of
a Jewish state. '
Dungroanin ,
'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third
practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would
become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was
an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not
ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:
Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that
Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious
community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '
Dungroanin ,
'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed
that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly
by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'
Dungroanin ,
The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who
therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage
back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was
not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.
According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical
grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most
part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be
imagined."
And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman
[Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"
Dungroanin ,
Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:
'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord
Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed
draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the
rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the
government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of
what they, too, regarded as their homeland.
After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and
accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President
Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31
October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who
could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had
been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he
stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the
world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to
such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and
America."
This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM,
daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another
telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian
and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did
not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'
Dungroanin ,
Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:
'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and
Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'
Dungroanin ,
The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter,
even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in
potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their
"best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people".
Dungroanin ,
There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to
invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the
ages – Money and Power.
George Mc ,
the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.
If this is true then we are all doomed.
Dungroanin ,
Not if we are aware of it George.
Dungroanin ,
Ok a summary fom Brittanica:
'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts
The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum
Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had
asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration
specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however,
said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to
them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and
seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).
The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially
in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during
World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a
pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in
neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial
possessions in India.
The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in
the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations
on July 24, 1922.
In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a
limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident
Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.
Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was
made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of
Israel in 1948.'
Dungroanin ,
But what about the timing?
Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.
'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful
because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914.
For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against
a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains
in the Levant and the Middle East.
The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal,
Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French
forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British
assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in
the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.
In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western
Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare
Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly
entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and
illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day
Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much
of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '
Dungroanin ,
The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a
miasma of blatant lies.
IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :
Can we follow the money?
When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?
When was the first world war started?
When did US declare war?
When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?
What happened in Russia at the same time?
And in Mesopotamia?
How did it end?
How did it fail to end?
What happened to the contract?
Etc.
I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.
Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient
tracks.
Dungroanin ,
'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.
7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist
archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had
made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza
9 November Letter published in Times.
Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing
footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with
Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near
East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts
of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got
wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if
successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to
contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"
End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price,
was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at
the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had
an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to
carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this,
Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British
protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.
11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '
So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?
The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not
the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade
financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United
States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports
were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers'
acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type
of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of
goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a
bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open
foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions
Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to
ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.
The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which
cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.
On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be
formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have
Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards
of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..
The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national
currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to
hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.
World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened
for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as
on the Federal Reserve.
War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by
European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves,
and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing
share of world trade.
Dungroanin ,
So the denouement :
It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost
the US banks.
However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story
is widely publicised.
Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered
by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson
(another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great
gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --
When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes,
because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they
have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism).
Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most
powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of
that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards
who are responsible for all our current malaises.
Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!
😉
George Mc ,
Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has
nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called
it). The question is: What do we do about it?
Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on
about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in
a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No
irony intended.)
Dungroanin ,
George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.
I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has
actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of
the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD
– that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human
pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to
remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on
Earth.
I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever
soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it.
That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.
I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers
seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis
of morality.
I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various
peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived
without the literal grassroots!
..
As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of
him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at
similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a
enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i
just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references
– please give a link.
-- -
As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the
verity of the facts which I have presented above?
Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.
George Mc ,
The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:
Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP
thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark
initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible
extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted
in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming
oratory.
This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the
Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that
seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this
earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews,
Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very
seriously, I think.
Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical
flavour there.
I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have
bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.
milosevic ,
images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused
by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":
.content-wrap-spp img {
filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);
}
Open ,
This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in
today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them
clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)
Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry
no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for
public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.
Open ,
Look at the language used by the americans:
On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria ,
encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .
So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian
land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land.
Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not
occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.
This language needs to be known more widely.
Open ,
The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal
presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I
recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being
pushed under wrap.
What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Joe ,
Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably
in the wider world, too.
Open ,
Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global
stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the
British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates)
the planet.
In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those
of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.
* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.
Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to
spread Chaos and Disorder.
Antonym ,
Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot
ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior
(arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .
Open ,
"srael's 1947 creation"
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians
and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.
How ligitimate is that?
Antonym ,
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans,
Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.
How ligitimate is that?
Open ,
"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."
Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove
that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.
Maggie ,
Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not
been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes
by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate. https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .
To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to
understand how this corrupt system is conducted.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of
things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.
paul ,
Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."
Antonym ,
Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the
inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like
before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.
Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations
and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by
Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the
withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect
control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's
seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls
the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water,
electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.
Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have
babies!
Richard Le Sarc ,
You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!
paul ,
Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside
world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers
shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum
dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher
explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and
picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who
are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot
ideology', Antsie.
Dungroanin ,
Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her
their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's
culture.'
From the Groaniad
How many members? How many by denomination?
As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against
its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking
powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.
History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.
Capricornia Man ,
The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is
so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it
has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power.
Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish
manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.
You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear
that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.
If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without
sensibility.
Maggie ,
A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.
paul ,
Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from
the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.
Dungroanin ,
BoD's??? Another random organisation!
Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get
elected? How can they be fired?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.
lundiel ,
Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class
uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.
Maggie ,
I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so
there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last
time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the
never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't
anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?
tonyopmoc ,
Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love
with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who
has banned me again.
It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.
"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."
Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if
either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a
blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.
She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.
We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It
is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.
We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.
Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.
Far better than Canestan.
Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.
Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.
Tony
Loverat ,
Hey Tony
Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere
have entertained me for many years.
Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.
paul ,
Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.
Dungroanin ,
Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists
invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately
after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving
8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.
Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to
dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be
killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such
private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy
of possession and control.
One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY
– and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that
cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to
mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you
torment beyond the grave.
Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted
currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted
meanings.
The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to
GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole
– is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem
to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying
– we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives
us.
The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives
to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of
our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control
or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little
that we have.
Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a
hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to
conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing
and being.
This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of
trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability –
but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.
If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus
corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.
Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing.
Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils
work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic
debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer
believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing
hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.
I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any
moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result
of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.
The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and
experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall
triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus
make it real – and remain truth.
Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and
the other as the will of true desire revealed.
The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in
the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to
do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and
transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully
defended narrative identity.
In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or
space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or
choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of
fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom
and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in
defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth,
and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.
paul ,
If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The
Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region
into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each
others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or
Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these
satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.
paul ,
George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.
At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the
people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.
They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America,
Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united,
Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed
and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at
peace.
When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral
hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated
to serve outside interests.
So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and
offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed
with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt,
which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space
to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria
sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the
Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How
contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing
that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should
anybody else?
paul ,
And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the
foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang
separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of
hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's,
to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and
drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone
Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?
Maggie ,
"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and
forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief
that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons
to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or
form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of
millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The
country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next
couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a
persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy
are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of
freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically
opposed to the idea of democracy .
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a
smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy,
acts alone.
I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring
the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump
giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to
commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single
living thing breathing.
No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!
paul ,
Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.
Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood
lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.
Loverat ,
My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't
identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a
few others.
Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses
evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is
changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they
really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.
The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds
should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see
why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These
idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their
irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in
their back garden.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie
crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is
homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.
milosevic ,
I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and
puppet regimes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious
leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the
drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the
Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the
alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the
hands of the Evil Brain Dead.
BigB ,
I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement
is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do
we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or
waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?
No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance.
Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI
is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and
commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that
elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend
or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting
evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said:
following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.
The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called
'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By
which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating.
Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform:
the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary
autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries
on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the
'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in
our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist
endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there
is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic
gestures in transference of our own responsibility.
'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular
complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically
exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential
expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to
have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible
right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer
bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to
nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old,
same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing
resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's
capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is
driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.
#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our
every enaction including speech-enactivism.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save
the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.
Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is
so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of
the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but
subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration
in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an
operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were
intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at
least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not
marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this
is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from
marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
BigB ,
Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no
exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert
the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If
nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.
I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of
only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all
agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for
other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the
entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is
it? 😉
The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily
manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.
That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to
pollute unhampered.
George Mc ,
I despair.
Well that's what you do.
Dungroanin ,
The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US
backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti
Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??
Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing
from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them,
nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still
nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?
Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be
bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!
Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing
Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!
Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck
poison spreading flies.
normal wisdom ,
so much disrespect here hare here.
these takfiri these giants these beards are hero
of the oded yinon plan
they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real
the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow
the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already
the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio
steppe
tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk
shirley you can sea more that
my life already
Francis Lee ,
Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time
have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist,
Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.
1. Control of technology.
2. Access to natural resources.
3. Finance.
4. Global media.
5. The means of mass destruction.
Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life
and death struggle for humanity.
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe
to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US
powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of
sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is
now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the
Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly
Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside
our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot
be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).
A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps
the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one
European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western
European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by
immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been
possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest
workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious
social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The
fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr
Soros.
British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were
English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very
different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled
East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English
speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.
However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic
disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10
million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the
country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern
Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates,
and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we
have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.
BigB ,
Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil
fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming
from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?
When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this.
China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a
complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no
naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot
right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.
When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the
wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.
Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying
attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism
you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and
get back to a multipolar world.
Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.
BigB ,
Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and
rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally
'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The
imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the
non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is
not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.
I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational
predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only
paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all
opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded
imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.
There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is
why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and
absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept
the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.
#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit
growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a
collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite
growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance,
human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth
stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the
capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and
Chinese etc.
They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom
line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales
pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually
believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip
mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.
The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all
their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense
which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did
Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't
stop.
Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever
developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a
turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag
chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S
missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious
and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and
then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except
maybe for a pretty blue bow.
Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and
can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.
Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the
footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan.
Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it
does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented
Soviet Union.
The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year
Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.
Frank ,
The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.
Lots and lots of dead Americans.
Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.
Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal
state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.
Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service"
squirm in literal pain at the words.
Dungroanin ,
They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of
Kinetic energy missiles.
Their low yield nuke is their response.
The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in
Syria!
I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's
with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these
imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their
heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.
And they can pay their taxes in full.
The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some
Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the
Empire is dead.
Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.
wardropper ,
Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of
bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look
into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our
invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.
All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the
Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a
commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or
barter and the bankers will eventually starve.
Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the
depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.
Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.
After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange
became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out
paper again.
wardropper ,
My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step
in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing.
How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.
This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound
interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on
the production of others through what is called "unearned income".
Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those
flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet
SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a
word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah
in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.
Antonym ,
Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing
to the Jewish superiority myth.
Ken ,
They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That
9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if
you're not sure of this.
Antonym ,
Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.
The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New
York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .
5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.
Ken ,
"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"
Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which
spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.
The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.
Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention
the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?
Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving
Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.
Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van
that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say
something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are
your problem!"?
A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat
Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating
which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was
your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but
their arrogant stupidity,
Richard Le Sarc ,
The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of
Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth
Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most
certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your
power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.
They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with
Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as
well.
Ken ,
@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept
in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in
9/11.
Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their
colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who
seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/
Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some
excellent research based on facts not fantasy.
As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some
alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.
It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually
mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise
considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate
development across of broad spectrum of leverages?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display
the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and
awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.
normal wisdom ,
what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init
Those hoping the non-interventionist cause would be given some real muscle if a couple of
oligarchs who've
made fortunes from global interventionism team up and pump millions into Washington think
tanks will be sorely disappointed by the train wreck that is the Koch/Soros alliance.
The result thus far has not been a tectonic shift in favor of a new direction, with new
faces and new ideas, but rather an opportunity for these same old Washington think tanks, now
flush with even more money, to re-brand their pet interventionisms as "restraint."
The flagship of this new alliance, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, was sold
as an earth-shattering breakthrough - an "odd couple" of "left-wing" Soros and "right-wing"
Koch boldly tossing differences aside to join together and "end the endless wars."
That organization is now up and running and it isn't pretty.
To begin with, the whole premise is deeply flawed. George Soros is no "left-winger" and Koch
is no "right-winger." It's false marketing, like the claim that drinking Diet Coke will make
you skinny. Both are globalist oligarchs who continue to
invest hundreds of millions of dollars to create the kind of world where the elites govern
with no accountability except to themselves, and " the interagency ," rather
than an elected President of the US, makes US foreign policy.
As libertarian intellectual Tom Woods once famously quipped , "No matter whom you
vote for, you always wind up getting John McCain." That is exactly the world Koch and Soros
want. It's a world of Davos with fangs, not Mainstreet, USA.
A 'New Vision'?
Anyone doubting that Quincy is just a mass re-branding effort for the same failed foreign
policies of the past two decades need look no further than that organization's first big public
event , a February 26th conference with Foreign Policy Magazine, to explore "A New Vision
for America in the World."
Like pouring old wine into new bottles, this "new vision" is being presented by the very
same people and institutions who gave us the "old vision" - you know, the one they pretend to
oppose.
How should anyone interested in restraining foreign policy - let alone actual
non-interventionism - react to the kick-off presentation of the Quincy Institute's conference,
"Perspective on U.S. Global Leadership in the 21st Century," going to disgraced US General
David Petraeus?
Petraeus is, among many other things, an architect of the disastrous and failed "surge"
policy in Iraq. He is still convinced (at least as of a few years ago) that " we won " in
Iraq...but that we dare not end the occupation lest we lose what we "won." How's that for
"restraint"?
While head of the CIA, he
teamed up with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to develop and push the brilliant
idea of directly and overtly training and equipping al-Qaeda and other jihadists to overthrow
the secular government of Bashar Assad. How's that for "restraint"?
When a
tape leaked of Fox News contributor Kathleen T. McFarland meeting with Petraeus at the
behest of then-Fox Chairman Roger Ailes to convince him to run for US president, Petraeus told
her that the CIA in his view is "a national asset...a treasure." He then went on to speak
favorably of the CIA's role in Libya.
But the absurdity of leading the conference with such an unreconstructed warmongering
interventionist is only the beginning of the trip down the Quincy conference rabbit
hole.
Rogues' Gallery of Washington's Worst
Shortly following the disgraced general is a senior official from the German Marshal Fund , Julianne Smith, to give us
"A New Vision for America's Role in the World." Her organization, readers will recall, is
responsible for some of the most egregious warmongering propaganda.
The German Marshal Fund launched and funds the Alliance for Securing Democracy , an organization
led by such notable proponents of "restraint" as neoconservative icon William Kristol, John
McCain Institute head David Kramer, Michael " Trump is an agent of
Putin " Morell, and, among others, the guy who made millions out of scaring the hell out of
Americans, former Homeland-Security-chief-turned-airport-scanner-salesman Michael Chertoff.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy was responsible for the discredited "Hamilton 68
Dashboard," a magic tool they claimed would seek and destroy "Russian bots" in the social
media. After the propaganda value of such a farce had been reaped, Alliance fellow Clint Watts
admitted the whole thing was bogus .
Moving along, so as not to cherry pick the atrocities in this conference, moderating the
section on the Middle East is one "scholar," Mehdi Hasan, who actually
sent a letter to Facebook demanding that the social media company censor more political
speech! He has attacked what he calls "free speech fundamentalists."
Joining the "Regional Spotlight: Asia-Pacific" is Patrick Cronin of the thoroughly - and
proudly - neoconservative Hudson Institute. Cronin's entire professional career consists
of position after position at the center of Washington's various "regime change" factories.
From a directorial position at the mis-named
US Institute for Peace to "third-ranking position" at the US Agency for International
Development to "senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the [ neoconservative ] Center
for a New American Security." This is a voice of "restraint"?
Later, the segment on "Ending Endless War" features at least two speakers who absolutely
oppose the idea. Rosa Brooks, Senior Fellow at the "liberal interventionist" New America
Foundation, wrote not long ago that, "There's No Such Thing as Peacetime." In the
article she argued the benefits of "abandon[ing] the effort to draw increasingly arbitrary
lines between peacetime and wartime and instead focus[ing] on developing institutions and norms
capable of protecting rights and rule-of-law values at all times." In other words, war is
endless so man up and get used to it.
This may be the key for how you end endless war. Just stop calling it "war."
Brooks' fellow panelist, Tom Wright, hails from the epicenter of liberal interventionism,
the Brookings Institution, where he is director of the "Center on the United States and
Europe." Brookings loves "humanitarian interventions" and has published pieces attempting to
convince us that the attack on
Libya was not a mistake .
Wright himself is featured in the current edition of the Council on Foreign Relations'
publication Foreign Affairs arguing that old
interventionist shibboleth that the disaster in Iraq was not caused by the US invasion, but
rather by Obama's withdrawal.
This Quincy Institute champion of "restraint" concludes his latest piece arguing that:
Now is not the time for a revolution in U.S. strategy. The United States should continue
to play a leading role as a security provider in global affairs.
How revolutionary!
The moderator of that final panel in the upcoming Quincy Institute first conference is Loren
DeJonge Schulman, a deputy director at the above-named Center for a New American Security.
Before joining that neoconservative think tank, Schulman served as Senior Advisor to National
Security Advisor Susan Rice! Among her other international crimes, readers will recall that
Rice was a chief
architect of the US attack on Libya.
Schulman's entire career is, again, in the
service of, alternatively, the war machine and the regime change machine.
The Quincy Institute's first big event, which it bills as a showcase for a new foreign
policy of "restraint," is in fact just another gathering of Washington's usual warmongers,
neocons, and "
humanitarian " interventionists.
Quincy has been received with gushing praise from people who should know better . Any of
those gushers who look at this first Quincy conference and continue to maintain that a
revolution in foreign policy is afoot are either lying to us or lying to themselves.
But
Wait...There's More!
Sadly, the fallout extends beyond just this particular new institute and this particular
event.
Those who continue to push the claim that Koch and Soros are changing their spots and now
supporting restraint and non-interventionism should be made to explain why the most egregiously
warmongering and interventionist organizations are finding themselves on the receiving end of
oligarch largese.
Just days ago a
glowing article in Politico detailed the recipients of millions of Koch dollars to promote
"restraint." Who is leading the Koch brigades in the battle for a non-interventionist,
"restrained" foreign policy?
Politico reveals:
Libertarian business tycoon Charles Koch is handing out $10 million in new grants to
promote voices of military restraint at American think tanks, part of a growing effort by
Koch to change the U.S. foreign policy conversation.
The grants, details of which were shared exclusively with POLITICO, are being split among
four institutions: the Atlantic Council ; the Center for the National Interest; the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs; and the RAND Corporation.
The Atlantic Council has been pushing US foreign policy toward war with
Russia for years, pumping endless
false propaganda and neocon lies
to fuel the idea that Russia is engaged in an "asymmetric battle" against the US, that the mess
in Ukraine was the result of a Russian out-of-the-blue invasion rather than an Obama
Administration coup d'etat , that Russia threw the elections to Putin's agent Trump, and that
Moscow is seeking to to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
The Atlantic Council's " Disinfo
Portal ," a self-described "one-stop interactive online portal and guide to the Kremlin's
information war," is raw, overt war propaganda. It is precisely the kind of war propaganda that
has fueled three years of mass hysteria called "Russiagate," which though proven definitively
to be an utter fraud, continues to animate most of Washington's thinking on the Left and Right
to this day.
The Atlantic Council, through something it calls a " Digital Forensic Research Lab ,"
works with giant social media outlets to identify and ban any independent or alternative
news outlets who deviate from the view that the US is besieged by enemies, from Syria to Iran
to Russia to China and beyond, and that therefore it must continue spending a trillion dollars
per year to maintain its role as the unipolar hyperpower. Thus, the Atlantic Council - a
US government
funded entity - colludes with social media to silence any deviation from US government
approved foreign policy positions.
And these are the kinds of organizations that Koch and Soros claim are going to save us from
Washington's interventionist foreign policy?
Equally upsetting is the "collateral damage" that the Koch/Soros alliance and its love child
Quincy hath wrought. To see once-vibrant and reliably non-interventionist upstarts like The
American Conservative Magazine (TAC) lured away from the vision of its founders, Pat Buchanan
and Taki Theodoracopulos, to
slip into the warm Hegelian embrace of well-funded compromise is truly heartbreaking. It is
to witness the soiling of that once-brave publication's vindication for being right about Iraq
War 2.0 while virtually all of Washington was wrong.
Incidentally, and to add insult to injury, it is precisely these kinds of Washington
institutions who most viciously attacked TAC in those days who now find themselves trusted
partners and even "expert" sources !
TAC! Beware! It's not too late to wake up and smell the deception!
How to End Endless
Wars (The Easy Way)
If a Soros-Koch alliance was actually interested in ending endless US wars and re-orienting
our currently hyper-interventionist foreign policy toward "restraint," it would simply announce
that not another penny in campaign contributions would go to any candidate for House, Senate,
or President who did not vow publicly in writing to vote against or veto any legislation that
did not reduce military spending, that imposed sanctions overseas, that threatened governments
overseas, that appropriated funds in secret or overtly to destabilize or overthrow governments
overseas, or that sent foreign "aid" to any government overseas.
It would cost pennies to make such an announcement and stick to it, and the result would be
a massive shift in the American body politic toward what the current alliance advertises itself
as promoting.
But Koch/Soros don't really want to end endless US interventions overseas. They want to fund
the same old think tanks who are responsible for the disaster that is US foreign policy,
re-brand interventionism as non-interventionism, and hope none of us rubes in flyover country
notices.
To paraphrase what Pat Buchanan said about Democrats in his historic 1992 convention speech,
the whitewashing of Washington's most egregiously interventionist institutions and experts as
"restrained" non-interventionists is "the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in
American political history."
"... Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it. ..."
"... The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy. ..."
"... Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple." ..."
The White House
released a memo on Friday to Congress justifying the assassination of top Iranian general
Qassem Soleimani. Despite earlier claims from the administration of Soleimani and his Quds
Force planning imminent attacks on US personnel in the region, the memo uses past actions as
the justification for the killing.
The memo says President Trump ordered the assassination on January 2nd "in response to an
escalating series of attacks in preceding months by Iran and Iran-backed militias on United
States forces and interests in the Middle East region."
Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or
supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific
threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to
prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it.
The New York Times recently
reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27
th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the
Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of
provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof
that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing
Soleimani even more flimsy.
Lawmakers from both parties criticized Trump for killing Iran's top general without
congressional approval. The memo argues that Trump had authority to order the attack under
Article II of the US Constitution, and under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq (2002 AUMF).
Congress is taking measures to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran. The Senate
passed the Iran War Powers Resolution on Thursday, and the House voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF
in January.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The
administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows
that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and
simple."
The Trump Administration seems to be slipping into that same destructive set of priorities
in Syria. The
Washington Post this week quoted an unnamed Administration official as saying that "right
now, our job is to help create quagmires [for Russia and the Syrian regime] until we get what
we want."
As ever, hat the US really wants is to have a dominant position in post-war negotiations,
so they can dictate the form that post-war Syria takes. This means ensuring that the Syrian
government doesn't win the war outright.
That's not as realistic as it once was, with the Assad government, backed by Russia,
having retaken virtually all of the rebel-held territory except for a far north bastion in
Idlib, dominated by al-Qaeda. This means the US now has to save al-Qaeda to keep the war
going, which if we're being honest has been a recurring undercurrent in US policy in Syria
for years.
It is this desire that has the US repeatedly threatening Syria and warning them not to
attack Idlib. It is this desire that is sparking almost daily US threats to intervene
militarily if the Idlib offensive involves chemical weapons. Most importantly, it is this
desire that has Russia very much believing media reports that the rebels could "stage" a fake
chemical attack just to suck the US into the war, and be fairly confident it would work.
The US is, after all, constantly talking about an imminent chemical attack despite there
being no reason to think Syria is poised to launch one. At times, US officials have privately
conceded that there is no sign Syria is making any moves to even ready such weapons for the
offensive. Yet several times a week, the US issues statements with allegations of a chemical
plot featuring prominently, setting the stage for a reaction.
The Syrian War has been nearing its endgame for months now, with Israeli officials
conceding it is all but over as far as they are concerned (while vowing
not to honor any post-war deals ). When a war is lost and a plan has failed, however, the
US government is often the last to know, and that has them determined to drag the war on as
long as possible.
"... The challenges appear to be largely of America's own making, with troops going on patrol into the area finding themselves having run-ins with Russian troops. The Pentagon says Russia is violating a pledge to keep US and Russian troops apart, but with Trump arguing the US is only there for the oil, it's not clear that there's a reason for the US troops to go on walkabouts in the Turkish-controlled border region, where Russian troops are known to be. ..."
"... Since the US is militarily hostile toward the Syrian government much of the time, it's not surprising they'd call Russia to help them protect their checkpoint. These potential flashpoints are likely to continue so long as the US keeps its troops, uninvited, in Syria, and the Pentagon is clearly determined to blame Russia whenever anything happens. ..."
Run-ins with Russian troops increasingly common in the area ,
The 500 US ground troops that remain in Syria, according to President Trump purely to
control the oil, are finding themselves less and less welcome in Syria's northeast, and
officials are presenting Russia as presenting them a
constant
set of challenges to stay .
The challenges appear to be largely of America's own making, with troops going on patrol
into the area finding themselves having run-ins with Russian troops. The Pentagon says Russia
is violating a pledge to keep US and Russian troops apart, but with Trump arguing the US is
only there for the oil, it's not clear that there's a reason for the US troops to go on
walkabouts in the Turkish-controlled border region, where Russian troops are known to be.
The most recent problem was in the city of Qamishli, where a US patrol happened on a
Syrian government checkpoint. They weren't welcome, unsurprisingly, and locals started
mocking the US troops, and some threw stones. This pretty quickly escalated into a small arms
exchange, with the US killing one civilian.
Russians were present for the incident, and documented it, adding to the embarrassment.
The US troops shooting the civilian was the embarrassing thing, however, just to be clear.
That Russia was there is a secondary matter, and this clearly wasn't Russia's fault.
Since the US is militarily hostile toward the Syrian government much of the time, it's not
surprising they'd call Russia to help them protect their checkpoint. These potential
flashpoints are likely to continue so long as the US keeps its troops, uninvited, in Syria,
and the Pentagon is clearly determined to blame Russia whenever anything happens.
"Syrian Army in full control of Aleppo-Damascus Highway for first time 8 years" - TTG
BEIRUT, LEBANON (12:10 P.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is officially in full control
of the Aleppo-Damascus Highway (M-5) after eight years of battle. The Syrian Army said they
captured the last points along the highway on Tuesday evening, when their forces took control
of the strategic town of Khan Al-'Assal and the nearby Rashiddeen 4 sector in southwestern
Aleppo.
According to the Syrian Army, their forces were able to achieve this imperative victory
after capturing several important sites in eastern Idlib, including the cities of Saraqib and
Ma'arat Al-Nu'man. While the Aleppo-Damascus Highway is under their control, the roadway will
not likely be reopened to the public until the Syrian Army pushes west towards the Turkish
border.
The reason for this is due to the fact that the jihadist rebels of Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham
(HTS) and their allies from the Turkish-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) still maintain a
presence along the western part of the Aleppo-Damascus Highway. Furthermore, there are still
grave concerns of a potential large-scale Turkish military offensive to reclaim the areas lost
by the jihadist rebels over the last few weeks. (AMN)
-- -- -- --
A lot went on in the last week to get to this point. I and other observers saw this clearing
of the M5 as the objective of this phase of operation Idlib Dawn. The SAA is still on the
offensive and may be aiming for more. One thing is for certain. The jihadis are having their
asses handed to them.
Let's look at the SAA's progress in maps. I wish I could make one of those animated
battlefield maps like the American Battlefield Trust created for many of our Civil War battles,
but that's beyond my reach. You'll have to settle for this series of borrowed maps along with
my comments. Most of the recent action took place well north of Saraqib and Idlib. The 25th
Special operations Division continued to move north along the M5 forcing the jihadis east of
that highway to retreat to avoid encirclement. The 25th linked up with the Republican Guard
near Al Barfoum and Zerbeh along the M5 on 8 February. At that point, the 25th did the
unexpected. They struck northwest from ICARDA agricultural research station towards Kafr
Aleppo.
The axis of this advance took the high ground in the middle of the Idlib plain. It appeared
the 25th was heading towards Kafr Nouran, Al Atarib and the Bab al Hawa Highway, Turkey's main
supply route to Idlib.
However, the 25th surprised everyone and pivoted northward Arnaz and the Highway 60 cutting
that road on 12 February.
Perhaps we shouldn't have been too surprised. Just prior to this pivot, the Russian and
Syrian Aerospace Forces conducted heavy strikes against jihadist forces in the path of the
25th.
Meanwhile, Erdogan continued pouring in additional troops and equipment and threatening
massive retaliation against the SAA. They established several new "observation posts" at Al
Atarib and other points along the Bab al Hawa Highway leading to Idlib. The Turks and the SAA
traded artillery strikes and more Turkish casualties were shipped back north of the border.
Finally, on 10 February the jihadis began launching several counterattacks armed with Turkish
equipment and supported by Turkish artillery.
The counterattack towards Saraqib began with a jihadi VBIED which was stopped by SAA fire
before it could reach its target. The counterattack did not get far. Reports indicate the SAA
was alerted to the impending attack by Russian reconnaissance aircraft. The SAA targeted the
jihadis with BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch rocket launchers. Of the 80 attacking jihadists, 60
were killed and the rest wounded. Eight vehicles including Turkish supplied armored vehicles
were destroyed. Infantry is the queen of battle. Artillery is the king of battle. And the king
always puts it where the queen wants it.
The jihadists launched two other counterattacks towards 25th Division positions at Kafr
Aleppo and Arnaz on 12 February. Both attacks were turned back in a matter of hours. The 25th
immediately went on the offensive and captured two more towns. It seems the SAA has learned to
consolidate on the objective and then some. The jihadists failed to initiate another
counterattack after these defeats until today. They tried again on the Kafr Halab/Kafr Aleppo
front with the same results - over 100 dead jihadis and dozens of vehicles including at least
four Turkish supplied APCs turned into smoking hulks. All this was done in an effort to secure
the Bab al Hawa-Idlib road, an LOC critical to Erdogan's and the jihadists' desire to retain
Idlib.
The 25th did not stop there. They took the Regiment 46 installation today on the way to
Atarib on the Bab al Hawa Highway. A Turkish unit was surrounded at Regiment 46
Things have also gone well on the Aleppo front. The 4th Armored Division steadily marched
westward pushing the jihadis out of Aleppo's suburbs in spite of the jihadis' extensive tunnels
and well prepared fortifications.
It now appears another front has opened from the YPG and SAA held territory northwest of
Aleppo pushing south into jihadi held territory. This is certainly not tank country, but it is
also not fortified built up areas of the west Aleppo suburbs. If this push south is successful
and the 25th captures Atarib and continues north, the jihadis will be encircled or forced to
retreat. They will be far removed from Aleppo and pushed towards the Turkish border of Hatay.
The map below shows a possible scenario, not actual progress.
Erdogan's Ottoman dreams for Idlib will have to be rethought. My guess is that Erdogan
regrets sending those 3,000 plus jihadi fighters to Libya. They were probably some of his
better fighters. Well, life's a bitch Tayyip.
Arwa Damon of CNN reported on children freezing to death in refugee
camps in Idlib. Apparently the temp has fallen below freezing &
some of the kids didn't have shoes or coats.
So many factions fighting in an area sounds like hell on earth for
civilians.
CNN also showed a small U.S. contingent in the midst of the chaos
however I didn't understand where they were or their mission.
I really get the feeling we are watching history in the making as the SAA & friends
carve a swathe through what remains of occupied Idlib. I am sure the outcome will prove to be
a great turning point in the balance of power in the ME. This makes it all the more
fascinating, from the safe spectator's standpoint.
I wonder if we should see it as encouraging that the TSK has not directly engaged the SAA
again, since the exchange of fire a few days ago that you describe. Perhaps this is the calm
before the storm. I'd like to think Erdogan has carefully weighed the risks of going to war
over the bones of his ancestors. However, I'm not at all sure that the rational actor model
can accurately forecast the actions of a neo-Ottoman fantasist. We shall soon see I
guess.
And
here is the list of press releases by the Office of the Spokesperson covering the same
period.
The link was live a few weeks ago, as I saw it myself. Nusrah is still on the FTO list,
but if I'm not mistaken, this looks like an attempt to whitewash HTS.
Erdogan will be pushed to whatever by whoever, since he is spending way too much a money he
really has not in his overarching campaigns through the Mediterranean...
Why this behavior? Why does the Turkish government agree with Russia and Syria and very few
days later it fails to fulfill its obligations? The answers must be sought in the
internal situation of Turkey; and above all to the growing opposition that is maintaining
the Turkish social democracy that has led to the fact that in the last elections the
Erdogan party has lost nothing less than the mayor of Istanbul (formerly
Constantinople) .
But there is also another reason of enormous weight in Turkey that is the situation of
its economy. Turkey has a huge financial deficit caused by the "Ottoman" dreams of Erdogan,
who tries to get out of his isolation, through large military expenses that are not
justified, since Turkey is under the umbrella of NATO, and maintains the largest army
within that organization, with an impossible cost to cope with. The Turkish industry is
very late, and its manufacturing methods are not competitive, making its costs
unassuming.(...)
The moves by the SAA in our last diagram are, as you say, not in tank country. It is rugged
mountains currently in the middle of winter. The SAAs best chance is that the militants are
on the run with few supplies pre-positioned in the area as they would probably not have been
expecting to have to defend it yet. Whilst they think that the best thing to do is to keep on
moving west, before they get slaughtered. A problem might be that I read somewhere that there
are a lot of Uygurs there who will martyr themselves.
A long and costly operation doesn't seem to be in the SAA plans currently.
No doubt Pompeo and his merry band of neocons are whispering something like "you can't let
this Assad guy do that to you! You know what you gotta do? You gotta stand up for yourself,
you gotta go on the attack! What are you, chicken?" in Erdogan's ear.
The Trump administration ordered the January 3 assassination of Major General Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran's most senior officials,
not because he posed some "imminent threat," but rather in a calculated bid to disrupt Tehran's attempts to reach an accommodation
with Washington's allies in the region.
This is the inescapable conclusion flowing from a report published Thursday in the New York Times , citing unnamed senior
officials from the US, Iran and other countries in the Middle East.
It recounts the arrival last September in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, of a plane carrying senior Iranian
officials for talks aimed at achieving a bilateral peace agreement between the two countries.
The trip came in the context of a steady sharpening of US-Iranian tensions as a result of Trump's abrogation of the Iranian nuclear
agreement in 2018 along with the imposition of a punishing sanctions regime tantamount to a state of war. This was followed by a
major escalation of the US military presence in the region a year later.
While the US dispatched an aircraft carrier strike group and a B-52-led bomber task force to the region in May of last year, the
same month saw the use of limpet mines to damage four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic "chokepoint" through which
20 percent of the world's oil is shipped.
In June of last year, the Iranians downed a US Navy spy drone over the same area, with the Trump White House first ordering and
then calling off retaliatory air strikes against Iran. And in September, Saudi oil installations came under a devastating attack
from drones and cruise missiles.
Washington blamed both the attacks on the oil tankers and the strike against the Saudi oil installations -- for which the Houthi
rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility -- on Iran, charges that Tehran denied.
As early as last August, there were reports indicating concerns within Washington that the UAE was veering away from the anti-Iran
front that the US has attempted to cobble together, based upon Israel and the Gulf oil sheikdoms. The Emirates' coast guard had signed
a maritime security agreement with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the UAE had clashed openly with Saudi Arabia over
the control of southern Yemen's port city of Aden. At the time, the Washington Post warned that the UAE "is breaking ranks
with Washington, calling into question how reliable an ally it would be in the event of a war between the United States and Iran."
According to the Times report, the meeting with the Iranian delegation in Abu Dhabi, which had been kept secret from Washington,
"set off alarms inside the White House ... A united front against Iran -- carefully built by the Trump administration over more than
two years -- seemed to be crumbling."
Both the Emirati monarchy and its counterpart in Saudi Arabia had become increasingly distrustful of Washington's Iran policy
and concerned that they would find themselves on the frontline of any confrontation without any guarantee of the US defending them.
Saudi Arabia also began a secret diplomatic approach to Tehran, using the Iraqi and Pakistani governments as intermediaries. Suleimani
played the central role in organizing the talks with both Gulf kingdoms, the Times reports.
In October, according to the report, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Yossi Cohen, the chief
of Mossad, who warned him that "Iran was achieving its primary goal: to break up the anti-Iran alliance."
Last month's assassination of General Suleimani was initially defended by Trump and administration officials as a preemptive strike
aimed at foiling supposedly "imminent" attacks on US personnel or interests in the Middle East. This pretext soon fell apart, however,
and the US president and his aides fell back to justifying the extra-judicial murder of a senior state official as revenge for his
support for Shia militias that resisted the US occupation of Iraq 15 years earlier and retaliation for a missile strike that killed
an American military contractor last December.
That strike was launched against a military base housing American troops in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk. Iraqi security
officials have since contradicted the US claim that an Iranian-backed Shia militia was responsible for the attack. They have pointed
out that the missiles were launched from a predominantly Sunni area where the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is active, and
that Iraqi intelligence had warned US forces in November and December that ISIS was preparing to target the base.
The US responded to the missile strike on the base in Iraq by targeting Iraqi Shia militia positions on the Syria-Iraq border,
killing 25 members of the Kataib Hezbollah militia. The attack provoked an angry demonstration that laid siege to the US embassy
in Baghdad on December 31.
Two days later, a US Reaper drone fired missiles into a convoy at Baghdad International Airport, killing Suleimani along with
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a central leader of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces, the coalition of militias that constitutes an arm
of Iraq's security forces, as well as eight others.
In the wake of the drone assassinations, US Secretary of State Pompeo sarcastically told the media: "Is there any history that
would indicate that it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman, this diplomat of great order -- Qassem Suleimani -- had traveled
to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace mission? We know that wasn't true."
As the Times report indicates, that was precisely what Suleimani was doing in Baghdad, the US knew it and that is why it
assassinated him. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said at the time that General Suleimani had flown into the country, on a
commercial flight and using his diplomatic passport, for the express purpose of delivering an Iranian response to a message from
Saudi Arabia as part of talks aimed at de-escalating tensions.
The more that emerges about the assassination of Suleimani, the more the abject criminality of his murder becomes clear. It was
carried out neither as a reckless act of revenge nor to ward off unspecified attacks. Rather, it was a calculated act of imperialist
terror designed to disrupt talks aimed at defusing tensions in the Persian Gulf and to convince the wavering Gulf monarchies that
Washington is prepared to go to war against Iran.
This is the policy not merely of the Trump administration. Among the most significant moments in Trump's State of the Union address
earlier this month was the standing ovation by Democratic lawmakers as he gloated over the murder of Suleimani, a war crime.
The resort to such criminal actions is a measure of the extreme crisis of a capitalist system that threatens to drag humanity
into a new world war.
NATO is marketed as providing each member nation with the benefit that the other member
nations are committed to coming to its aid militarily in the event of an attack by another
nation, especially Russia .
However, Pew Research Center poll results released Sunday indicate that the majority or
plurality of people in 11 of 16 NATO countries where individuals were questioned oppose their
respective governments meeting this commitment, at least if the military adversary were
Russia.
These poll results indicate that serious thought should be given to disbanding NATO , an
organization with a primary objective that appears to be at odds with public opinion in many
NATO countries.
When asked if their respective countries' governments should use military force to defend a
NATO ally country neighboring Russia with which "Russia got into a serious military conflict,"
people living in the 16 NATO countries tended to answer in the negative.
"No" was the answer for the majority of polled individuals in eight countries -- France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Turkey.
In three more NATO countries -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland -- a plurality
rejected military intervention.
Only in five countries -- the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
and Lithuania -- did more people (a majority in each case) support such military intervention
than reject it.
I open this essay about the Russian middle classes at leisure with one essential definition.
If you go to www.booking.com and type the transliterated Russian name of
the establishment from which I am writing, "Dom Otdikha Valday," in the Search box, you be surprised by what you find.
The word for word translation from the Russian, namely "Valdai Rest Home," can lead speakers of English into confusion. That this
is NOT an old folks home, you will see at once from the photos on the website. It would better be described as a hotel and wellness
complex. Let us just say that Russian can be as quaint in its own way as the "Ye Olde" term so widely used in tourist English.
This year-round resort has a rich history dating back to Soviet times when it catered to Communist nomenklatura . About
a decade ago, it was reconstructed and expanded to world class four or five star standards in preparation to receive what has become
Vladimir Putin's annual gathering of political thinkers, mostly academics, from Russia and abroad known now as the Valdai Discussion
Club. But the swelling numbers of invitees outgrew the physical capacity of the 250 seat conference hall in Valdai after the very
first event there. The place name remains while the de facto location for the meetings has been in Sochi these past several years.
Nonetheless, Valdai has retained its association with the President of the Russian Federation to this day. Its location in the
middle of a nature preserve of the same name situated half way between Moscow and St. Petersburg is the secret to its allure. Putin
has a dacha in the area which he visits from time to time except in the late spring during the blooming of birch trees whose pollen
he is allergic to. A special railway spur to that dacha was recently completed to provide a safer and less conspicuous access than
by helicopter or motorcade.
The Valdai "rest home" is 15 km from the district town of that name in the hamlet of Roshchino. It is surrounded by a mixed birch
and pine forest and it is adjacent to several interlinked lakes
In winter it offers cross-country skiing trails through the forest or, if there has been a long cold snap, across and along the
lakes.
Last year the forest trails were encumbered by a lot of fallen branches and other debris carried by strong winds while the lake
was well and truly frozen allowing for pleasurable long distance skiing on its flat surface. This year once we had a fresh 5 cm snowfall
the forest trails were magnificent whereas the lake had only thin ice and was off limits.
In the summer, the lakes offer quiet boating and fishing. Due to the elevation and prevailing winds from the northwest, the water
rarely rises above 18 degrees Centigrade and is swimmable only for hardy souls! But the attractive rooms of the main residential
complex and the luxury fully detached "cottages" or dachas overlooking the lake find enthusiasts in all seasons. Many of the cottages
have their own quays at lakeside.
According to one receptionist, the guests are split 50:50 between Muscovites and Petersburgers. In this sense, the two couples
with whom we spend this vacation time in Valdai fit the average perfectly. Guests are also evenly divided between commercial visitors,
like us, and federal or municipal employees who are given concessionary rates. The range of incomes goes from lower middle and middle
middle class in the main hotel building, where rooms with full board for two cost slightly more than 100 euros a day in winter, and
upper middle class in the cottages, which can rent for several hundred euros a day when they are in demand, meaning in summer. There
are almost no foreigners.
At Valdai, the emphasis is on a healthy life style. There are no smokers and no drinkers. Not only do guests observe the no smoking
rules indoors, but I have never seen a cigarette butt lying on the ground outdoors.
It must be emphasized that family values prevail. Most of the guests are young couples, probably in their late 20s, early 30s
with their one, and more commonly two children, aged from toddlers to perhaps eight or ten years of age. Single women or men are
exceptional. Gray heads are also exceptional and mostly belong to grandmas who are tagging along, or perhaps footing the bill, and
are keeping an eye on the grandchildren during mealtime.
The cuisine might be called Institutional Russian. This is traditional fare that you will find in most any simple eatery or "stolovaya"
across the country. For those who have not been to Russia and might imagine that it is one big "borscht belt" with caviar and pancakes
thrown in for a touch of luxury, I aim to bring them back down to earth.
The cuisine is "light" in the sense that there is virtually no red meat. Instead, there is chicken and fish served as fillets
or as patties, an occasional pasta dish and some hot specialty items made from low fat cottage cheese. There are lots of cold salads
served nature , i.e., without mayonnaise or dressings. Soup is a must at lunch. Three types of hot cereal are on offer both
at breakfast and supper. Indeed, the difference between the buffet assortment at breakfast, lunch and dinner is negligible. You take
what you like when you like it. That said, coffee is provided only at breakfast, perhaps in keeping with the wellness principle.
The chilled beverages tend to be concentrated in berry juices, in sugared and unsugared variations, and in fermented milk products,
meaning kefir, ryazhenka and liquid yoghurt. If there is any linkage between Institutional Russian cuisine and what Jewish
emigrants brought to the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the first quarter of the last century, it would be precisely these sour
milk concoctions, which at one time were the stock in trade of New York "milk bars" lasting into the '50's.
Desserts are modest, the most common and tasty being freshly made thin pancakes that you top with honey or jam or condensed milk
(!) to suit your taste.
On balance, this diet is not fattening even if it is taken in copious amounts by the diners, who are otherwise exercising quite
energetically either outdoors or in the splendid indoor pools. This is not to deny that a fair number of hotel guests are chubby.
But very few are seriously overweight and none, not one during our stay three years in succession, could be described as obese. The
heftier males may be assumed to be doing weightlifting and other workouts regularly, and quite possibly are body guards in their
working lives.
As for entertainment, there is an extensive lending library. All the rooms have satellite television, 20 channels to be exact,
including BBC World in English, which is not particularly commonplace in Russian hotels which have few or no foreign guests. This
is complemented by daily film screenings in the conference hall, at 5.30pm for kids and at 8pm for adults.
So what is the resort management showing to its clientele of middle class Russians from the nation's capitals who have come for
a good time in family surroundings?
There are some American films, to be sure, and some Central European offerings, such as the prize winning Illusionist that
was projected a couple of nights ago, but they are outnumbered by the works of the Russian cinema industry. Russian films came back
to life in the past twenty years. They offer high quality animation much appreciated by little kids and some surprisingly well balanced
social and political satires for the adults.
In this closing third of my essay, I direct attention precisely at the films being shown because of what they say about the audience,
its degree of self-awareness and sophistication.
The President's Vacation(2018 release)
This film, which was very unkindly described as 'trash' by the website Meduza , is noteworthy as a splendid example of
the mistaken identity genre of farce handed down from 18th and 19 th centuries in Western Europe. Like the plays of Feydeau,
it amuses as well as informs, and it tests the limits of social and political criticism of the Putin regime in a good humored yet
probing discussion of corruption and other social ills.
We see a presidential administration keen on keeping the Leader in a bubble of Potemkin Village misinformation about the true
state of the nation. This he tries to escape from by going off on vacation incognito without the usual cohort of body guards and
sycophantic handlers. His lieutenants disobey his order to stay away but mistakenly take an unemployed fraudster and deadbeat for
the President in his disguise, leading to promulgation of several scandalous presidential decrees during the week of the vacation
while the real Vladimir Vladimirovich learns firsthand how people live and what the general population thinks of the St. Petersburg
gang ( shaika ) of assistants he has brought to power.
Gagarin(2014 release)
Our intelligentsia friends declined to join us for the screening of Gagarin , which they expected to be a straightforward
piece of propaganda, the sort of cheap patriotism they scorn. That is a pity because the film proved to be complex, with several
layers of messages addressed to different segments of the expected theater audience.
Yes, at one level it was sports arena patriotism and nostalgia for Soviet culture. But at other levels it was celebrating the
human courage of concrete historical personages in very trying circumstances. I have in mind here both the astronaut and Sergei Korolev,
the rocket designer and leading figure in the soviet space program of the time.
Most importantly, the film underlined the awful poverty of a country that was basking in the triumph of having launched the first
sputnik five years earlier and now, in 1961, was beating the USA, becoming the first to have launched a human into orbit and brought
him back alive.
For Russians who were adults in the 1960s, still more for Russians who were active in the space industry back then as one of our
friends had been, their country's poverty both in comparison to the great competitor of the time, the USA, and absolutely, is second
nature and elicits no reflection. However, for an outsider, the producers' decision to bring this into high relief is one of the
most surprising features of their film which raises questions about the Russian people that are highly relevant to the present day
geopolitical situation.
In his post-acquittal hour long televised speech, Donald Trump remarked that from the moment he was elected in November 2016 all
we heard was Russia, Russia, Russia thanks to the efforts of the Democrats to bring him down. The power of the Kremlin to wreck democracy,
to frustrate the whole of US foreign policy and much more has been blown out if all proportion by our politicians, by our mass media.
It is easy to forget that in the midst of the Cold War, i.e. the time setting of Gagarin , Russia was also made a bogeyman
with a frighteningly vast military force and hostile intentions.
Today even as we see Russians under every rock our official policy line is that theirs is a declining power which acts as a spoiler.
Thus, Russia's conventional and nuclear military might are played down rather than up.
The value of Gagarin is that it shows how the very successful Soviet space program, like the country at large, hit way
above its weight. Korolev says at one point that he did want the Americans to see what he actually had for equipment lest they show
their contempt.
It is commonplace today to stress that the GDP of the Russian Federation is ten times smaller than that of the USA. However, as
we can see in Gagarin the reality of the respective economies was likely similar back in the midst of the Cold War if we look
at what these economies actually delivered after deducting the inferior manufactured goods and the heavy losses in agriculture from
farm to shop shelves. Thus, it is arguable that the Russian Federation, with half the population of the Soviet Union, is a much more
potent adversary than the USSR ever was.
Gagarin underlines the personal qualities of its heroes, who were in fact even more extraordinary than shown. The producers
held back, for example, that Korolev had spent five years in the Gulag before he was plucked out and promoted to the crucial position
in the space program. The sense of duty and love of country of these personages is comparable to the merits of Russian soldiery in
WWII. This factor of motivation and talent and self-sacrifice and idealism is what our foreign policy community in its hubris and
bean counter approach to national greatness misses entirely.
That the Soviet Union in its poverty could yield the deeds of cutting edge engineering and human spirit of Gagarin is what
made it a great power. That Russia today, with a military budget ten times smaller than America's, could come up with its great equalizers
in new strategic weapons systems like its hypersonic rockets now in service is testimony to the same enduring national traditions
that we ignore at our peril.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest bookDoes Russia Have a Future?was published in August 2017. Reprinted with permission from his blog
.
Actually any supremacist ideology produces something like an apartheid regime for other
nationalities.
The current situation looks like a dead end with little chances of reconciliation, especially
after recent killing of protesters by Israel army/snipers. But in general, it is iether a two
state solution of equal rights for Palestinians and Jews in the same state. The elements of
theocratic state should be eliminated and right wing parties outlawed as neofascist parties which
threatens democracy.
Notable quotes:
"... The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies -- allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the Jordan Valley to Israel. ..."
The threat of a new war with Iran that might have replicated what has been the worst
disaster in the history of America's international misadventures -- George W. Bush's invasion
of Iraq based on fabricated lies -- sucked the air out of all other international diplomatic
activity, not least of what used to be called the Middle East peace process.
Yet the failure of the peace process has not been the consequence of recent mindless and
destructive actions by Donald Trump and of the clownish shenanigans of his son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, who was charged with helping Israeli hardliners in nailing down permanently the
Palestinian occupation. For all the damage they caused (mainly to Palestinians), prospects for
a two-state solution actually ended during President Barack Obama's administration, despite
Secretary of State John Kerry's energetic efforts to renew the stalled negotiations. They were
not resumed because Obama, like his predecessors, failed to take the tough measures that were
necessary to overcome Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's determination to prevent the
emergence of a Palestinian state, notwithstanding his pledge in his Bar-Ilan speech of 2009 to
implement the agreements of the Oslo accords.
Yes, Obama and Kerry did warn that Israel's continued occupation might lead to an Israeli
apartheid regime. But knowing how deeply the accusation of an incipient Israeli apartheid could
anger right-wingers in Israel and in the U.S., they repeatedly followed that warning with the
assurance that "America will always have Israel's back." It was the sequence of this two-part
statement that convinced Netanyahu that AIPAC had succeeded in getting American presidents to
protect Israel's impunity. Had Obama and Kerry reversed that sequence, first noting that
the U.S. had always had Israel's back, and then warning that Israel is now on the verge
of trading its democracy for apartheid, the warning might have had quite different implications
for Israel's government.
The peace process and the two-state solution failed because America -- the only country
on which Israel could count on for generous diplomatic, military and economic support, and
therefore the only country that has the necessary leverage to influence Israel's policies --
allowed it to fail. Consequently, most Israelis, including many belonging to the Blue/White
party, headed by General Benny Gantz, oppose granting any future Palestinian entity the most
basic features of sovereignty, including control of its own borders. Gantz refused to form a
unity government with the Likud because of Netanyahu's indictment for multiple crimes, not
because of differences over peace policy. What doubts anyone might have had on this subject
were removed when Gantz just announced that he embraces Netanyahu's intention to annex the
Jordan Valley to Israel.
For the Palestinians, territory is the most critical of the final status issues. The current
internationally recognized borders that separate Israel and the Occupied Territories reduced
the territory originally assigned to Palestinians in the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 from
roughly half of Palestine to 22 percent. Israel, which was assigned originally roughly the
other half of Palestine, now has 78 percent, not including Palestinian territory Israel has
confiscated for its illegal settlements.
No present or prospective Palestinian leadership will accept any further reduction of
territory from their promised state. Given the territory they already lost in 1947, and again
in 1949, and given Israel's refusal to accept the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, is
it really reasonable to expect Palestinians to give up any further territory? Where else other
than the West Bank could Palestine refugees return to?
The one-state solution that is preferred by many Israelis is essentially a continuation of
the present de facto apartheid. It is not the one-state alternative any Palestinian would
accept. Repeated polling has shown that a majority of Jewish Israelis are unprepared to grant
equal rights to Palestinians in a one-state arrangement. This opposition is unsurprising, for
the inclusion in Israel's body politic of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians would mean the end of
Israel as a Jewish state, for Israel's non-Jewish citizens would then outnumber its Jewish
ones, and may already do so. Of course, Israel could contrive a non-voting status for the West
Bank's Palestinians, something many Jewish Israelis and political parties actually advocate,
but that would not deceive anyone. It would mean the formal end of Israel's democracy.
The foregoing notwithstanding, I have long maintained that if Israel were compelled to
choose between one state that grants full equality to Palestinians now under occupation and two
states that conform substantially to existing agreements and international law, and no other
options were available to it, the majority of Israelis would opt for two states. Why? Because
as noted above, the overwhelming majority of Israelis oppose any arrangement that might produce
a Palestinian majority with the same rights Israeli Jewish citizens enjoy. Of course, Israel
has never been compelled to make such a choice, nor will they be compelled to do so by the
international community.
However, they could be compelled to do so by the Palestinians, but only if Palestinians were
finally to expel their current leadership and choose a more honest and courageous one. That new
leadership would have to shut down the Palestinian Authority, which its present leaders allowed
Israel to portray as an arrangement that places Palestinians on the path to statehood, of
course in some undefined future. Israel has deliberately perpetuated that myth to conceal its
real intention to keep the current occupation unchanged. The new Palestinian leadership would
have to declare that since Israel has denied them their own state and established a one-state
reality, Palestinians will no longer deny that reality. Consequently, the national struggle
will now be for full citizenship in the one state that Israel has forced them into. I have
argued for the past two decades that the one-state option is far more likely to open a path to
a two-state solution, however counter intuitive that may seem to be. Palestinians rejected it
categorically from the outset, but
younger Palestinians have come around to accepting it -- even preferring it to the two-state
model.
Unlike the struggle for a two-state solution, a goal that has so easily been manipulated by
Israel to mean whatever serves their real goal of preventing such an outcome -- and also so
easily allowed international actors to pretend they have not given up their efforts to achieve
that outcome, an anti-apartheid struggle does not lend itself to such deceptions. South Africa
has taught the world too well what apartheid looks like, as well as how the international
community could deal with it. Of course, South Africa has also shown how long and bloody a
struggle against apartheid can be, and the terrible price paid by the victims of such a regime.
But Palestinians already live in such a regime, and have for long been paying a terrible price
for their subjugation.
Yet deeper and more troubling questions are raised by the choices that now face Israel,
including whether the original idea of the Zionist movement of a state that is both Jewish and
democratic is not deeply oxymoronic, a question that not only Israelis but Jews outside of
Israel must address. That question is underscored by the challenges to India's democracy posed
by its prime minister's decision to turn his country into a Hindu nation. It is a question that
did not escape some of the founders of the Zionist movement, who argued that Zionism should
define the state as Jewish only in its ethnic and secular cultural dimensions. But that this is
not how Jewish identity is treated in Israel is undeniable.
Imagine if Israel's laws defining national identity and citizenship, as recently
reformulated by Israel's Knesset, were adopted by the U.S. Congress or by other Western
democratic countries, and if Christianity in its "cultural dimensions" were declared to be
their national identity, with citizenship also granted by conversion to the dominant religion,
as is now the case in Israel, where arrangements for Jewish religious conversions are part of
the Prime Minister's office.
Is this not what America's founders, and the waves of immigrants, including European Jews,
sought to escape from? And how would Jews react today to legislation in the U.S. Congress that
would explicitly seek to maintain the majority status of Christians in the U.S.? Are Jews to
take pride in a Jewish state that adopts citizenship requirements that mirror those advocated
by white Christian supremacists? These supremacists have already proclaimed jubilantly that
Israel's policies vindicate the ones they have long been advocating.
It is true, of course, that for some Jews, aware of the history of anti-Semitism that has
spanned the ages, and especially the Holocaust, Zionism's contradictions with democratic
principles are an unpleasant but inescapable dilemma they can live with. As a survivor of the
Holocaust, I can understand that. But I also understand that the likely consequences of these
contradictions are not benign, and can yield their own terrible outcomes, particularly when
they lead to the dalliances by the prime minister of a Jewish state with right-wing racist and
xenophobic heads of state and of political parties that have fascist and anti-Semitic
parentage.
Legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress and by Trump, and recently celebrated by his
son-in-law Kushner in a New York Times op-ed, proposing that criticism of
Zionism be outlawed as antisemitism , would be laughable, were it not so clearly -- and
outrageously -- intended to deny freedom of speech on this subject. Yet laughable it is, for
its first target would have to be Jews -- not liberal left-wingers but the most Orthodox Jews,
known as Haredim, in Israel and in America.
At the very inception of the Zionist movement 150 years ago, not only the Haredim but the
overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jewry everywhere was opposed to Zionism, which it considered
to be a Jewish heresy, not only because the Zionists were mostly secularists, but because of an
oath taken by Jewish leaders after the destruction of the Second Temple following their exile
from Palestine, that Jews would not reestablish a Jewish kingdom except following the messianic
era. Zionism was also bitterly opposed by much of the world's Jewish Reform movement, many of
whose leaders insisted that Jewishness is a religion, not a political identity.
Much of Orthodox Jewry did not end its opposition to Zionism until after the war of 1967,
but many if not most Haredis continue to oppose Zionism as heresy. Most of its members refuse
to serve in Israel's military, to celebrate Israel's Independence Day, sing its national
anthem, and do not allow prayers in their synagogues for the wellbeing of Israel's political
leaders. Trump, Kushner, and the U.S. Congress would have to arrest them as anti-Semites.
I have no doubt that Trump's rage at the Jewish chairmen of the two Congressional committees
that led the procedures for his impeachment will sooner or later explode in anti-Semitic
expletives. The only reason it has not done so yet is because of Trump's fear of jeopardizing
Evangelical support and Sheldon Adelson's mega bucks. After all, Trump already told us that the
neo-Nazi rioters in Charlottesville declaiming "Jews will not replace us" included "very fine
people." Netanyahu never criticized Trump's statement, for he too does not want to jeopardize
certain relationships, namely the "very fine people" he has embraced -- leaders in Hungary,
Poland, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.
If Trump's son-in-law is searching for anti-Semites, he should have been told they are far
closer at hand than in America's schools, for they are ensconced in the White House. They are
also to be found in Jerusalem where they are being accorded honors by Netanyahu. The
anti-Semitic dog whistling contained in Trump's attacks on the two Jewish congressmen were not
misunderstood by his hardcore supporters -- who now include the entire leadership of the
Republican party -- who Trump needs to take him to victory in the coming presidential
elections, or to keep him in the White House were he to lose those elections.
If apartheid is coming (or has come) out of Zion, it should not shock that what may come out
of Washington is a repeat by Trump's Republican shock troops of what occurred in Berlin in
1933, when the Bundestag was taken over by the Nazi party and ended Germany's democracy.
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse
when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually
follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem
Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly
when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The
justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning
an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that
might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently
knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani
to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent
threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.
The incident that started the killing cycle
that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two
Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming
that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim
and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The
militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad,
which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers.
Iran retaliated when it fired missiles
at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly
shot down a passenger
jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the
Iraqi Parliament also
voted to expel
all American troops.
It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out
by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic
State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack
took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni
IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.
This new development was reported in the New York Times in
an article that was
headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised
doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it
generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet
another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.
Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's
bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that
was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.
There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the
regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three
separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active
in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small
arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might
be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.
The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times
reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including
claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with
the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the
reticence to confide in an ally.
If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless
actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking
for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted
in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times
that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is
willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by
a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it
Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian
nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's
USA who is saying so?
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind
of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]
The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.
Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official
to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.
Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media
as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.
As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in
Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence
. It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .
But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job
.
Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19
years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida
or to ISIS!!!
It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report (
kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo
lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo
tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained
by philosopher Karl Rove
To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11
attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically
next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.
It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there,
either.
Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding
America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.
And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.
contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some
psychological makeups
That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.
Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:
We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy
of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence
should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no
one recognizes to the SOTU.
USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much
run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19
is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military
"athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost
too coincidental.
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It
also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths.
Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat
Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which
have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability
and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.
The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill
Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The
Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in
October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way
of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.
Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed
to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful
Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in
organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.
How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea
and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about
Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel
staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.
ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel
It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled
by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would
they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception
in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to
divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as
the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which
has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.
ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels
in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their
command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.
And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant
stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their
oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant
out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel
is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going
to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design
years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace
by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now.
Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.
Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer
Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.
Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain
PEACE.
Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to
defend themselves.
The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus,
where it rises in the west.
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence
Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.
I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to
forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation"
that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.
As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work
to be done by the American military.
It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan
that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House
apparently knew about may even have approved.
It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad
Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to
bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.
One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and
despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.
It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their
agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.
That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting
the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli
version of the CIA, the Mossad.
"By way of deception thou shalt make war."
Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and
allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.
It's not just the White House that is doing serious damage to U.S. interests abroad during
this year's election campaign. Of even greater consequence (absent a new Middle East war) is
the U.S. relationship with Russia. It's currently unthinkable that Washington will try to move
beyond the status quo, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin were prepared to do so. Even
before Trump was inaugurated, many Democrats began calling for his
impeachment . Leading Democrats
laid Hillary Clinton ' s defeat at the feet of Russian interference in the U.S. election --
a claim that stretched credulity past the breaking point. Further, as Democrats looked for
grounds to impeach Trump (or at least terminally to reduce his reelection chances), the "
Russia factor" was the best cudgel available. Charges included the notion that " Putin has something on
Trump," which presumes he would sell out the nation ' s security for a mess of pottage.
All this domestic politicking ignores a geopolitical fact: while the Soviet Union lost the
Cold War and, for some time thereafter, Russia could be dismissed, it was always certain that
it would again become a significant power, at least in Europe. Thus, even before the Berlin
Wall fell, President George H. W. Bush proposed creating a " Europe whole and
free" and at peace. Bill Clinton built on what Bush began. Both understood that a renascent
Russia could embrace revanchism, and for several years their efforts seemed to have a chance of
succeeding.
Then the effort went off the rails. Putin took power in Russia, which made cooperation with
the West difficult if not impossible. He worked to consolidate his domestic position, in part
by alleging that the West was " disrespecting" Russia and trying to encircle it. For its part,
the U.S. played into the Putin narrative by abandoning the Bush-Clinton vision of taking
legitimate Russian interests into account in fashioning European security arrangements. The
breaking point came in 2014, when Russia seized
Crimea and sent " little green men" to fight in some other parts of Ukraine. The West
necessarily responded, with economic sanctions
and NATO's
buildup of " trip wire" forces in Central Europe.
But despite the ensuing standoff, the critical requirement remains: the United States has to
acknowledge Russia's inevitable rise as a major power while also impressing on Putin the need
to trim his ambitions, if he is to avoid a new era of Russian isolation. There is also serious
business that the two countries need to pursue, including strategic arms control, the Middle
East (especially Iran), and climate change. Despite deep disagreements, including over Ukraine
and parts of Central Europe, the U.S. needs to engage in serious discussions with Russia, which
means the renewal of diplomacy which has been in the deep freeze for years.
All of this has been put in pawn by the role that the "Russia factor" has been permitted to
play in American presidential politics, especially by Democrats. Longer-term U.S. interests are
suffering, along with those of the European allies and Middle East partners. The task has been
made even more difficult by those U.S. politicians,
think tanks , and journalists
who prefer to resurrect the term "cold war" rather than clearly examining the nation's
strategic needs because of the blinkers imposed by domestic politics. Open discussion about
alternatives in dealing with Russia is thus stifled, at serious cost to the United States and
others.
In all three of these areas, the U.S. is paying a high price in terms of its national
interests to the games political leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, are playing. Great
efforts will be needed to dig out of this mess, beginning with U.S. willingness to do so.
Leaders elsewhere must also be prepared to join in -- far from a sure thing! Unfortunately,
there is currently little hope that, at least in the three critical areas discussed above,
pursuit of U.S. interests abroad will prevail over today's parochial domestic politics.
Militarism is destroying the USA economy and well-being of the population.
Notable quotes:
"... Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008 style collapse hits again. ..."
"... Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn fortune. ..."
2. The young people who favor policies like "Medicare for all" are ignorant of economics and do not grasp the fact that they would
end by paying a great deal of taxes for that policy.
... ... ...
3. Democratic Party policy toward Trump is designed to prevent him governing.
4. The Democrats are seeking a new issue (anything will do) over which to impeach Trump again.
... ... ...
6. Trump's foreign policy in the ME is ignorant of anything but Zionist desires and ambitions.
7. In any deal with the Taliban the present Afghan government will inevitably be defeated and destroyed in the aftermath.
8. US ground forces are too large. We should adopt a foreign policy that will permit the maintenance of smaller ground forces.
9. Hillary has been behind much of the political devilment in the last three years and is scheming and hoping for a deadlocked
convention in which she will be nominated by acclamation.
10. Trump will wisely offer Tulsi Gabbard a job in his next administration. pl div
All good except #6 precludes #10, unless it was a bad faith offer.
I don't think the ZioCons will tolerate Trump offering Gabbard anything, even if he could ever get over her accurately describing
him as the Saudis' bitch.
Trump is very astute. He gets it. Bloomberg is going to buy the nomination with the full backing of the Deep State/Wall St
wing.
Mini Mike is a 5'4" mass of dead energy who does not want to be on the debate stage with these professional politicians. No
boxes please. He hates Crazy Bernie and will, with enough money, possibly stop him. Bernie's people will go nuts!
6-8 You are so correct. The question is: how will this affect our national interest over the next 5-10 years? Will it matter to
us?
I don't know and can't visualize the consequences very well. I assume the Muslim world will be arrayed against us for the foreseeable
future. How dangerous is that to our own safety?
With the fed now pumping upwards to 120 billion a day in the repo overnight loans market to keep the biggest banks solvent, I
wouldn't be so confident about the health of the economy.
Candidate Trump said he was for a restoration of Glass-Steagal banking laws and he'd be wise to move on that before a 2008
style collapse hits again.
Trumps emphasis on a blue collar boom and an NASA moon landing will be how the US economy remains strong not bailing out too
big to fail Wall Street bank.
Re point 2. We are already paying for health insurance. At least I am. It costs me $26k per year to health insure my family.
All other countries with socialize healthcare systems spend a lower proportion of their GDP on healthcare and almost all have
better health outcomes for their populations. The proportion less can be as much as half the percentage of GDP the US spends on
healthcare.
Taxes may well go up. Healthcare costs will go down for most people. And for those whose healthcare is paid by their employers,
the costs to the employers would go down too, meaning that wages could go up to offset (or more than offset) the additional taxes.
Sir;
I have been advocating point #9 for a year now. Few understand the monstrous ambition contained by HRH HRC. (Her Royal Highness
Hillary Rodham Clinton.)
The Clinton foundation basically took over the Democrat National Committee, (an avowedly private organization,) in 2016.
One does not generally purchase a new toy without wanting to play with it. Clinton's 'toy' is the DNC. What is the primary
purpose of the DNC? To run a political party. The primary functions of a political party, at least today's versions of political
parties, are to secure power for the leadership of the party and 'compensation' for the efforts of the nomenklaturas.
The economy is bad for most of the young and some of the old. This can be inferred by the rise in 2nd and 3rd jobs among the workforce.
2 I have already addressed.
I think points 3 and 4 are obviously true. Im not sure if it is the Dems leading the charge or the neocons. But a group is
attempting to block Trumps efforts to govern.
I am a Sanders supporter. I believe that 5 is partially correct. Sanders wishes to remove the free market operating in certain
key areas - most obviously Healthcare. I do not think you are right about Warren. I think she is seeking progressive votes, but
has no intention of delivering.
I think 6 is obviously true, although I also think Trumps instinct lead him to wish to withdraw troops. He is no match for
the "Borg".
7 is also clearly true.
8 is also clearly true.
9. I would modify this. Hillary is the single most prominent example of a class of Democratic apparatchiks who make an
excellent living (mis)representing the interests of working Americans and shaking down corporate America using their political
clout. It is a matter of shame for America that in her and her husbands careers in "public service" they have amassed a $150mn
fortune.
While I once read Michael Scheuer's blog for his wisdom on his areas of specialty (some examples of that wisdom concerning Afghanistan,
excerpted from his books, are collected at:
"Afghanistan: Michael
Scheuer's View" )
I was turned off by what seemed to be his appeals in his blog for violence against those whom he sees as America's internal
enemies. However, reading Col. Lang's point 7 above, which echoes what Scheuer said in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris (e.g.,
this ), prompted me to check out what he is currently saying. One quote
from his current blog I think will interest both Col. Lang and the CIA veteran Larry Johnson. Scheuer wrote:
The current CIA Director [ Gina Haspel ] is one of the officers I worked with, and she, almost single-handedly, helped
CIA's bin Laden unit destroy an al-Qaeda organization in Eurasia . I have always admired her greatly for her brains, personal
courage, and for never, in my experience, flinching from truth and duty.
I have no idea of the veracity of that, but I certainly do respect MS for his knowledge of the CIA, the Muslims, and Afghanistan.
Surely MS knows of what he speaks in this instance. I think his recommendation is worth noting.
You seem to be saying that "Medicare for all" is pie in the sky and can't work economically. But how do you explain the fact that
all the EU democracies, the UK, Canada etc can provide full health care, but the richest country in the world can't?
Government-funded health care would put more cash in the average guy's pocket which he would spend on consumption which would
strengthen the economy. It's a "win win" solution. When I was in business, I never minded paying for health care, but monthly
payments have ballooned to the point that it's out of reach for many people. I hope you agree with me that health care has gone
from being a vital service to an extortion racket.
Sometimes government can do some good. They could start by creating a system that's either affordable or puts the screws to
the health care Mafia.
All good, except pp.1 since the actual industrial output contracts (4 consecutive annual contractions) and manufacturing is even
worse--6 consecutive annual contractions.
Most "jobs" created are mostly part-time retail jobs due to season. Boeing situation devastated a contractor and supply chain
with massive layoffs (e.g. Spirit Wichita laid-off the third of its labor force)--and those are REAL jobs. The rest--subscribe
completely. Albeit, something has to be done with healthcare. What? I don't know.
2. My wife and I, in the US private sector now, pay $12,000 a year out of pocket before we get any "coverage" at all from the
Denial of Care industry. I'm 57, young people get even less for their money and will continue to vote for change until something
gets better for them. Medicare and the VA already provide over one third of US actual medical care and do it for a fraction of
what the Denial of Care industry does it for. It would be hilarious if Trump took up M4A and ran on it: he could probably implement
it, which he was in favor of back when he was a private business man because the rent extractions of the Denial of Care industry
make US labor uncompetitive against the rest of the world. The MED IC is in the tank for the Dem party and doing all it can to
stop M4A.
4. Which would make sense if the Dems were interested in governing, but if Obama proved anything it is that all the Dems want
to do is say, "those mean, evil Republicans won't let us do anything." Which is to say the current configuration of politics and
economy are working just fine for the Dem apparatchiks who's main function is to fleece guys like Bloomberg.
5. There are a world of economic models between our NeoLiberal (see Slobodian's "The Globalists") hyper extractive capitalism
and a Leninist command economy, it's straw-manning to call AOC, Sanders and even Warren Leninists when they are all somewhere
to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.
6. Yes!
7. Seems likely.
8. Yes and they shouldn't be deployed to create chaotic ground conditions to facilitate looting by Globalist Multinationals.
jsn "when they are all somewhere to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon." Hey! I remember Eisenhower and Nixon and you are completely
full of it about them. Both of them were centrists.
"... Of particular interest will be cases overseen by now-unemployed former US attorney for DC, Jessie Liu, which includes actions against Stone, Flynn, the Awan brothers, James Wolfe and others . Notably, Wolfe was only sentenced to leaking a classified FISA warrant application to journalist and side-piece Ali Watkins of the New York Times - while prosecutors out of Liu's office threw the book at former Trump adviser Roger Stone - recommending 7-9 years in prison for process crimes. ..."
"... What's next on the real-life House of Cards? ..."
A
week of two-tiered
legal shenanigans was capped off on Friday with a
New York
Times report that Attorney General William Barr has assigned an outside prosecutor to
scrutinize the government's case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn,
which the Times suggested was " highly unusual and could trigger more accusations of political
interference by top Justice Department officials into the work of career prosecutors."
Notably, the FBI excluded
crucial information from a '302' form documenting an interview with Flynn in January, 2017.
While Flynn eventually pleaded guilty to misleading agents over his contacts with the former
Russian ambassador regarding the Trump administration's efforts to oppose a UN resolution
related to Israel, the original draft of Flynn's 302 reveals that agents thought
he was being honest with them - evidence which Flynn's prior attorneys never pursued.
His new attorney, Sidney Powell, took over Flynn's defense in June 2019 - while Flynn
withdrew his guilty plea in January , accusing the government of "bad faith,
vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement."
In addition to a review of the Flynn case, Barr has hired a handful of outside prosecutors
to broadly review several other politically sensitive national-security cases in the US
attorney's office in Washington , according to the Times sources.
Of particular interest will be cases overseen by now-unemployed former US attorney for DC,
Jessie Liu, which includes actions against Stone, Flynn, the Awan brothers, James Wolfe and
others . Notably, Wolfe was only sentenced to leaking a classified FISA warrant application to
journalist and side-piece
Ali Watkins of the New York Times - while prosecutors out of Liu's office threw the book at
former Trump adviser Roger Stone - recommending 7-9 years in prison for process crimes.
Earlier this week, Barr overruled the DC prosecutors recommendation for Stone, resulting in
their resignations. The result was the predictable triggering of Democrats across the spectrum
.
According to the Times , "Over the past two weeks, the outside prosecutors have begun
grilling line prosecutors in the Washington office about various cases -- some public, some not
-- including investigative steps, prosecutorial actions and why they took them, according to
the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal
deliberations."
The moves amounted to imposing a secondary layer of monitoring and control over what
career prosecutors have been doing in the Washington office. They are part of a broader
turmoil in that office coinciding with Mr. Barr's recent
installation of a close aide, Timothy Shea , as interim United States attorney in the
District of Columbia, after Mr. Barr maneuvered out the Senate-confirmed former top
prosecutor in the office, Jessie K. Liu.
Mr.
Flynn's case was first brought by the special counsel's office, who agreed to a plea deal
on a charge of lying to investigators in exchange for his cooperation, before the Washington
office took over the case when the special counsel shut down after concluding its
investigation into Russia's election interference.
-New
York Times
"... Until recently, President Donald Trump's pro-Israel policy was centered on taking steps related to fulfilling campaign promises and strengthening his standing domestically with his evangelical base. Chief among these steps was his decision to pull out of the nuclear accord with Iran, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and at the same time announcing moving the American embassy to Jerusalem). Trump also signed a presidential proclamation recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... By deciding to carry out this assassination operation, Trump has brought his pro-Israel policy to an entirely new, and dangerous level. ..."
"... Israel may have found in the Trump administration the perfect ally when it comes to the demonization of Iran and the groups it supports. ..."
Until recently, President Donald Trump's pro-Israel policy was centered on taking steps
related to fulfilling campaign promises and strengthening his standing domestically with his
evangelical base. Chief among these steps was his decision to pull out of the nuclear accord
with Iran, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and at the same time
announcing moving the American embassy to Jerusalem). Trump also signed a presidential
proclamation recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights.
All of this has changed, however, with the assassination of the commander of the Quds Force
in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Qassem Soleimani and the deputy head
of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), Abu Mehdi Al-Muhandis.
By deciding to carry out this assassination operation, Trump has brought his pro-Israel
policy to an entirely new, and dangerous level.
Targeting the IRGC and PMF: An Israeli policy
It is worth remembering that Israel set the precedent for carrying out lethal operations in
Iraq by targeting elements of the IRGC and the PMF.
Israel began these operations last year, with the first taking place on July 19 near the
Iraqi town of Amerli. Iranian media later reported that senior IRGC commander Abu Alfazl
Sarabian had died in the attack.
Another Israeli attack on August 25 led to the death of a senior PMF commander in the Iraqi
town of Al-Qaim near the border with Syria, while 21 PMF members were killed in an Israeli
operation near the city of Hit in Iraq's Anbar province on September 20.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even admitted that Israel was behind
these attacks.
"We are working against Iranian consolidation in Iraq as well [as in Syria]" remarked
Netanyahu on August 22.
Trump administration officials adopt the Israel line of demonizing Iran
The Israeli fingerprints on U.S. policy could also be seen in the apparent stances taken by
U.S. officials following the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis.
According to the New York
Times , Trump administration officials have compared the assassination of Soleimani to the
killing of former ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Such a comparison is no doubt to Israel's
liking.
Not only has Israel long sought to equate the IRGC and its allies, including the Lebanese
Hezbollah and the Iraqi PMF, with terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS, it has even
described the latter groups as being the lesser of the two evils.
According to sources in Washington, one of the most common complaints made by visiting
Israeli officials over the past years was that the U.S. was focusing too much on fighting Sunni
Jihadist groups (al-Qaida, ISIS, etc.) and not enough on fighting Iran and its network of
allies.
Israel's former ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren referred to this dynamic in an
interview with the Jerusalem Post back in September 2013, where he summed up the Israeli
policy regarding Syria. "The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted
(President) Bashar Assad to go" he stated, further adding; "we always preferred the bad guys
who weren't back by Iran (al-Qaida affiliates) to the bad guys who were backed by Iran".
For his part, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon referred to an "
axis of evil ' comprising Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.
Yaalon made those remarks during a meeting with former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of
Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey in August 2013, underscoring that this "axis of evil" must not
emerge victorious in Syria.
Israel may have found in the Trump administration the perfect ally when it comes to the
demonization of Iran and the groups it supports.
Hard-core evangelicals like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence
have a strong ideological affinity for Israel and its anti-Iranian agenda.
During a Senate hearing last April, Pompeo
repeated the long-debunked claim that Iran and al-Qaida have cooperated for years. "There
is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaida. Period,
full stop," Pompeo asserted.
Pence, meanwhile, has even gone so far as to claim that
Soleimani was involved with 9/11 . Following the assassination, Pence tweeted that
Soleimani had "assisted in the clandestine travel of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out
the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States."
American troops in danger as a result of the Israeli evangelical agenda
With the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandes, Israel and its Christian evangelical
allies in Washington appear to have succeeded more than any time before in steering Trump's
foreign policy. Their success, however, may have placed U.S. troops in the region in grave
danger.
In a speech
commemorating the death of Soleimani and Al-Muhandes, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah
Hassan Nasrallah warned that retaliation would be aimed at U.S. military assets.
In remarks which brought back the memories of the 1983 attacks on the Marine Barracks in
Beirut, Nasrallah suggested that the U.S. military presence in the region would become a target
for suicide bombers.
"The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave our region in the past are still
here today and in far greater numbers," Nasrallah asserted.
That rat Erdogan has requested NATO via Trump to help him. Looks like that rotten no good for
nothing skunk is going all in. Let us see if his grunts can match the battle hardened
Syrians. My vote is for the Syrians.
"The civilians are suffering because of provocations in Idlib de-escalation zone by the
terrorist groups that use 'live shield' against the Syrian government forces. The situation
is exacerbated by the arrival of weapons and ammunition in the de-escalation zone via the
Syrian-Turkish border, as well as the arrival of Turkish armoured vehicles and troops in the
province of Idlib," the Russian ministry said in a press release.
"The real reason of the crisis in Idlib de-escalation zone is, unfortunately, the failure
of our Turkish colleagues to adhere to their commitments on separating moderate opposition
fighters from terrorists of Jabhat Nusra (banned in Russia) and Hurras ad-Din (linked to Al
Qaeda, which is banned in Russia)," the press release read.
"Meanwhile, Turkish suppliers complained about difficulties sending tomatoes to Russia,
said Ahmet Hamdi Gyrdogan, head of the Union of East Black Sea Exporters.
This is notable, since one of the sanctions Russia imposed on Turkey over the downing of
the Russian Su-24 back in 2015, was related to tomatoes and they're a big part of
Ankara-Moscow agricultural trade.
"We are ready to supply our products to Russia instead of the Chinese, which it has now
abandoned because of the coronavirus. However, unfortunately, our historical friendship with
Russia due to events in Syria, and especially in Idlib, is under great pressure, relations
are deteriorating. Now we can't send tomatoes to Russia: they say that the quota has ended.
< > I hope that the leadership of Russia and Turkey will be able to act on the basis of
common sense," a source of RIA said.
Yes, turkey has been helping izzyhell to stolen oil for a very very long time. Remember
Erdogan's son and the conveys of oil trucks? A very nasty viper is Erdogan. Does anyone else
think he just set up Putie big time??? I'm referring to taffyboy's link at #34... syria and
libya too. Pompeous must be dancing on his desk.
The Syrian Government and its armed forces have finally taken control and regained control of
the M5 highway joining Damascus, the capitol, to the south with the major industrial city of
Aleppo in the north. They have achieved what Turkey lacked the will and capacity to achieve.
Syrian soldiers and their leader President Assad have demonstrated their capacity to
defend their country against huge malign odds. With any sense Turkey will withdraw its
lunatic interference and work with regional governments to eliminate the jihadis and resettle
the refugees currently in Turkey. I wont hold my breath but that would be the sane way out of
its self created dilemma.
Finally Aleppo city is free from murderous jihadis at its doorstep. Thanks to Russia and
Syria working together and their regional allies.
Seems like Uncle Sam is making himself popular again during a clash with local militias
in Qamishli
A Syrian was killed and another was wounded when government supporters attacked American
troops and tried to block their way as their convoy drove through an army checkpoint in
northeastern Syria, prompting a rare clash, state media and activists reported.
On the issue of Bernie.. might as well put Miss Julia my first grade teacher into the
paint deceiving white house.. the problem Bernie cannot solve, is keeping the USA from using
America and Americans to make the USA great. The USA has destroyed America, does not matter
who has been elected its more of the same, just a different clown in a different clown
suit.
Bernie cannot overcome the make the USA great syndrome he does understand the problem is
how to return America to its Greatness, but he does not have the moxey it takes to deal with
the mobster community? His legs will be broken before he gets installed. Even so no body is
going to defeat the electoral college system, and Bernie ain't on the approved list.
Yesterday's briefing by
the Russian Defense Ministry:
At 10:30 a.m. on February 12, 2020, at a checkpoint near Kharbat Khamo, located east of
Qamyshlia, al-Hasakah province, a unit of the Syrian Arab Republic stopped a convoy of the
US Armed Forces deviating from the route. There was a conflict between US troops and the
local civilians, as a result of which the US military opened fire on civilians. One local
resident was injured. Another, a 14-year-old boy, Faisal Khalid Muhammad, died. Only
through the efforts of the Russian servicemen who arrived at the scene of the incident, it
was possible to prevent a further escalation of the conflict with local residents and to
ensure the exit of the US Armed Forces column in the direction of the base point in the
area of the KhImo, al-Hasakah province.
Amid the general hype, the US military shot and killed a 14-year-old child in Syria. A
simple, insignificant, unimportant incident.
I doubt that CNN will talk about it in prime time.
Below is another short Xinhuanet posting about current political posturing and threats in the
ME
"
TEHRAN, Feb. 12 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Mousavi warned on
Wednesday that Iran's response to any Israeli aggression against its interests in the region
or in Syria will be "crushing."
Mousavi said over the past 70 years Israel has resorted to violence to occupy Palestine
and target its neighboring countries.
Iran's presence in Syria has been at invitation with the aim of fighting terrorism, the
spokesman added.
"Our country will not hesitate to protect its interests in Syria or in the region and will
defend its national security," he noted, vowing "decisive and crushing response to any
aggression or stupid act of Israel against its interests."
"
Sitting here on the West coast of North America all I can do is wish them well in working
out the 70+ years of jamming the Occupied Palestine/Israel state into the middle of the
ME...and then occupying more and into Syria....
And once again let me close by noting that the above is a proxy part of the current
civilization war about public/private global finance in the social contract.....socialism or
barbarism
A new video from the Al-Qamishli countryside was released this afternoon following a
skirmish between the U.S. Armed Forces and residents of the Syrian village of Khirbat Amo ,
east of Qamishli in Syria's northeast.
According to a report from the Al-Hasakah Governorate, the residents of Khirbat Amo
attempted to block the U.S. Armed Forces from bypassing a checkpoint belonging to the National
Defense Forces (NDF) in the southern countryside of Al-Qamishli.
Below is the video of the gunfire exchange from Khirbat Amo on Wednesday:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMnyzjDButw
As a result of this obstruction, two U.S. military vehicles had to be towed from the area
after they became stuck in the grass.
The incident also prompted false reports of airstrikes, which were said to have been carried
out by the U.S. Coalition on the Syrian military's positions in Khirbat Amo on Wednesday.
The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said at least one resident of Khirbat Amo was wounded
during the brief exchange . This was later updated to one civilian killed by U.S. gunfire,
according to
ABC News .
The U.S. Coalition confirmed the dangerous and rare incident:
"After Coalition troops issued a series of warnings and de-escalation attempts, the patrol
came under small arms fire from unknown individuals. In self-defense, Coalition troops
returned fire," an official statement by U.S. spokesman Col. Myles B. Caggins III said.
Coalition statement on the incident in Qamishli earlier today
* Came under fire from unknown individuals near a SAA checkpoint
"The situation was de-escalated and is under investigation," the statement added.
Pro-Syrian government media sources said the villagers were outraged over an earlier
skirmish that resulted in the death of a 14-year old from the town, though this is yet to be
confirmed.
Locals opning fire at US military vehciles in Khirbat Amo in northern al-Hasakah today.
Earlier US forces hadkilled a 14 year old teenager from the town. pic.twitter.com/fTA5NxrCMr
The U.S. Coalition spokesperson later reported that one U.S. soldier suffered a superficial
wound and was allowed to return to active duty following the incident.
* * *
Other local videos emerged on Arabic social media Wednesday, showing villagers confronting
American troops as 'occupiers'.
"What are you doing in our country?" the local Syrian man asks while approaching the US
convoy.
Russia's military has declassified and released another trove of documents and photographs
from its archives for those of us still interested in the events of WW2. Liberation of Budapest , after the siege of Leningrad
and the battle for Stalingrad, the longest engagement made by the Red Army and seen as a
rehearsal for Berlin. As expected, everything's in Russian, so it's an opportunity to work on
your language skills. I hope Russia's military continues these releases so other governments
will follow, but I won't hold my breath for the West to come clean.
Russian MOD spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said the Israeli jets effectively hid
behind the radar signal of an Airbus A-320 as it approached Damascus international airport in
order to launch airstrikes on targets near the Syrian capital.
It was only due to the skill of the Syrian air defense operators that the passenger plane
was correctly identified and escorted out of the firing line. The aircraft was diverted to a
safe landing at the Russian air base at Hmeymim further north at Latakia.
Israel has a cynical policy of neither confirming or denying its forces are conducting
offensive operations. So, its side of the story remains ambiguous. However, Israeli
commanders have admitted previously to carrying out hundreds of airstrikes on Syrian
territory over the past two years.
Russian military spokesman Konashenkov said what happened this week was a "typical" ploy
used during recent Israeli air raid maneuvers. He said the Israeli air force was knowingly
putting civilians in danger as a "shield" for their offensive operation.
The implications are appalling. Not only is
Israel violating international law and Syrian sovereignty by carrying out acts of
aggression with airstrikes, the Jewish state is also using civilian aircraft as de facto
hostages in mid-air. It appears that the nefarious calculation at work by the Israelis is that
they are betting the Syrian air defense systems will refrain from taking defensive action so as
to avoid civilian casualties. The Israelis are thus able to freely launch their illegal
airstrikes while using human shields in the air.
This is by no means the first time the Israelis have used such a dastardly ploy. Russia
claims that in the recent past other civilian airliners have been similarly exploited by
Israeli warplanes to enable strikes on Syria.
Also, in September 2018, Moscow accused Israel of deliberately putting a Russian
reconnaissance plane in danger which led to the death of 15 crew. On that occasion, Israeli
F-16s are believed to have knowingly flown behind the radar signal of an IL-20 aircraft as it
approached Hmeymim air base and then fired off missiles at Syrian territory. Syrian air
defenses mistook the IL-20 for an enemy target and shot down the recon plane with tragic
results.
Israel denied on that occasion that it was using the Russian spy plane as a decoy. The
Israelis sought to blame the Syrians for incompetent defense operations. Moscow, however, was
having none of the Israeli excuses and condemned Tel Aviv for sacrificing Russian lives. Russia
then responded by upgrading allied Syrian air defenses with the
S-300 system .
Perhaps that S-300 upgrade was a factor in why the civilian airliner escaped this week from
accidental shoot-down by Syrian air defense.
In any case, what needs to be called out is the absolute disgraceful behavior of Israel. It
has no right to launch airstrikes on Syria in the first place. Countless such attacks have
occurred over recent years. Israeli claims about hitting "Iranian targets" within Syria are
null and void and indefensible under international law.
Israeli strikes are acts of aggression, plain and simple.
As if that it is not bad enough, now we see Israel using civilian airliners in a cowardly
and wicked way as a form of protection so that its warplanes can commit their crimes of
aggression.
If any other state were to do this, the Western media would be heaping endless vilification
upon it. Any other state would be globally condemned as a rogue, terrorist pariah. The United
Nations would be inundated with resolutions to impose severe sanctions.
The double standards with which, say Iran, is treated is dumbfounding.
Another astounding hypocrisy is the way Syria is sanctioned left, right and center by the
European Union. The war-torn Arab country is unable to import vital medicines because of
EU sanctions . Yet the EU does nothing to reprimand Israel for brazen violations of
international law.
The question of "how low can you go?" does not just apply to Israel, but also to the Western
news media and Israel's international political supporters, chiefly the American government.
Russia might also rethink its position vis-a-vis Israel the next time Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu wants a reception in Moscow.
Until Israel begins to abide by international law, it should be treated with a cold
shoulder. The despicable event this week of endangering a civilian airliner should be seen as
the last straw for indulging Israel as if it is a normal state.
Caroline Dorminey and Sumaya Malas do an excellent job of
making the case for extending New START:
One of the most critical arms control agreements, the New Strategic Reduction Arms Treaty
(New START), will disappear soon if leaders do not step up to save it. New START imposes
limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, Russia and the United States, and remains
one of the last arms control agreements still in effect. Those limits expire in exactly one
year from Wednesday, and without it, both stockpiles will be unconstrained for the first time
in decades.
Democrats in Congress already express consistent support for the extension of New START,
turning the issue into a Democratic Party agenda item. But today's hyper-partisan landscape
need not dictate that arms control must become solely a Democratic priority. Especially when
the treaty in question still works, provides an important limit on Russian nuclear weapons,
and ultimately increases our national security.
Dorminey and Malas are right that there should be broad support for extending the
treaty. The treaty's ratification was frequently described as a "no-brainer" win for U.S.
national security when it was being debated ten years ago, and the treaty's extension is
likewise obviously desirable for both countries. The trouble is that the Trump administration
doesn't judge this treaty or any other international agreement on the merits, and only a few of
the Republicans that voted to ratify the treaty are still in office. Trump and his advisers
have been following the lead of anti-arms control ideologues for years. That is why the
president seized on violations of the INF Treaty as an excuse to get rid of that treaty instead
of working to resolve the dispute with Russia, and that is why he expressed his willingness to
pull out of the Open Skies Treaty. Trump has encountered no resistance from the GOP as he goes
on a treaty-killing spree, because by and large the modern Republican Party couldn't care less
about arms control.
Like these hard-liners, Trump doesn't think there is such a thing as a "win-win" agreement
with another government, and for that he reason he won't support any treaty that imposes the
same restrictions on both parties. We can see that the administration isn't serious about
extending the treaty when we look at the far-fetched demands they insist on adding to the
existing treaty. These additional demands are meant to serve as a smokescreen so that the
administration can let the treaty die, and the administration is just stalling for time until
the expiration occurs. The Russian government has said many times that it is ready and willing
to accept an extension of the treaty without any conditions, and the U.S. response has been to
let them eat static.
It would be ideal if Trump suddenly changed his position on all this and just extended the
treaty, but all signs point in the opposite direction. What we need to start thinking about is
what the next administration is going to have to do to rebuild the arms control architecture
that this administration has demolished. There will be almost no time for the next president to
extend the treaty next year, so it needs to be a top priority. If New START lapses, the U.S.
and Russia would have to negotiate a new treaty to replace it, and in the current political
climate the odds that the Senate would ratify an arms control treaty (or any treaty) are not
good. It would be much easier and wiser to keep the current treaty alive, but we need to start
preparing for the consequences of Trump's unwillingness to do that.
In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting
, the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US
account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27.
The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of
responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence
for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was
Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that
though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they
have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and
has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump
administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the
west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in
Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties.
On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen.
Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.
The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had
previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and
were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to
launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they
have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.
This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense
Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon
in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious
(but not fatal) wounding
of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately
blamed on the PLO.
Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the
assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In
London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an
anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the
time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside
Lebanon.
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the
authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a
bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against
them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in
triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were
both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.
Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was
Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in
the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS
in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.
Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed
to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and
installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion
looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982
served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong
political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled
Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the
country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against
Israel today
Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move.
How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation
against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against
Tehran?
This article has been republished with permission from
Just World News .
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey
and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military
victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is
coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's
assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi
Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with
Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament.
He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him
and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in
false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the
situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in
2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary
session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had
learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent
Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and
then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together
with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being
recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:
Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused
to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated)
words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement.
When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my
premiership.
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us
rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this "third party".
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult
for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist
attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to
deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from
the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of
negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the
importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the
risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi
Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the
US operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the
rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard
against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman
sent a delegation to the United States.
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf
of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through
another war'.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to
do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that
Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to
mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a
regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike
evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many
issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior
government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey
and
Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the
country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from
Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's
regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi
royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy
agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing
out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar
about which
I have long written .
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution
(on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However,
this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US
dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve
currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from
playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can
easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its
treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable
arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order,
with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South
America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming
majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship
with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen
to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent
without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp
both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks
to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in
2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the
Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road
Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement,
Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for
everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian
Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030
vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any
appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and
destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate
the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a
desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving
multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the
world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and
dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid
squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and
unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East,
that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any
other currency than the US dollar.
Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other
way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by
targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While
Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the
importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision,
all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents,
winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's),
and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the
region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been
scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead
increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm
dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the
countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.
Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to
swallow for my US american brother and sisters.
But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to
survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it
already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people
need to wake up?
Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,
Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to
recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).
Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist
controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should
tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)
The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly
with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators
and the security men:
Abdul Mahdi continued:
"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed,
the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of
non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would
target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and
the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China
agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist
to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who
kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically
threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."
.........
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia
for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers
Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in
absentia in Malaysia.
Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing
out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens
within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to
our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress
who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its
own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires
end with a bang. Be ready
The essential facts are these. In April 1898, the United States went to war with Spain. The war's nominal purpose was to liberate
Cuba from oppressive colonial rule. The war's subsequent conduct found the United States not only invading and occupying Cuba, but
also seizing Puerto Rico, completing a deferred annexation of Hawaii, scarfing up various other small properties in the Pacific,
and, not least of all, replacing Spain as colonial masters of the Philippine Archipelago, located across the Pacific.
That the true theme of the war with Spain turned out to be not liberation but expansion should not come as a terrible surprise.
From the very founding of the first British colonies in North America, expansion has constituted an enduring theme of the American
project. Separation from the British Empire after 1776 only reinforced the urge to grow. Yet prior to 1898, that project had been
a continental one. The events of that year signaled the transition from continental to extra-continental expansion. American leaders
were no longer content to preside over a republic stretching from sea to shining sea.
In that regard, the decision to annex the Philippines stands out as especially instructive. If you try hard enough -- and some
politicians at the time did -- you can talk yourself into believing that U.S. actions in the Caribbean in 1898 represented something
other than naked European-style imperialism with all its brute force to keep the natives in line. After all, the United States did
refrain from converting Cuba into a formal colony and by 1902 had even granted Cubans a sort of ersatz independence. Moreover, both
Cuba and Puerto Rico fell within "our backyard," as did various other Caribbean republics soon to undergo U.S. military occupation.
Geographically, all were located within the American orbit.
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
So the Philippine Archipelago had become ours. In short order, however, authorities in Washington changed their mind about the
wisdom of accepting responsibility for several thousand islands located nearly 7,000 miles from San Francisco.
The sprawling American colony turned out to be the ultimate impulse purchase. And as with most impulse purchases, enthusiasm soon
enough gave way to second thoughts and even regret. By 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt was privately referring to the Philippines
as America's "Achilles heel." The United States had paid Spain $20 million for an acquisition that didn't turn a profit and couldn't
be defended given the limited capabilities of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. To complicate matters further, from Tokyo's perspective,
the Philippines fell within its backyard. So far as Imperial Japan was concerned, imperial America was intruding on its turf.
Thus was the sequence of events leading to the Pacific War of 1941-1945 set in motion. I am not suggesting that Pearl Harbor was
an inevitable consequence of the United States annexing the Philippines. I am suggesting that it put two rival imperial powers on
a collision course.
One can, of course, find in the ensuing sequence of events matters worth celebrating -- great military victories at places like
Midway, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, culminating after 1945 in a period of American dominion. But the legacy of our flirtation with empire
in the Western Pacific also includes much that is lamentable -- the wars in Korea and Vietnam, for example, and now an intensifying
rivalry with China destined to lead we know not where.
If history could be reduced to a balance sheet, the U.S. purchase of the Philippines would rate as a pretty bad bargain. That
first $20 million turned out to be only a down payment.
No. Absolutely not. We would have been much better off had the US not violently dismantled the first Republic of the Philippines.
The canard that our greatest generation of Filipinos (Generation of 1898) was not fit to govern us was a product of US Assimilation
Schools designed to rid the Philippines of Filipinos- by wiring them to automatically think anything non-Filipino will always
be better (intenalized racism) and to train the primarily to leave and work abroad and blend -in as Americans (objectification)
and never stand out as self-respecting Filipinos who aspire to be the best they can be propelled by the Filipino story.
Our multiple Golden Ages only occurred prior to US invasion and colonization.
YES, the USA owes us. We are every American's 2nd original sin.
We do not owe US anything. The USA owes us a great big deal, More than any other country on earth.
THEY (USA) owes us:
1) For violently dismantling the first Republic of the Philippines at the cost of over a million martyrs from the greatest generation
of Filipinos.
2) For US Assimilation Schools denying us the intensity of our golden ages prior to their invasion as our drivers for PH civilization,
turning us into a country that trains its people to leave and assimilate in US culture and become workers for Americans and foreigners
abroad. This results in a Philippines WITHOUT Filipinos.
3) For US bombs turning Intramuros into dust- the centerpiece of the Paris of the East, with treasures, publications and art
much older that the US- without consent from any Filipino leader. And for dismantling our train system from La Union to Bicol.
4) For the US Rescission Act which denied Filipino veterans due recognition, dignity and honor- vets who fought THEIR war against
Japan on our soil.
5) For the canard that Aguinaldo, our 29-year old father and liberator of the Republic of the Philippines, is a villain and
a traitor, even inventing the heroism of Andres Bonifacio which ultimately resulted in "Toxic Nationalism" which Rizal warned
us about in the persona of Simoun in El Filibusterismo who will drive our nation to self-destruction and turn a paradise into
a desert by being automatically wired to think anything non-Filipino will and always be better.
The core of colonial mentality is the misguided belief that we cannot have been a greater country had the US not destroyed
the first Republic of the Philippines- a lie that was embedded in our minds by the US discrediting Aguinaldo and the Generation
of 1896/1898- the greatest generation of Filipinos.
It does seem to me that every country which was able and could afford to expand its territory did so. In Europe, exceptions to
that a wish were Switzerland, Slovakia, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, Ukraine, ?Romania and Chechia.
So, US had company!
President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that
country:
"When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. . . And
one night late it came to me this way. . .1) That we could not give them back to Spain- that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable;
3) that we not leave them to themselves-they are unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there
worse than Spain's wars; and 4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and
uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ
also died."
Making Christians of a country that had its first Catholic diocese 9 years before the Spanish Armada sailed for England, with
4 dioceses in place years before the English sailed for Jamestown.
Dan Carlin did an outstanding podcast on the choices America faced after acquiring the Philippines. McKinley was anti-empire,
but the industrialists in his administration hungered to thwart the British, French and Dutch empires in the Pacific by establishing
a colony all of our own.
As someone born in Latin America, we never saw the US as anything but a brutal predator, whose honeyed words were belied by their
deeds. I wonder if it began with the Philippines. There was the Mexican war first, which wrested a lot of territory from Mexico.
And then there was the invasion of Canada to bring the blessings of democracy to Canadians (it ended with the White House in flames).
I suspect that the beliefe that you are exceptional and blessed by God can lead to want to straighten up other people "for their
own good", and make a profit besides - a LOT of profit.
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the nonWestern world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for
bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.
Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on
CBS's Face the Nation
, "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In
appearances on
five
news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note
tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This
Week.
In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's
foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.
We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become
significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration,
Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's
nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .
This is a very consequential line to cross.
Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that
recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to
charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.
Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions
recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted
ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal
Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.
Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.
'Keeping the Oil'
Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course --
probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want
to keep the oil," Trump declared in
the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus
from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.
The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is
illegal,"
Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing
for Consortium News, pointed out
that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)
Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international
law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone
attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.
In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil,
Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss
the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops,
Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost
of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are
Iraqi government-owned.
At Baghdad's Throat
Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three
years ago, he has
tried
to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot
over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.
Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil AbdulMahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister.
Last year the U.S. administration
asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various
promised reconstruction projects.
Rejecting the offer, AbdulMahdi
signed an "oil
for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in
Baghdad if AbdulMahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)
U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)
Blueprints for Reprisal
If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief rsum has nonetheless
pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.
No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance
of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals.
The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that
Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals
against the U.S.
Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech
at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise
other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.
Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:
"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits.
It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose
costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."
Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously
incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given
response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.
Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif
sent out a message
whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These
few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a
critical blow.
24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.
Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.
Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions
such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the nonWestern world.
In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This
was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist,
essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him
on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago.
What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.
Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46
Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets"
See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.
rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28
To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of
Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience
to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others
and has not for centuries.
Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty
to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing
economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we
have already seen.
"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will
not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran
for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.
Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15
The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far
Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.
dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43
SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat.
Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about.
Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.
Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49
The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance
around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.
Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he
must not have been listening.
Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies,
without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will
on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed
off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg
him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it
looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.
The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the
problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen
and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.
Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30
It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position?
On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In
the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime,
simply furthering a policy objective.
Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19
What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation that has caused so much grief and still
does.
Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01
The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies
and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade
reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before;
but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.
paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55
The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO
countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they
are likely to turn to other protectors.
One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that
this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had
anything to do with any of this?
ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31
Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful.
"We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips
for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to
Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.
Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40
Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance
has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance
could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The
Empires days are numbered.
Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28
Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone
who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html
This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might
pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the
future are punished in the present.
Many of these crimes grew out of shortcomings in the military's management of the deployments that
experts say are still present: a heavy dependence on cash transactions, a hasty award process for high-value
contracts, loose and harried oversight within the ranks, and a regional culture of corruption that
proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there.
Notable quotes:
"... "this thing going on" ..."
"... a regional culture of corruption that proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there. ..."
The Fraud of War: U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have stolen tens of millions through
bribery, theft, and rigged contracts.
U.S. Army Specialist Stephanie Charboneau sat at the center of a complex trucking network in Forward
Operating Base Fenty near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that distributed daily tens of thousands
of gallons of what troops called "liquid gold": the refined petroleum that fueled the international
coalition's vehicles, planes, and generators.
A prominent sign in the base read: "The Army Won't Go If The Fuel Don't Flow." But Charboneau,
31, a mother of two from Washington state, felt alienated after a supervisor's harsh rebuke. Her
work was a dreary routine of recording fuel deliveries in a computer and escorting trucks past a
gate. But it was soon to take a dark turn into high-value crime.
Troops were selling the U.S. military's fuel to Afghan locals on the side, and pocketing the proceeds.
She began an affair with a civilian, Jonathan Hightower, who worked for a Pentagon contractor that
distributed fuel from Fenty, and one day in March 2010 he told her about "this thing going on"
at other U.S. military bases around Afghanistan, she recalled in a recent telephone interview.
Troops were selling the U.S. military's fuel to Afghan locals on the side, and pocketing the proceeds.
When Hightower suggested they start doing the same, Charboneau said, she agreed.
In so doing, Charboneau contributed to thefts by U.S. military personnel of at least $15 million
worth of fuel since the start of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. And eventually she became one of at
least 115 enlisted personnel and military officers convicted since 2005 of committing theft, bribery,
and contract-rigging crimes valued at $52 million during their deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq,
according to a comprehensive tally of court records by
the Center for Public Integrity.
Many of these crimes grew out of shortcomings in the military's management of the deployments that
experts say are still present: a heavy dependence on cash transactions, a hasty award process for
high-value contracts, loose and harried oversight within the ranks, and a regional culture of
corruption that proved seductive to the Americans troops transplanted there.
Charboneau, whose Facebook posts reveal a bright-eyed woman with a shoulder tattoo and a huge grin,
snuggling with pets and celebrating the 2015 New Year with her children in Seattle Seahawks jerseys,
now sits in Carswell federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, serving a seven-year sentence for her crime.
"... Only hours after the Liberty arrived it was spotted by the Israeli military. The IDF sent out reconnaissance planes to identify the ship. They made eight trips over a period of three hours. The Liberty was flying a large US flag and was easily recognizable as an American vessel. ..."
"... Soon more planes came. These were Israeli Mirage III fighters, armed with rockets and machine guns. As off-duty officers sunbathed on the deck, the fighters opened fire on the defenseless ship with rockets and machine guns. ..."
"... Attack on the Liberty ..."
"... Attack on the Liberty ..."
"... Dangerous Liaison, ..."
"... In January 1968, the arms embargo on Israel was lifted and the sale of American weapons began to flow. By 1971, Israel was buying $600 million of American-made weapons a year. Two years later the purchases topped $3 billion. Almost overnight, Israel had become the largest buyer of US-made arms and aircraft. ..."
"... Perversely, then, the IDF's strike on the Liberty served to weld the US and Israel together, in a kind of political and military embrace. Now, every time the IDF attacks defenseless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F-16s and Apache helicopters, the Palestinians quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation, with the Pentagon as a hidden partner. ..."
In early June of 1967, at the onset of the Six Day War, the Pentagon sent the USS Liberty from Spain into international waters
off the coast of Gaza to monitor the progress of Israel's attack on the Arab states. The Liberty was a lightly armed surveillance
ship.
Only hours after the Liberty arrived it was spotted by the Israeli military. The IDF sent out reconnaissance planes to identify
the ship. They made eight trips over a period of three hours. The Liberty was flying a large US flag and was easily recognizable
as an American vessel.
Soon more planes came. These were Israeli Mirage III fighters, armed with rockets and machine guns. As off-duty officers sunbathed
on the deck, the fighters opened fire on the defenseless ship with rockets and machine guns.
A few minutes later a second wave of planes streaked overhead, French-built Mystere jets, which not only pelted the ship with
gunfire but also with napalm bomblets, coating the deck with the flaming jelly. By now, the Liberty was on fire and dozens were wounded
and killed, excluding several of the ship's top officers.
The Liberty's radio team tried to issue a distress call, but discovered the frequencies had been jammed by the Israeli planes
with what one communications specialist called "a buzzsaw sound." Finally, an open channel was found and the Liberty got out a message
it was under attack to the USS America, the Sixth Fleet's large aircraft carrier.
Two F-4s left the carrier to come to the Liberty's aid. Apparently, the jets were armed only with nuclear weapons. When word reached
the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara became irate and ordered the jets to return. "Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft
back immediately," he barked. McNamara's injunction was reiterated in saltier terms by Admiral David L. McDonald, the chief of Naval
Operations: "You get those fucking airplanes back on deck, and you get them back down." The planes turned around. And the attack
on the Liberty continued.
After the Israeli fighter jets had emptied their arsenal of rockets, three Israeli attack boats approached the Liberty. Two torpedoes
were launched at the crippled ship, one tore a 40-foot wide hole in the hull, flooding the lower compartments, and killing more than
a dozen American sailors.
As the Liberty listed in the choppy seas, its deck aflame, crew members dropped life rafts into the water and prepared to scuttle
the ship. Given the number of wounded, this was going to be a dangerous operation. But it soon proved impossible, as the Israeli
attack boats strafed the rafts with machine gun fire. No body was going to get out alive that way.
After more than two hours of unremitting assault, the Israelis finally halted their attack. One of the torpedo boats approached
the Liberty. An officer asked in English over a bullhorn: "Do you need any help?"
The wounded commander of the Liberty, Lt. William McGonagle, instructed the quartermaster to respond emphatically: "Fuck you."
The Israeli boat turned and left.
A Soviet destroyer responded before the US Navy, even though a US submarine, on a covert mission, was apparently in the area and
had monitored the attack. The Soviet ship reached the Liberty six hours before the USS Davis. The captain of the Soviet ship offered
his aid, but the Liberty's conning officer refused.
Finally, 16 hours after the attack two US destroyers reached the Liberty. By that time, 34 US sailors were dead and 174 injured,
many seriously. As the wounded were being evacuated, an officer with the Office of Naval Intelligence instructed the men not to talk
about their ordeal with the press.
The following morning Israel launched a surprise invasion of Syria, breaching the new cease-fire agreement and seizing control
of the Golan Heights.
Within three weeks, the Navy put out a 700-page report, exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and
that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair
should be forgotten. "These errors do occur," McNamara concluded.
***
In Assault on the Liberty
, a harrowing first-hand account by James Ennes Jr., McNamara's version of events is proven to be as big a sham as his concurrent
lies about Vietnam. Ennes's book created a media storm when it was first published by Random House in 1980, including (predictably)
charges that Ennes was a liar and an anti-Semite. Still, the book sold more than 40,000 copies, but was eventually allowed to go
out of print. Now Ennes has published an updated version, which incorporates much new evidence that the Israeli attack was deliberate
and that the US government went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the truth.
It's a story of Israel aggression, Pentagon incompetence, official lies, and a cover-up that persists to this day. The book gains
much of its power from the immediacy of Ennes's first-hand account of the attack and the lies that followed.
Now, decades later, Ennes warns that the bloodbath on board the Liberty and its aftermath should serve as a tragic cautionary
tale about the continuing ties between the US government and the government of Israel.
The Attack on the Liberty is the kind of book that makes your blood seethe. Ennes skillfully documents the life of the
average sailor on one of the more peculiar vessels in the US Navy, with an attention for detail that reminds one of Dana or O'Brien.
After all, the year was 1967 and most of the men on the Liberty were certainly glad to be on a non-combat ship in the middle of the
Mediterranean, rather than in the Gulf of Tonkin or Mekong Delta.
But this isn't Two Years Before the Mast. In fact, Ennes's tour on the Liberty last only a few short weeks. He had scarcely settled
into a routine before his new ship was shattered before his eyes.
Ennes joined the Liberty in May of 1967, as an Electronics Material Officer. Serving on a "spook ship", as the Liberty was known
to Navy wives, was supposed to be a sure path to career enhancement. The Liberty's normal routine was to ply the African coast, tuning
in its eavesdropping equipment on the electronic traffic in the region.
The Liberty had barely reached Africa when it received a flash message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sail from the Ivory Coast
to the Mediterranean, where it was to re-deploy off the coast of the Sinai to monitor the Israeli attack on Egypt and the allied
Arab nations.
As the war intensified, the Liberty sent a request to the fleet headquarters requesting an escort. It was denied by Admiral William
Martin. The Liberty moved alone to a position in international waters about 13 miles from the shore at El Arish, then under furious
siege by the IDF.
On June 6, the Joint Chiefs sent Admiral McCain, father of the senator from Arizona, an urgent message instructing him to move
the Liberty out of the war zone to a position at least 100 miles off the Gaza Coast. McCain never forwarded the message to the ship.
A little after seven in the morning on June 8, Ennes entered the bridge of the Liberty to take the morning watch. Ennes was told
that an hour earlier a "flying boxcar" (later identified as a twin-engine Nord 2501 Noratlas) had flown over the ship at a low level.
Ennes says he noticed that the ship's American flag had become stained with soot and ordered a new flag run up the mast. The morning
was clear and calm, with a light breeze.
At 9 am, Ennes spotted another reconnaissance plane, which circled the Liberty. An hour later two Israeli fighter jets buzzed
the ship. Over the next four hours, Israeli planes flew over the Liberty five more times.
When the first fighter jet struck, a little before two in the afternoon, Ennes was scanning the skies from the starboard side
of the bridge, binoculars in his hands. A rocket hit the ship just below where Ennes was standing, the fragments shredded the men
closest to him.
After the explosion, Ennes noticed that he was the only man left standing. But he also had been hit by more than 20 shards of
shrapnel and the force of the blast had shattered his left leg. As he crawled into the pilothouse, a second fighter jet streaked
above them and unleashed its payload on the hobbled Liberty.
At that point, Ennes says the crew of the Liberty had no idea who was attacking them or why. For a few moments, they suspected
it might be the Soviets, after an officer mistakenly identified the fighters as MIG-15s. They knew that the Egyptian air force already
had been decimated by the Israelis. The idea that the Israelis might be attacking them didn't occur to them until one of the crew
spotted a Star of David on the wing of one of the French-built Mystere jets.
Ennes was finally taken below deck to a makeshift dressing station, with other wounded men. It was hardly a safe harbor. As Ennes
worried that his fractured leg might slice through his femoral artery leaving him to bleed to death, the Liberty was pummeled by
rockets, machine-gun fire and an Italian-made torpedo packed with 1,000-pounds of explosive.
After the attack ended, Ennes was approached by his friend Pat O'Malley, a junior officer, who had just sent a list of killed
and wounded to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. He got an immediate message back. "They said, 'Wounded in what action? Killed in what
action?'," O'Malley told Ennes. "They said it wasn't an 'action,' it was an accident. I'd like for them to come out here and see
the difference between an action and an accident. Stupid bastards."
The cover-up had begun.
***
The Pentagon lied to the public about the attack on the Liberty from the very beginning. In a decision personally approved by
the loathsome McNamara, the Pentagon denied to the press that the Liberty was an intelligence ship, referring to it instead as a
Technical Research ship, as if it were little more than a military version of Jacques Cousteau's Calypso.
The military press corps on the USS America, where most of the wounded sailors had been taken, were placed under extreme restrictions.
All of the stories filed from the carrier were first routed through the Pentagon for security clearance, objectionable material was
removed with barely a bleat of protest from the reporters or their publications.
Predictably, Israel's first response was to blame the victim, a tactic that has served them so well in the Palestinian situation.
First, the IDF alleged that it had asked the State Department and the Pentagon to identify any US ships in the area and was told
that there were none. Then the Israeli government charged that the Liberty failed to fly its flag and didn't respond to calls for
it to identify itself. The Israelis contended that they assumed the Liberty was an Egyptian supply ship called El Quseir, which,
even though it was a rusting transport ship then docked in Alexandria, the IDF said it suspected of shelling Israeli troops from
the sea. Under these circumstances, the Israeli's said they were justified in opening fire on the Liberty. The Israelis said that
they halted the attack almost immediately, when they realized their mistake.
"The Liberty contributed decisively toward its identification as an enemy ship," the IDF report concluded. This was a blatant
falsehood, since the Israelis had identified the Liberty at least six hours prior to the attack on the ship.
Even though the Pentagon knew better, it gave credence to the Israeli account by saying that perhaps the Liberty's flag had lain
limp on the flagpole in a windless sea. The Pentagon also suggested that the attack might have lasted less than 20 minutes.
After the initial battery of misinformation, the Pentagon imposed a news blackout on the Liberty disaster until after the completion
of a Court of Inquiry investigation.
The inquiry was headed by Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd. Kidd didn't have a free hand. He'd been instructed by Vice-Admiral McCain
to limit the damage to the Pentagon and to protect the reputation of Israel.
The Kidd interviewed the crew on June 14 and 15. The questioning was extremely circumscribed. According to Ennes, the investigators
"asked nothing that might be embarrassing to Israeland testimony that tended to embarrass Israel was covered with a 'Top Secret'
label, if it was accepted at all."
Ennes notes that even testimony by the Liberty's communications officers about the jamming of the ship's radios was classified
as "Top Secret." The reason? It proved that Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. "Here was strong evidence that the attack
was planned in advance and that our ship's identity was known to the attackers (for it its practically impossible to jam the radio
of a stranger), but this information was hushed up and no conclusions were drawn from it," Ennes writes.
Similarly, the Court of Inquiry deep-sixed testimony and affidavits regarding the flag-Ennes had ordered a crisp new one deployed
early on the morning of the attack. The investigators buried intercepts of conversations between IDF pilots identifying the ship
as flying an American flag.
It also refused to accept evidence about the IDF's use of napalm during the attacks and choose not to hear testimony regarding
the duration of the attacks and the fact that the US Navy failed to send planes to defend the ship.
"No one came to help us," said Dr. Richard F. Kiepfer, the Liberty's physician. "We were promised help, but no help came. The
Russians arrived before our own ships did. We asked for an escort before we ever came to the war zone and we were turned down."
None of this made its way into the 700-page Court of Inquiry report, which was completed within a couple of weeks and sent to
Admiral McCain in London for review.
McCain approved the report over the objections of Captain Merlin Staring, the Navy legal officer assigned to the inquiry, who
found the report to be flawed, incomplete and contrary to the evidence.
Staring sent a letter to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy disavowing himself from the report. The JAG seemed to take Staring's
objections to heart. It prepared a summary for the Chief of Naval Operations that almost completely ignored the Kidd/McCain report.
Instead, it concluded:
that the Liberty was easily recognizable as an American naval vessel; that it's flag was fully deployed and flying in a moderate
breeze; that Israeli planes made at least eight reconnaissance flights at close range; the ship came under a prolonged attack from
Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats.
This succinct and largely accurate report was stamped Top Secret by Navy brass and stayed locked up for many years. But it was
seen by many in the Pentagon and some in the Oval Office. But here was enough grumbling about the way the Liberty incident had been
handled that LBJ summoned that old Washington fixer Clark Clifford to do damage control. It didn't take Clifford long to come up
with the official line: the Israelis simply had made a tragic mistake.
It turns out that the Admiral Kidd and Captain Ward Boston, the two investigating officers who prepared the original report for
Admiral McCain, both believed that the Israeli attack was intentional and sustained. In other words, the IDF knew that they were
striking an American spy ship and they wanted to sink it and kill as many sailors as possible. Why then did the Navy investigators
produce a sham report that concluded it was an accident?
Twenty-five years later we finally found out. In June of 2002, Captain Boston told the Navy Times: "Officers follow orders."
It gets worse. There's plenty of evidence that US intelligence agencies learned on June 7 that Israel intended to attack the Liberty
on the following day and that the strike had been personally ordered by Moshe Dayan.
As the attacks were going on, conversations between Israeli pilots were overheard by US Air Force officers in an EC121 surveillance
plane overhead. The spy plane was spotted by Israeli jets, which were given orders to shoot it down. The American plane narrowly
avoided the IDF missiles.
Initial reports on the incident prepared by the CIA, Office of Naval Intelligence and the National Security Agency all reached
similar conclusions.
A particularly damning report compiled by a CIA informant suggests that Israeli Defense minister Moshe Dayan personally ordered
the attack and wanted it to proceed until the Liberty was sunk and all on board killed. A heavily redacted version of the report
was released in 1977. It reads in part:
"[The source] said that Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the
action and said, 'This is pure murder.' One of the admirals who was present also disapproved of the action, and it was he who
ordered it stopped and not Dayan."
This amazing document generated little attention from the press and Dayan was never publicly questioned about his role in the
attack.
The analyses by the intelligence agencies are collected in a 1967 investigation by the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Two and half decades later that report remains classified. Why? A former committee staffer said: "So as not to embarrass Israel."
More proof came to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes
got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni
said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US
Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack."
He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.
***
How tightly does the Israeli lobby control the Hill? For the first time in history, an attack on an America ship was not subjected
to a public investigation by Congress. In 1980, Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater planned to open a senate hearing into the Liberty
affair. Then Jimmy Carter intervened by brokering a deal with Menachem Begin, where Israel agreed to pony up $6 million to pay for
damages to the ship. A State Department press release announced the payment said, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty."
It certainly was the last chapter for Adlai Stevenson. He ran for governor of Illinois the following year, where his less than
perfect record on Israel, and his unsettling questions about the Liberty affair, became an issue in the campaign. Big money flowed
into the coffers of his Republican opponent, Big Jim Thompson, and Stevenson went down to a narrow defeat.
But the book wasn't closed for the sailors either, of course. After a Newsweek story exposed the gist of what really happened
on that day in the Mediterranean, an enraged Admiral McCain placed all the sailors under a gag order. When one sailor told an officer
that he was having problems living with the cover-up, he was told: "Forget about it, that's an order."
The Navy went to bizarre lengths to keep the crew of the Liberty from telling what they knew. When gag orders didn't work, they
threatened sanctions. Ennes tells of the confinement and interrogation of two Liberty sailors that sounds like something right out
of the CIA's MK-Ultra program.
"In an incredible abuse of authority, military officers held two young Liberty sailors against their will in a locked and heavily
guarded psychiatric ward of the base hospital," Ennes writes. "For days these men were drugged and questioned about their recollections
of the attack by a 'therapist' who admitted to being untrained in either psychiatry or psychology. At one point, they avoided electroshock
only by bolting from the room and demanding to see the commanding officer."
Since coming home, the veterans who have tried to tell of their ordeal have been harassed relentlessly. They've been branded as
drunks, bigots, liars and frauds. Often, it turns out, these slurs have been leaked by the Pentagon. And, oh yeah, they've also been
painted as anti-Semites.
In a recent column, Charley Reese describes just how mean-spirited and petty this campaign became. "When a small town in Wisconsin
decided to name its library in honor of the USS Liberty crewmen, a campaign claiming it was anti-Semitic was launched," writes Reese.
"And when the town went ahead, the U.S. government ordered no Navy personnel to attend, and sent no messages. This little library
was the first, and at the time the only, memorial to the men who died on the Liberty."
***
So why then did the Israelis attack the Liberty?
A few days before the Six Days War, Israel's Foreign Minister Abba Eban visited Washington to inform LBJ about the forthcoming
invasion. Johnson cautioned Eban that the US could not support such an attack.
It's possible, then, that the IDF assumed that the Liberty was spying on the Israeli war plans. Possible, but not likely. Despite
the official denials, as Andrew and Leslie Cockburn demonstrate in
Dangerous Liaison, at the
time of the Six Days War the US and Israel had developed a warm covert relationship. So closely were the two sides working that US
intelligence aid certainly helped secure Israel's devastating and swift victory. In fact, it's possible that the Liberty had been
sent to the region to spy for the IDF.
A somewhat more likely scenario holds that Moshe Dayan wanted to keep the lid on Israel's plan to breach the new cease-fire and
invade into Syria to seize the Golan.
It has also been suggested that Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty with the intent of pinning the blame on the Egyptians
and thus swinging public and political opinion in the United States solidly behind the Israelis. Of course, for this plan to work,
the Liberty had to be destroyed and its crew killed.
There's another factor. The Liberty was positioned just off the coast from the town of El Arish. In fact, Ennes and others had
used town's mosque tower to fix the location of the ship along the otherwise featureless desert shoreline. The IDF had seized El
Arish and had used the airport there as a prisoner of war camp. On the very day the Liberty was attacked, the IDF was in the process
of executing as many as 1,000 Palestinian and Egyptian POWs, a war crime that they surely wanted to conceal from prying eyes. According
to Gabriel Bron, now an Israeli reporter, who witnessed part of the massacre as a soldier: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered
to dig pits and then army police shot them to death."
The bigger question is why the US government would participate so enthusiastically in the cover-up of a war crime against its
own sailors. Well, the Pentagon has never been slow to hide its own incompetence. And there's plenty of that in the Liberty affair:
bungled communications, refusal to provide an escort, situating the defenseless Liberty too close to a raging battle, the inability
to intervene in the attack and the inexcusably long time it took to reach the battered ship and its wounded.
That's but par for the course. But something else was going on that would only come to light later. Through most of the 1960s,
the US congress had imposed a ban on the sale of arms to both Israel and Jordan. But at the time of the Liberty attack, the Pentagon
(and its allies in the White House and on the Hill) was seeking to have this proscription overturned. The top brass certainly knew
that any evidence of a deliberate attack on a US Navy ship by the IDF would scuttle their plans. So they hushed it up.
In January 1968, the arms embargo on Israel was lifted and the sale of American weapons began to flow. By 1971, Israel was buying
$600 million of American-made weapons a year. Two years later the purchases topped $3 billion. Almost overnight, Israel had become
the largest buyer of US-made arms and aircraft.
Perversely, then, the IDF's strike on the Liberty served to weld the US and Israel together, in a kind of political and military
embrace. Now, every time the IDF attacks defenseless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F-16s and Apache helicopters, the Palestinians
quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation, with the Pentagon as a hidden partner.
Thus, does the legacy of Liberty live on, one raid after another.
Bush older was the first president from CIA. He was already a senior CIA official at the time
of JFK assassination and might participate in the plot to kill JFK. At least he was in Dallas at
the day of assassination. .
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion
of 2003.
Nothing to do with 9 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed a million Iraqis, "half of
them children," and US control of Iraqi air space, after having killed Iraqi military in a
turkey-shoot, for no really good reason other than George H W Bush seized the "unipolar
moment" to become king of the world?
Maybe it's just stubbornness: I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot,"
in the Persian Gulf war aka Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17,
1991.
According to Jeffrey Engel, Bush's biographer and director of the Bush library at Southern
Methodist University, Gorbachev harassed Bush with phone calls, pleading with him not to go
to war over Kuwait
(It's worth noting that Dennis Ross was relatively new in his role on Jim Baker's staff
when Baker, Brent Skowcroft, Larry Eagleburger & like minded urged Bush to take the
Imperial Pivot.)
According to Vernon Loeb, who completed the writing of King's Counsel after Jack
O'Connell died, Jordan's King Hussein, in consultation with retired CIA station chief
O'Connell, parlayed with Arab leaders to resolve the conflict on their own, i.e. Arab-to-Arab
terms, and also pleaded with Bush to stay out, and to let the Arabs solve their own problems.
Bush refused. https://www.c-span.org/video/?301361-6/kings-counsel
See above: Bush was determined to "seize the unipolar moment."
Once again insist on entering into the record: George H Bush was present at the creation
of the Global War on Terror, July 4, 1979, the Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and
Benjamin Netanyahu and heavily populated with Trotskyites – neocons.
I think Papa Bush is responsible for the "imperial pivot," in the Persian Gulf war aka
Operation Desert Storm, 29 years and 4 days ago -- January 17, 1991.
Yes I remember it well. I came back from a long trip & memorable vacation, alas I was
a young man, to the television drama that was unfolding with Arthur Kent 'The Scud
Stud' and others reporting from the safety of their hotel balconies filming aircaft and
cruise missiles. It was surreal.
You are correct of course.
"... Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson. ..."
"... Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said . ..."
"... The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" . ..."
A bombshell revelation from The Washington Post a day after France, Britain and Germany took unprecedented action against Iran
by
formally triggering the dispute resolution mechanism regulating conformity to the deal, seen as the harshest measure taken by
the European signatories thus far. The European powers officially see Iran as in breach of the deal which means UN and EU punitive
sanctions are now on the table.
But according to The Post , how things quickly escalated
to this point is real story : " Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose
25% tariff on European autos if they didn't," says the report.
This came as a "shock" to all three countries, with one top European official
calling it essentially "extortion" and a new level of hardball tactics from the Trump administration.
After the US leveraged the new tariffs threat according to the report, European capitals moved quick to trigger the mechanism,
which involved the individual European states formally notifying the agreement's guarantor, the European Union, that Iran is in breach
of the nuclear deal.
This followed the Jan.6 declaration of Tehran's leadership to no longer be beholden to uranium enrichment limits. And that's where
things got interesting as Washington's pressure campaign dramatically turned up the heat on Europe.
"Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could
reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement," the report
continues .
However, the report notes France, the UK, and Germany were already in deep discussion on moving forward with triggering the mechanism.
"We didn't want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret," a European official cited by WaPo claims.
Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate
foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson.
Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's
so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran,"
they said .
The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments
under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in
The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them
to unlearn" .
Now that the mechanism has been enacted, the clock starts on 65 days of intensive negotiations before UN sanctions would be reimposed
if no resolution is reached. Specifically a blanket arms embargo would be imposed among other measures, and certainly it would mark
the deal's final demise, given the Europeans are Iran's last hope for being equal partners in the deal.
Also interesting is that in the hours before The Washington Post report was published, Iranian FM Zarif charged that the EU investigation
into Iran's alleged non-compliance meant Europe is allowing itself to be bulled by the United States .
Indeed the new revelation of the secret threats attempting to dictate Europe's course appear to confirm precisely Zarif's words
to reporters
earlier on Wednesday : "They say 'We are not responsible for what the United States did.' OK, but you are independent" he began.
And then added a stinging rebuke: "Europe, EU, is the largest global economy. So why do you allow the United States to bully you
around?"
"... The Iraq war was about oil. Recently declassified US government documents confirm this ( 1 ), however much US president George W Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, denied it at the time. ..."
The Iraq war was about oil. Recently declassified US government documents confirm this (
1 ), however much US
president George W Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
their ally, the British prime minister Tony Blair, denied it at the time.
When Bush moved into the White House in January 2001, he faced the familiar problem of the
imbalance between oil supply and demand. Supply was unable to keep up with demand, which was
increasing rapidly because of the growth of emerging economies such as China and India. The
only possible solution lay in the Gulf, where the giant oil-producing countries of Saudi
Arabia, Iran and Iraq, and the lesser producing states of Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, commanded 60%
of the world's reserves.
For financial or political reasons, production growth was slow. In Saudi Arabia, the
ultra-rich ruling families of the Al-Saud, the Al-Sabah and the Zayed Al-Nayan were content
with a comfortable level of income, given their small populations, and preferred to leave their
oil underground. Iran and Iraq hold around 25% of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and could
have filled the gap, but were subject to sanctions -- imposed solely by the US on Iran,
internationally on Iraq -- that deprived them of essential oil equipment and services.
Washington saw them as rogue states and was unwilling to end the sanctions.
How could the US get more oil from the Gulf without endangering its supremacy in the region?
Influential US neoconservatives, led by Paul Wolfowitz, who had gone over to uninhibited
imperialism after the fall of the Soviet Union, thought they had found a solution. They had
never understood George Bush senior's decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the first
Gulf war in 1991. An open letter to President Bill Clinton, inspired by the Statement of
Principles of the Project for the New American Century, a non-profit organisation founded by
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had called for a regime change in Iraq as early as 1998:
Saddam must be ousted and big US oil companies must gain access to Iraq. Several signatories to
the Statement of Principles became members of the new Republican administration in 2001.
In 2002, one of them, Douglas Feith, a lawyer who was undersecretary of defense to Rumsfeld,
supervised the work of experts planning the future of Iraq's oil industry. His first decision
was to entrust its management after the expected US victory to Kellog, Brown & Root, a
subsidiary of US oil giant Halliburton, of which Cheney had been chairman and CEO. Feith's
plan, formulated at the start of 2003, was to keep Iraq's oil production at its current level
of 2,840 mbpd (million barrels per day), to avoid a collapse that would cause chaos in the
world market.
Privatising oil
Experts were divided on the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry. The Iraqi government
had excluded foreign companies and successfully managed the sector itself since 1972. By 2003,
despite wars with Iran (1980-88) and in Kuwait (1990-91) and more than 15 years of sanctions,
Iraq had managed to equal the record production levels achieved in 1979-1980.
The experts had a choice -- bring back the concession regime that had operated before
nationalisation in 1972, or sell shares in the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC) on the Russian
model, issuing transferrable vouchers to the Iraqi population. In Russia, this approach had
very quickly led to the oil sector falling into the hands of a few super-rich oligarchs.
Bush approved the plan drawn up by the Pentagon and State Department in January 2003. The
much-decorated retired lieutenant general Jay Gardner, was appointed director of the Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the military administration set up to govern
post-Saddam Iraq. Out of his depth, he stuck to short-term measures and avoided choosing
between the options put forward by his technical advisers.
Reassuring the oil giants
The international oil companies were not idle. Lee Raymond, CEO of America's biggest oil
company ExxonMobil, was an old friend of Dick Cheney. But where the politicians were daring, he
was cautious. The project was a tempting opportunity to replenish the company's reserves, which
had been stagnant for several years, but Raymond had doubts: would Bush really be able to
assure conditions that would allow the company to operate safely in Iraq? Nobody at ExxonMobil
was willing to die for oil. (Its well-paid engineers do not dream of life in a blockhouse in
Iraq.) The company would also have to be sure of its legal position: what would contracts
signed by a de facto authority be worth when it would be investing billions of dollars that
would take years to recover?
In the UK, BP was anxious to secure its own share of the spoils. As early as 2002 the
company had confided in the UK Department of Trade and Industry its fears that the US might
give away too much to French, Russian and Chinese oil companies in return for their governments
agreeing not to use their veto at the UN Security Council ( 2 ). In February 2003 those fears were removed:
France's president Jacques Chirac vetoed a resolution put forward by the US, and the third Iraq
war began without UN backing. There was no longer any question of respecting the agreements
Saddam had signed with Total and other companies (which had never been put into practice
because of sanctions).
To reassure the British and US oil giants, the US government appointed to the management
team Gary Vogler of ExxonMobil and Philip J Carrol of Shell. They were replaced in October 2003
by Rob McKee of ConocoPhilips and Terry Adams of BP. The idea was to counter the dominance of
the Pentagon, and the influential neocon approach (which faced opposition from within the
administration). The neocon ideologues, still on the scene, had bizarre ideas: they wanted to
build a pipeline to transport Iraq's crude oil to Israel, dismantle OPEC (Organisation of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries) and even use "liberated" Iraq as a guinea pig for a new oil
business model to be applied to all of the Middle East. The engineers and businessmen, whose
priorities were profits and results, were more down-to-earth.
In any event, the invasion had a devastating impact on Iraq's oil production, less because
of the bombing by the US air force than because of the widespread looting of government
agencies, schools, universities, archives, libraries, banks, hospitals, museums and state-owned
enterprises. Drilling rigs were dismantled for the copper parts they were believed to contain.
The looting continued from March to May 2003. Only a third of the damage to the oil industry
was caused during the invasion; the rest happened after the fighting was over, despite the
presence of the RIO Task Force and the US Corps of Engineers with its 500 contractors,
specially prepared and trained to protect oil installations. Saddam's supporters were prevented
from blowing up the oil wells by the speed of the invasion, but the saboteurs set to work in
June 2003.
Iraq's one real asset
The only buildings protected were the gigantic oil ministry, where 15,000 civil servants
managed 22 subsidiaries of the Iraq National Oil Company. The State Oil Marketing Organisation
and the infrastructure were abandoned. The occupiers regarded the oil under the ground as
Iraq's one real asset. They were not interested in installations or personnel. The oil ministry
was only saved at the last minute because it housed geological and seismic data on Iraq's 80
known deposits, estimated to contain 115bn barrels of crude oil. The rest could always be
replaced with more modern US-made equipment and the knowhow of the international oil companies,
made indispensible by the sabotage.
Thamir Abbas Ghadban, director-general of planning at the oil ministry, turned up at the
office three days after the invasion was over, and, in the absence of a minister for oil (since
Iraq had no government), was appointed second in command under Micheal Mobbs, a neocon who
enjoyed the confidence of the Pentagon. Paul Bremer, the US proconsul who headed Iraq's
provisional government from May 2003 to June 2004, presided over the worst 12 months in the oil
sector in 70 years. Production fell by 1 mbpd -- more than $13bn of lost income.
The oil installations, watched over by 3,500 underequipped guards, suffered 140 sabotage
attacks between May 2003 and September 2004, estimated to have caused $7bn of damage. "There
was widespread looting," said Ghadban. "Equipment was stolen and in most cases the buildings
were set on fire." The Daura refinery, near Baghdad, only received oil intermittently, because
of damage to the pipeline network. "We had to let all the oil in the damaged sections of the
pipeline burn before we could repair them." Yet the refinery continued to operate, no mean
achievement considering that the workers were no longer being paid.
The senior management of the national oil company also suffered. Until 1952 almost all
senior managers of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) were foreigners, who occupied villas in
gated and guarded compounds while the local workforce lived in shantytowns. In 1952 tension
between Iraq and Muhammad Mossadegh's Iran led the IPC to review its relations with Baghdad,
and a clause of the new treaty concerned the training of Iraqi managers. By 1972, 75% of the
thousand skilled jobs were filled by Iraqis, which helped to ensure the success of the IPC's
nationalisation. The new Iraq National Oil Company gained control of the oilfields and
production reached unprecedented levels.
Purge of the Ba'ath
After the invasion, the US purged Ba'athist elements from INOC's management. Simply
belonging to the Ba'ath, Iraq's single political party, which had been in power since 1968, was
grounds for dismissal, compulsory retirement or worse. Seventeen of INOC's 24 directors were
forced out, along with several hundred engineers, who had kept production high through wars and
foreign sanctions. The founding fathers of INOC were ousted by the Deba'athification
Commission, led by former exiles including Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, who replaced
them with his own supporters, as incompetent as they were partisan.
Rob McKee, who succeeded Philip J Carrol as oil adviser to the US proconsul, observed in
autumn 2003: "The people themselves are patently unqualified and are apparently being placed in
the ministry for religious, political or personal reasons... the people who nursed the industry
through Saddam's years and who brought it back to life after the liberation, as well as many
trained professionals, are all systematically being pushed to the sidelines" ( 3 ).
This purge opened the door to advisers, mostly from the US, who bombarded the oil ministry
with notes, circulars and reports directly inspired by the practices of the international oil
industry, without much concern for their applicability to Iraq.
The drafting of Iraq's new constitution and an oil law provided an opportunity to change the
rules. Washington had decided in advance to do away with the centralised state, partly because
of its crimes against the Kurds under Saddam and partly because centralisation favours
totalitarianism. The new federal, or even confederal, regime was decentralised to the point of
being de-structured. A two-thirds majority in one of the three provinces allows opposition to
veto central government decisions.
Baghdad-Irbil rivalry
Only Kurdistan had the means and the motivation to do so. Where oil was concerned, power was
effectively divided between Baghdad and Irbil, seat of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG),
which imposed its own interpretation of the constitution: deposits already being exploited
would remain under federal government control, but new licenses would be granted by the
provincial governments. A fierce dispute arose between the two capitals, partly because the KRG
granted licenses to foreign oil companies under far more favourable conditions than those
offered by Baghdad.
The quarrel related to the production sharing agreements. The usual practice is for foreign
companies that provide financial backing to get a share of the oil produced, which can be very
significant in the first few years. This was the formula US politicians and oil companies
wanted to impose. They were unable to do so.
Iraq's parliament, so often criticised in other matters, opposed this system; it was
supported by public opinion, which had not forgotten the former IPC. Tariq Shafiq, founding
father of the INOC, explained to the US Congress the technical reasons for the refusal (
4 ). Iraq's oil deposits
were known and mapped out. There was therefore little risk to foreign companies: there would be
no prospecting costs and exploitation costs would be among the lowest in the world. From 2008
onwards, Baghdad started offering major oil companies far less attractive contracts --
$2/barrel for the bigger oilfields, and no rights to the deposits.
ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Total, and Russian, Chinese, Angolan, Pakistani and Turkish oil
companies nevertheless rushed to accept, hoping that things would turn to their advantage.
Newsweek (24 May 2010) claimed Iraq had the potential to become "the next Saudi Arabia."
But although production is up (over 3 mbpd in 2012), the oil companies are irritated by the
conditions imposed on them: investment costs are high, profits are mediocre and the oil still
underground is not counted as part of their reserves, which affects their share price.
ExxonMobil and Total disregarded the federal government edict that threatened to strip
rights from oil companies that signed production-sharing agreements relating to oilfields in
Kurdistan. Worse, ExxonMobil sold its services contract relating to Iraq's largest oilfield,
West Qurna, where it had been due to invest $50bn and double the country's current production.
Baghdad is now under pressure: if it continues to refuse the conditions requested by the
foreign oil companies, it will lose out to Irbil, even if Kurdistan's deposits are only a third
of the size of those in the south. Meanwhile, Turkey has done nothing to improve its relations
with Iraq by offering to build a direct pipeline from Kurdistan to the Mediterranean. Without
the war, would the oil companies have been able to make the Iraqis and Kurds compete? One thing
is certain: the US is far from achieving its goals in the oil sector, and in this sense the war
was a failure.
Alan Greenspan, who as chairman of the US Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 was well placed
to understand the importance of oil, came up with the best summary of the conflict: "I am
saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war
is largely about oil" ( 5
).
Syria & Russia Publish Evidence Of US Weapons Recovered In Idlib 'Terrorist
Enclave' by Tyler
Durden Sat, 02/08/2020 - 22:00 0 SHARES The Syrian Army is making major gains inside Idlib
in a military offensive condemned by Turkey and the United States, over the weekend capturing
the key town of Saraqib from al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham .
Amid the military advance, the Syrian and Russian governments say they've recovered proof of
US support for the anti-Assad al-Qaeda insurgent terrorists, publishing photographs of crates
of weapons and supplies to state-run
SANA :
Syrian Arab Army units have found US-made weapons and ammunition, and medicines made in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the positions and caches of terrorist organizations in the towns
of Mardikh and Kafr Amim in Idleb southeastern countryside after crushing terrorism in
them.
Syrian reporters say they were recovered in newly liberated areas of southeastern Idlib
province, where army units "found weapons, ammunition and US-made shells and Grad missiles left
behind by terrorists at their positions in the town of Kafr Amim after they fled from the area
after the advancement of the army."
The Russian Embassy in Syria also circulated the photos on Saturday, saying there were some
"interesting findings" in areas that were controlled by terrorists:
For years since nearly the start of the war in 2011 and 2012, Damascus and Moscow have
repeatedly offered proof of US weaponry in the hands of jihadist terrorist groups, including
ISIS.
Meanwhile, in the past days the US State Department has issued repeat warnings to Damascus
that it must halt its joint offensive with Russia - going so far as to release a new video
framing the operation as an attack on civilians .
The US State Dept has issued a propaganda video that warns against any assaults on
#Idlib &
promises to "use all its power to oppose normalization of the Assad regime into the int'l
community". This is the US playing a part in supporting Al-Qaeda's war effort in #Syria
. pic.twitter.com/jyb8zHPzBZ
The US has charged that Damascus is harming "peace" in Idlib despite the fact that as of
2017 the US Treasury had quietly designated the main anti-Assad group in control of Idlib,
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham , as a
terrorist organization .
At the same time, top Turkish and Russian officials held high level talks in Ankara on Saturday over the
worsening humanitarian crisis in Idlib.
Turkey fears the fallout and strain of the hundreds of thousands of refugees now fleeing
Idlib toward the Turkish border, while Russia has charged that Erdogan has failed in his
promises to bring neutralize terrorist groups, who have even begun attacking civilians deep
inside of neighboring Aleppo province.
The guns Hillary, Obama, Juan McLame, and Eric Dickholder ran to Libya and beyond. That
was what got the US Amb whacked and why the stand down order was given by Valerie
Jarrett.
Of course the weapons are made in the USA! This is what happens when you allow Turkey into
NATO and sell it weapons. The weapons were made in the USA, sold to Turkey and then the Turks
sold/gave them to their brothers the Syrian Turkmen and ISIS fighters.
While the US the "land of the free and brave" is giving weapons to murderous islamistic
gangs, Iran, the "ultimate evil" is fighting these same inhumane rats for years.
Land of the tax slave, home of the subservient. Since when are the US Sociopaths In Charge
guilty of morality? Israel wants Syria destroyed, they happily send our sons and daughters to
their death to accommodate them, and supply weapons to the very faction they claim to
oppose.
It would be nice if the ******* assholes who run the MIC would realize that they can just
stand back and watch war WITHOUT participating. Nothing EVER gets accomplished in any war
except a transfer of real estate. What a complete waste, just look at the total destruction.
Then once done the idiots will go looking for another war to play in.
Make America...oops Israel....Great Again. The US and Israel funded and equipped the ISIS
to attack the Syrian government while pretending to be fighting ISIS. Bush, Clinton, Obama
and Trump, it makes little difference despite Trump's rhetoric...or should we say blatant
lies. Trump is actually more dangerous than Obama because so many conservatives/patriots are
sucked in by the lies and disarmed as a result.
Syria and Russian forces attack enemy insurgents illegally occupying Syria's Idlib and the
US CIA and State Department condemn it as a threat to civilians, yet one of Syria's neighbors
hit Damascus with repeated airstrikes, risking civilians, and the same US operatives are
silent about these actions??? I'm confused....
No they weren't silent. The State Department came out and said Israel was justified in
attacking Syria. Despite the fact Israel was using yet again a commerical airliner has bate.
Hoping that Syria would shoot down the jet.
My uncle worked for the federal government as a shoveler at the Money Hole. Retired there
to as a manager at the Money Hole. He said the weapons pickers at the Weapons Tree had it
tough, said jobs at the weapons tree went to mainly undocumented workers after Haliburton
took over the Weapons Tree contract.
The White House needs to figure out how to drip the information out that the Retarded Bush
43 regime and Barry Sotoro regime, along with their cabinets, were running Deep State regime
change in the middle East and around the world. Congress isn't going to drop anything. 50%+
of Congress is the Deep State.
I realize most Americans couldn't mentally handle a total information dump of truth all at
once. Their patriotism would be destroyed if they truly understood what the Demoncrats and
the Rhino Republicans and the Deep State Intelligence network have been doing since 1947
around the globe. They turned the US into a warmonger Empire, just like Rome.
McStain needs to be exposed though. Perhaps exposing a dead man's crimes first could start
the drip.
All done under Obama's watch... with the help of McStain, HRC, Jarret, Rice and many
more.
And you thought Benghazi was just a spontaneous protest over some video... It was arms
running and they needed to make sure there were no Ambass, oops I mean loose ends.
CIA had the ISIS program up and running since 1999. Iraq war, among other reasons, was
designed to get ISIS up and running. Took a decade and still didn't pay off.
That "From the USA for mutual defense" with the unaligned symbol and text is a dead
giveaway. No way anyone would fake that. Were these found in a baby milk factory? Or maybe
the maternity ward of a hospital?
Trump increased Obombers bombing campaigns by +400% & increased troops in ME by 15k.
Trump is even worse than Obomber. Maybe not as bad as Bush Jr. tough.
Israhell has been very careful not to have their name associated with terrorists; they get
Americans to do their dirty work and supply the terrorists instead. Good to be the puppet
master, especially when you have control of American politicians/POTUS.
Now let's have russia and syria count how many hundreds of thousands of Russian AKs, PKMs,
VKSs, RPKs, NSVs, RGNs, RPGs, Koronets, Konkurs, Fagots, and all the rest of the russian
millitary hardware is being used in Syria every day....but I am sure they cannot count that
high.
Those are USSR / Warsaw pact weapons not Russian weapons. They come from Romania,
Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and the Ukraine not Russia. AK-47 and most RPG's are open source
design. They make them all over the world.
I smell ******** on the first photo. Dark ops policy executors are never stupid enough to ever put a "courtesy of America" on
any weapons shipments in order to maintain plausible deniability. Otherwise how could they claim a fabricated story like "they were stolen out of a NATO
depot" or something like that?
The US never thought this war would ever end its defeat and did not care what the crates
had printed on them, arrogance told the US that the truth would never be known.
In the beginning no one expected Russians to jump in the Syrian war and if it wasn't for
the Russians, no one would have known the truth about ISIS like people are still oblivious to
all the terrorism in Iraq was sponsored by Mossad.
NSC Russia expert freshly appointed Andrew Peek, who was walked out like Vindman,
with him only freshly appointed after Fiona Hill and the Tim Morrioson resigned.
There is a big problems with "experts" in NSC -- often they represent interests of the
particular agency, or a think tank, not that of the country.
Look at former NSC staffer Fiona Hill. She can be called "threat inflation"
specialist.
NSC tries to usurp the role of the State Department and overly militarize the USA
foreign policy, while having much lower class specialists. It is a kind of CIA backdoor
into defining the USA foreign policy.
I would advocate creating "shadow NSC" by the party who is in opposition, so that it
can somehow provide countervailing opinions. But with both parties being now war parties,
this is no that effective.
Cutting NSC staff to the bones, so that such second rate personalities like Fiona Hill
and Vindman are automatically excluded might also help a little bit.
One common explanation is that the NSC mission creep results from the NSC staff
growing too large and the easy solution is to limit the size of the staff. I am
sympathetic to that feeling because we don't want it to
be too large and we don't want it to be usurping things that the State Department or
the Agency should do.
"... The undeniable historical truth is that the centuries long occupation of the Russian eastern frontier lands by the Poles and their Latin masters created so much hatred between all the nationalities involved that it appears that every time they had a chance to try to persecute or kill each other, they immediately did so. ..."
"... The Ukrainian nationalists, in contrast, were "multi-defeat" losers: they were defeated by the Germans, the Russians and even the Poles (who rarely attack anybody unless their prospective victim is already agonizing or unless there is some "big guy" protecting them Churchill was quite right with his " greedy hyena of Europe " comment!). And now, more recently, they were soundly defeated not once, but TWICE, by the Novorussians. That kind of "performance" will often result in a nationalistic reaction . ..."
Recent events (including Putin's and
Zelenskii's recent trip to Israel or the latest Polish-Ukrainian theory about the USSR being an accomplice to
the Holocaust) again gave me that strong feeling that the way Jews are seen in the West is truly very different
from how Jews are viewed in Russia. Yet, in the West, this difference is often (almost always, really!)
overlooked and assumptions are made about Russia and Russians which are simply not warranted and which end up
being highly misleading. This is why I will try to debunk some of these assumptions today.
First, a very quick and very short look
into our recent history
The very best book to read on
Russian-Jewish relations is "
200 Years Together
" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The problem with this book
is that has never been officially translated into English. Yup, that's right. A CRUCIAL book by a Nobel Prize
winner can be so controversial that nobody in the publishing business has dared to print it. Happily, a number
of websites offer unofficial "
samizdat
"
translations, see
here
,
here
and
here
. I cannot vouch for the quality of these translations as I read the book in Russian, not in
English. But yeah, in the "land of the free", the putative "brave" do not get to read a book if that book
debunks the western narrative about Russia and Jews. By the way, Solzhenitsyn's masterpiece is not the only
such book which exists only in Russian, there are many more including Andrei Dikii's "
Jews in Russia and the
USS
R" which can also only be found on the Internet Archive
here
.
I can't even begin to try to summarize that
most interesting, and controversial history here. All I will say for right now is that when we speak of
"Russians" and "Jews" we need to separate these categories into 4 subcategories:
Russians from what would be considered Russia today, in other words, "
Great-Russians
" (here
"great" does not indicate a superiority, but only a peripheral place of residence, meaning Russians who
don't live in central Russia). For our purposes I will from now on simply call them "Russians".
Russians from what would be considered the Ukraine today in other words, "
Small-Russians
"
(meaning Russians living near the cradle of the Russian civilization, Kiev). For our purposes, I will from
now on refer to them as "Ukrainians", but only in a geographical sense, not a cultural one.
Russian Jews
(as opposed to Ukrainian Jews)
Ukrainian Jews
(as opposed to Russian Jews)
These four subgroups have had a very
different historical experience and they need to be considered separately, as lumping them all together really
does not allow any analysis.
Besides, and as I have also
mentioned it in the past
, the Ukrainian nationalist propaganda does, in fact, have
some
truth to it. Yes, it is a grossly distorted truth, and it is mixed in with an avalanche of lies, but
still, not all of it can simply be dismissed. For example, while there never was any "Ukraine" in history, and
while what is called today the "Ukrainian language" is not really Ukrainian at all (the "
surzhik
"
would be the real thing),
it still remains an undeniable fact that the Polish occupation of southern and
eastern Russia
(which is what "the Ukraine" is Russia's southeastern "borderland" which is what the
word "Ukraine" originally meant)
left an extremely profound mark on those Russians who lived under the
Polish-Latin occupation
. I won't go into historical details today as I already did that
here
and
here
, but I will just say that this tragic history eventually inspired one of the favorite slogans of
Ukrainian nationalists: "
to drown all the Polaks and the Moskals in Kike blood
" (or any variation of
these three nationalities).
Charming, no?
The undeniable historical truth is that the centuries long occupation of the
Russian eastern frontier lands by the Poles and their Latin masters created so much hatred between all the
nationalities involved that it appears that every time they had a chance to try to persecute or kill each
other, they immediately did so. Here area few examples of that kind of violence:
The (in)famous "pogroms": these were spontaneous and violent uprisings and subsequent brutal riots
against Jews by their resentful neighbors. By the way, during the Civil War, the Reds often were the worst
perpetrators of these pogroms because they also saw the comparatively wealthy Jews as
class enemies
in the Marxist sense of the word.
The very high percentage of Jews among the first generation Bolsheviks (80%-85%
according to Vladimir Putin
;
fwiw, I agree with this figure). These Bolshevik Jews were typically concentrated in the secret police
organs and they typically spearheaded the massacre of millions of Orthodox Christians (which have since been
gloried by the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile and, later, somewhat reluctantly and only partially, by the
Moscow Patriarchate, as the "
New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia
").
A very high percentage of Jews among the Party leaders during the (truly horribly brutal)
collectivization
and and
dekulakization
which took place all over the Soviet Union but which the Ukrainian nationalists (and
the western propaganda machine) characterize as a deliberate anti-Ukrainian genocide they call the "
Holodomor
"
(yes, I know, Wikipedia entries on all these topics are pure propaganda, but I link to them precisely so you
can see what the Ukrainian propaganda writes).
A very high percentage of Ukrainians in the post-Stalin Soviet elites, many of whom participated in the
bloody purges of the CPSU by Stalin; and since about 80%+ of the top Party officials were Jews, these purges
necessarily involved a lot of repressed Jews (whether guilty ones who themselves were covered in innocent
blood or innocent ones, who were simply repressed with the rest of them).
I could list more examples, but I think
that these are sufficient for our purposes. What we can immediately see is that there are significant
differences between what took place in modern Russia and in the modern Ukraine, including:
An example of a crucial
geographical
difference
would be "
pogroms
" which, contrary to western propaganda, pogroms all took place in
what would be the modern Ukraine today, never in Russia.
There is also a
difference in time
:
Russians in the Ukraine were persecuted by Poles and Jews for centuries whereas Russians in what is modern
Russia today were primarily persecuted by Bolshevik Jews "only" between 1917 and Stalin's purges of the party
in the late 1930s.
And then, there is the crucial, truly
immense, difference which WWII made.
Next, a look at what happened during
World War II and the Nazi occupation
When the Nazis launched their attack on the
Soviet Union there were a lot of Russians and Ukrainians who welcomed the Nazis, not necessarily because they
liked the Nazi ideology but because many of them hated their Bolshevik oppressors even more than they disliked
the Germans. After all, the horrors of the Civil War and of the Collectivization were still present in the mind
of millions of people both in the (newly created) Ukrainian SSR and in the Russian SSR.
I would like to remind all those who
nowadays try very hard to forget it, that the Nazi ideology characterizes both Russians and Ukrainians as
subhumans (
Untermensch
) whose sole purpose would be to serve their Aryan master race overlords (
Herrenvolk
)
in the newly conquered living space (
Lebensraum
). Simply put: Hitler promised his followers that they
would be very happy slave owners! It is no wonder that the prospective slaves felt otherwise
In the course of the war, however, profound
differences began to emerge:
First, in the Ukraine, the Nazi ideology
DID inspire a lot of nationalists for the exact same reasons that Nazi ideology inspired nationalist Poles (who
were Hitler's first most loyal allies only to later be betrayed by him). Over the centuries the Papacy not only
created the Ukrainian nationalist identity, it then actively fostered it every time Russia was weakened (if
that topic is of interest to you, see
here
). The bitter truth which folks in the West don't like to be reminded of is that the regimes of
Petain, Franco, Pavelic, Pilsudksi, etc. were all created and supported by the Papacy which, of course, also
supported Bandera and his Ukronazi deathsquads. As for Hitler himself, he was initially strongly supported by
the UK (just as Trotsky was supported by the Jewish bankers in the US). Indeed,
russophobia has a long and "distinguished" history in the West
: western leaders change, as do their
ideological rationalizations, but their hatred and fear of Russia always remains.
In contrast, General Andrei Vlasov, who
created the "Russian Liberation Army" (ROA) had exactly zero support in the West, and very little support in
Russia proper. The ideology of the ROA was a mix of moderate nationalism with some no less moderate socialism.
In hindsight, it never stood a chance of becoming truly popular in Russia simply because the sight of a Russian
general wearing a Nazi uniform was not something that most Russians could serenely look at, whereas
in the current Nazi-occupied Ukraine, Nazi uniforms and symbols are still very popular
.
Last, but
certainly not least, the demented and outright genocidal policies of the Nazis in occupied Russia resulted in
such a blowback that the war to liberate Russia from the Nazis became a war of national survival which the vast
majority of Russians fully supported.
It is also interesting how differently
the Anglo powers treated the Ukronazis and the Russians of the ROA: the West lovingly imported to the US and
Canada all the Ukronazis it could get its hands on, yet at the same time the West forcibly repatriated
millions of Russians, including POW and ROA members, with often
horrible consequences for the repatriates
. As for General Vlasov himself, he was executed along with
other officers accused of treason.
For the Ukrainian nationalists, WWII began
as a God-sent chance to finally bring about their dream to "
drown all the Polaks and the Moskals in Kike
blood",
and then this dream was crushed by the Soviet counter-attack and subsequent annihilation of most
(about 80%) of the German military machine. And while many Ukrainians (and Poles) did see the Soviets as their
liberators from the Nazi horrors, the Ukronazis obviously saw the Soviet Army solely as an occupation force
which they resisted for as long as they could (after the end of the war, it still took the Soviets several
years to finally crush the Ukronazi underground). And while most Russians felt like they were the real victors
of WWII, the Ukronazi nationalists felt that they had been defeated. Again. The same goes for the Poles, by the
way (this trauma gave birth to something I refer to as the "
Pilban
syndrome
").
Now for the self-evident truism about Jews:
while many Russians remained acutely aware of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and, especially, in
the class terror which followed, they did not see ALL Jews as enemies of Russia, especially not when
There were plenty of patriotic Jews who loved Russia and/or the USSR
That Hitler's demented racism inevitably had to bring Jews and Russians together, even if only for a
while and mostly under the "common enemy" heading.
Many (most?) Russians know for a fact that Nazi concentration/extermination camps
did
, in
fact, exist even if they did not kill 6M Jews, even if they had no gas chambers and no crematoria (except to
deal with insect-born diseases). Why? Because it was the Soviet military which liberated most of these camps
and because there were plenty of non-Jewish Russians/Soviets in these camps. Finally, besides the camps
themselves, most Russians also know about the infamous
Einsatzgruppen
which probably murdered even more Jews (and non-Jews) than all the
concentration/extermination camps combined. The fact is that Nazi atrocities are not seriously challenged by
most Russian historians.
The bottom line is this: whatever (at the
time very real) hostility history had created between Jews and Russians, World War II had a huge impact on
these perceptions. That is not to say that the Russians have forgotten the genocidal policies of Lenin and
Trotsky, but only that after WWII, most Russians justly felt that they were victors, not defeated losers.
The Ukrainian nationalists, in contrast,
were "multi-defeat" losers: they were defeated by the Germans, the Russians and even the Poles (who rarely
attack anybody unless their prospective victim is already agonizing or unless there is some "big guy"
protecting them Churchill was quite right with his "
greedy hyena of Europe
" comment!). And now, more
recently, they were soundly defeated not once, but TWICE, by the Novorussians. That kind of "performance" will
often result in a
nationalistic reaction
.
And that is true not only for the Ukraine,
but also very much applies to the West of 2020.
Does the collective West also suffer
from the same "multi-defeat" complex?
It seems to me that most people reading
these lines already know that the "collective West" aka the "AngloZionist Empire" is in terrible shape. Just
look at the political chaos in the US, the UK, France, Germany and all the rest of the NATO/EU countries. The
West is not only losing militarily and economically, it is also agonizing culturally, socially, morally and
spiritually. Furthermore, that which we all used to think of as "western values" is now being replaced by some
insipid "multiculturalism" which seems to pious euphemism for the obvious plan to erase pretty much all of the
western historical and cultural legacy. Like all forms of persecution, this one is also resulting in an
increasingly powerful case of ideological blowback: a very dangerous and toxic resurgence of both Fascism and
National-Socialism.
How could a person (Hitler) and an ideology
(National-Socialism) be both declared uniquely evil AND, at the same time, undergo at least a partial
rehabilitation in the same society? Simple! The only condition necessary to make that happen is to condition
people to accept cognitive dissonances and not to be too troubled when they happen. The average citizen of the
Empire has been conditioned to accept, and even embrace, such cognitive dissonances quite literally since birth
and he has become very, very good at that. But there is also a historiographical blowback in action here:
Following WWII and, especially, following
the 1970s, the Zionists made what I consider to be a disastrous mistake: they decided to present Hitler and his
ideology as some kind of special and unique form of evil which supersedes any and all, past or even future,
imaginable forms of evil. And just to make sure that this claim would stick, they decided to add some
highly specific
claims including the "official'" figure of 6 million murdered Jews, the gas chambers
and crematoria being the most famous ones, but there were many more (including electrocution pools, human skin
lamp shades and human fat soaps but which had to be ditched after being proven false). Eventually these
claims all came under very effective attack by the so-called "revisionist historians" who have since proven
beyond reasonable doubt that
these specific claims
were false. That did not make these historians
very popular with the rulers of the Empire who, instead of allowing for of a healthy historical debate, decided
to make "revisionism" a criminally punishable
thoughtcrime
for which historians could be jailed,
sometimes for years! The reaction to that kind of abuse of power was inevitable.
One of the most pernicious result of this
policy of criminalizing historical investigations into WWII has been the fact that
many people in the
West concluded that since these specific claims were bunk, then all of the claims about Nazi atrocities were
bunk too
. Huge logical mistake! The fact that these
specific
claims have already been
debunked
in no way
implies that OTHER widely reported atrocities did not occur.
For example, the fact that gas chambers
were probably not used to kill anybody (at least not in significant amounts) does not at all imply that many
hundreds of thousands, or even million of people, were not killed by execution, starvation or disease (typhus,
dysentery, etc.). Just look at the death rates in Japanese POW camps, and they had no gas chambers or
crematoria. As for the Soviets, they deported "class enemies" from their homes and simply released them in the
middle of the Siberian taiga during the winter and with no survival gear: most of them also quickly died,
simply from exposure.
The simple truth is that any modern state
has the means to murder people on an industrial scale even without the use of such exotic (and, frankly,
ill-suited) techniques as gas chambers or crematoria (in Rwanda, they mostly used crude machetes). But western
historians are banned from even researching these topics!
This situation resulted in an environment
in the West in which one cannot criticize (or even doubt!) Jews or things Jewish without immediately being
called an "anti-Semite". Ditto for anybody daring to present another version of WWII. That this kind of
collective brainwashing would inevitably result in a massive blowback was easy to predict but, alas, the
Zionists never had the foresight to see this coming. Either that, or they were quite happy to report a "surge
in anti-Semitism" in the West to extort even more political power (and money!). Whatever may be the case, it is
close to impossible in the current West to freely and openly discuss these topics.
Now a quick comparison with modern Russia
The political environment in Russia is
radically different. For one thing, it is not illegal (or even improper) in Russia to criticize Jews, or modern
"Judaism" (really a modern form of rabbinical Phariseism) or Israel or the Zionist ideology (which, by the way,
the USSR did denounce and oppose as a form of racism
).
Yes, there are still (pretty bad) laws on the
books forbidding the promotion of national hatred and "extremist speech", but the truth is that as long as you
only investigate historical topics (such as the real number of Jews murdered by the Nazis) and you do not
advocate (or engage in) violence you will be fine. Not only that, but you can find pretty much any and all
anti-Jewish/Zionist books on the Russian Internet for easy and free download. Finally, while a lot of Jews did
leave the USSR, those who stayed (or have since returned) did that of their own free will and that strongly
suggests that, unlike their brethren in Israel, many (most?) Russian Jews do not have feelings of hatred for
Russia, the Russian people or even the Orthodox Church (some do, of course, but this is a minority).
Some near sighted Jews regularly deplore
that the political discourse in Russia is not as tightly controlled as the one in the West. I would simply like
to remind them that the much more permissive intellectual environment of Russia has NOT resulted in an
automatic fusion between patriotism and hostility to Jews, as is sadly the case in the West (unless, of course,
we are dealing with what French philosopher and dissident Alain Soral calls "National-Zionism" which is a
separate phenomenon which I discussed in some detail
here
).
True, when patriotism (love for one's
country) turns into nationalism (love of one's ethnicity), then things typically go south, but that is a danger
of which the Kremlin is acutely aware of and that is why Russian nationalists are, after Russian Wahabis, the
most frequently jailed people in Russia under anti extremism laws (keep in mind that both Russian nationalists
and Russian Wahabis typically not only disseminate "extremist literature" but they also are typically engaged
in one form of violence or another, thus they are often jailed on terrorism charges too).
An increasing number of Russia are,
however, puzzled by what they see as a slow-motion rehabilitation of Hitler and the Nazi regime. For example,
while in the West the
official
doxa
is still that Hitler and the Nazis were the worst evil in
history, there is a rapidly growing "alternative" viewpoint, mostly found on the Internet, of course, in which
Hitler is viewed as a much more complex person, who has been unjustly demonized and whose actions need to be
placed in a "correct" historical context. And, in fact, there is some truth to that Hitler was a complex
personality and the Nazis were demonized beyond way beyond anything reasonable. Finally, the proponents of this
"rehabilitation" will always point out that Hitler's enemies were at least as ruthless and evil has he was.
Again, there is also much truth to that. However, when the EU declares in a
solemn vote that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both equally responsible for WWII
, then a
fundamental red line is crossed, one which places an "equal" sign not only between the aggressor and the
aggressed but also between those who were defeated and those who were victorious.
As I have often written in the past,
under international law the ultimate, most evil, crime is not "genocide" or "crimes against humanity". It is
the "crime of aggression" because, in the words of the US judge who declared this principle, "the crime of
aggression contains all the other crimes", which is only logical. Thus by accusing the USSR of aggression,
the EU is basically annulling them findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal, it makes the USSR every bit as guilty
of all the atrocities of WWII as the Nazis.
Are the Russians correct when they say that
there is a slow-motion rehabilitation of Hitler and his ideology in the West?
Absolutely!
ORDER IT NOW
The fact that this slo-mo rehabilitation is
still currently and mostly confined to the margins of the political discourse does not change the Russian
awareness that no matter how much Hitler and his minions are disliked or even hated in the West, Russia and
Russians will always be hated even much more. This is also true of what the West calls "Islamic extremism"
which is only "bad" when it is not fully controlled by the West (terrorists!!), and which is "good",
axiomatically so, when directed against Russia or other Orthodox nations (freedom fighters!!).
Under these circumstances, is it really
surprising that many (most?) Russians feel like the West is a much bigger danger to the Russian civilizational
realm than any anti-Russian plans concocted by Jews, Zionists or the Israelis?
Absolutely not!
Not only do most Russians hate Hitler and
everything he stood for, they also truly understand that
the vast majority of Jews murdered by the Third
Reich were simple, innocent, people
whose only crime was to be of the same ethnicity/religion as some
other Jews who did, indeed, richly deserved to be hated for their racist messianism (be it religious or
secular). That is a fundamental injustice which Russians will never accept because accepting it would be a
betrayal of truth (a
hugely important concept for the Russian civilization
) and no less of a betrayal of the memory of all
the innocents murdered by the Nazis.
Conclusion one: history matters, a lot!
Whatever we all may think of Jewish
identity politics or whatever our opinion of the Soviet Union, it is undeniable that Hitler's policies
inflicted unspeakable suffering upon both Russians and Jews. Western Alt-Righters, who still delude themselves
into thinking that Russians share in their racist delusions, can deny and denounce this, but the fact is that
history has forever created a bond between Jews and Russians: their common memory of the mass atrocities
perpetuated against them by the Nazis
. No amount of political gesticulations will change that.
That does not, of course, mean that Putin,
the Kremlin or anybody else is an "ally" of Israel or that Putin and Bibi Netanyahu are working together (or
for each other). This utter nonsense is a completely false conclusion resulting from a fundamental and profound
misreading of Russian history and Russian culture. But it goes even further than that. I would argue that the
history of the Russian culture is also fundamentally incompatible with any racist/racialist ideas.
The ideology of pre-1917 Russia can be
described as "Orthodox monarchism". This is not really correct for a long list of reasons (reality is always
more complex than buzz-words and slogans), but by and large you could say that what was considered morally
right or morally wrong was defined by the Russian Orthodox Church. Well, it just so happens that
while
original Christianity (i.e. Orthodoxy) was very critical of rabbinical "Judaism" (the religion and wordview),
that same original Christianity was far less hostile to Jews (the ethnicity) then western Christian
demominations
. In fact, true Christianity has always been pro-patriotic but anti-nationalistic. This
was also the practice in the Eastern Roman Empire (whose political structure Russia inherited). By the way,
this is also true for the 2
nd
religion of Russia, Islam.
Then, after the 1917 Revolution, Russia
was initially submitted to two decades of Jewish terror, especially a kind of terror directed against the
Russian people and the Orthodox faith. With the coming to power of Stalin, however, major changes took place
(and most of those who had drowned Russia in innocent blood were themselves executed during the famous
"purges"). And while Stalin never was an "anti-Semite" (this is silly nonsense which both Stalin's actions and
writings directly contradict), his purges (and reforms) did profoundly change the nature of the Soviet regime,
including the ethnic composition of the leaders of the CPSU which became much more diverse.
Speaking of the Soviet Union in general, it
is also important to remember that
the Marxist-Leninist ideology also rejects racial and ethnic
differences and, instead, advocates a solidarity of all people against their class oppressors
.
Thus neither the pre-1917 nor the post-1917
mainstream Russian ideology/worldview are a viable ground to try to promote racist ideas. And, thankfully,
neither is modern ("Putin's") Russia.
The truth is that Russia which, as I
mentioned above, is the political heir to the East Roman Empire (aka "Byzantium" in western parlance) has
ALWAYS been multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and pretty much any and all other "multi-something"
you can think of. For all the many sins of the Russian people during their history, racism was never one of
them!
For example, this is also why, while most
people in the West see Islam (and Muslims) as "
aliens
", most Russians are totally used to them
and see them as longtime
neighbors
. That does not mean that Russian's don't remember the dozen or
so wars Russia fought against the Ottomans, nor does it mean that Russia has forgiven the Wahabi atrocities in
Chechnia. It simply and only means that Muslims, and even Turks, are not see as "national enemies" by Russians.
The same is true for Jews. Yes, the
Russians do remember what Jews did to them during the early years of the Bolshevik regime, but that memory,
that awareness, does NOT typically result into any kind of racism, including any type of anti-Jewish racism.
Nor do the horrors committed by Jewish Bolsheviks obfuscate all the very real contributions of various Jews to
the Russian culture.
By the way, it is important to remember
here that while it is true that most first-generation Bolsheviks were Jews, it is not true that most Jews
were Bolsheviks. In fact, Jews were found pretty much everywhere, including amongst Menshevik's, anarchists,
Bundists, etc
So yes, Jews and Russians mostly lived
together for about 200 years, and much of our common history is tragic, painful and even shameful, but at the
end of the day, it would be false to think that most Russians either dislike or fear Jews. They do not. Even
when they are critical of this or that personality, ideology or religion (original Christianity will always be
the ultimate enemy of rabbinical Judaism, just as rabbinical Judaism will always remain the ultimate enemy of
original Christianity; we can understand why that is so, or we can deplore it, but we should never forget or
deny this!).
If any self-described anti-Semite reads
these words and is absolutely outraged by what I just wrote, please also make sure to read "
The
Invention of the Jewish People
" by Shlomo Sand" which will show to you that the very notion of
"ethnicity" (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) is a modern invention with very little actual basis in history,
especially in the history of multi-cultural empires. Simply put: in a culture which does not really believe
in the importance of ethnicity no truly racist ideology can develop. It is really that simple!
Yes, I know about Dostoevskii's and
Rozanov's dislike for Jews (and Poles, by the way), and yes I know about the Pale of Settlement (won't touch
this here, but it sure was not what western historians in the West think it was just read Solzhenitsyn!). I
also know about the "Blood Libel" (won't touch this one either, but I will recommend you read the 2007 book by
Israeli historian Ariel Toaff "
Passovers of Blood
") and about all the other myths spread in the West (by
Jews and non-Jews) about "Russian anti-Semitism". But the truth is simple: while there were many instances in
history when Jews and Russians clashed (including the 10
th
century
destruction of Khazaria by Russian forces
or the 15
th
century struggle against the "
Heresy
of the Judaizers
" which, by the way, Wikipedia does a very bad job describing: in reality this was an
early attempt by Kabbalists to infiltrate the Russian Orthodox Church just as they had successfully infiltrated
the Papacy). Yet, these conflicts did not resulted in any major hostility of Russians towards Jews (the inverse
is, alas, not nearly as true).
Conclusion two: Putin, Zelenskii and the
Israelis
The recent trip of both Zelenskii and
Putin to Israel has, again, brought the topic of the Jewish, Russian and Ukrainian "triangle" to the front page
news. The Poles also seized the opportunity to make things worse for themselves when they chimed in on it all.
You read the stories, so no need to repeat it all here. What was most impressive about this event was that
Zelenskii decided that he would travel to Israel, only to then declare that he would not participate in the
commemorative events. Why? Clearly, he was terrified that the Ukronazis will denounce him for caving in to
Zionist pressure.
Putin did the exact opposite, not only did
he travel to Israel and he spoke at the event, he also reminded the (mostly Jewish) audience of the horrors
which the Russian people also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Clearly, Putin did not fear that some Russian
nationalists would accuse him of caving in to Zionist pressure. Why not?
Second,
Jewish supremacism was very
short lived in the USSR
(roughly from 1917 to 1937) and neither Putin nor any other Russian political
leader will let claims of exclusive "special" Jewish suffering go unchallenged. And while most Russian
politicians don't feel the need to express any doubts about the "official" 6 million figure, they do like to
remind their Jewish friends that the Russian nation suffered anywhere between 20 to 27 million dead people
during WWII, thus denying Jewish victims any superior victim status over non-Jewish victims.
Our fundamental disagreement about WWII,
Hitler and Jews
Likewise, it is BECAUSE Russians have zero
sense of guilt towards Jews, that Putin could mention this figure of 80-85% of Jews in the first Bolshevik
regime
in front of an assembly of Haredi rabbis
(see the video here for yourself:
Can you imagine Merkel or Trump daring to
say these things in front of such an audience?
Unthinkable!
Conclusion three:
Ever since Vladimir Putin came to power,
Russia has been gradually and steadily separating herself from the collective West. This process is not so much
about being "against" the West as it is about being "different" from the West, but unapologetically so! This is
especially visible in the nature and quality of the political discourse in Russia which is truly dramatically
different from the kind of hyper-controlled (and, of course, hyper-manipulated) political discourse in the
West. Simply put, Russians live in a much more open and diverse intellectual landscape than their western
neighbors. As a result, it would be a major mistake to assume, for example, that Russian patriots hold views
similar to those held by western nationalists. Hence the existence of what we could call "Our fundamental
disagreement about WWII, Hitler, Jews and race".
Another example of the rampant disposition toward a pathological preoccupation with the past, in the world.
and an inability to carry on toward a viable future.
Slav/Eastern European countries are the most pro-Jew in the world. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Russia
are all extremely pro-Zionist, more so than most Western governments are.
Many Eastern European countries are
also making it easy for Jews to get citizenship, pandering to Jews seems to be a key policy of "right wing"
civic nationalist Eastern European governments, they are pathetic.
Beware the author has an axe to grind against the Catholic Church and the Pope, which he seems to believe have
been historically manipulating Poles and others against Russians and Orthodox Christians. This is what he means
by "Latin masters".
IMO, most of us in the West and, particularly, in historically Catholic countries, are
unaware of the religious backdrop of this feud. Which is hard to explain if it were actually fundamentally
religious as the author purports elsewhere in his writings.
I can confidently say that I've never read anything around here that portrayed Orthodox Christians or Russia
as a threat to Catholicism, except specifically in regards to Communism.
History of the Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe has been negatively propagandized. They were a class of high
achievers who were used and respected by European royalty. Most never attended a Synagogue but considered
themselves members of a new age Jewish race. Malcontents often blamed the Ashkenazim for their misery. Ignorant
mobs burnt some Ashkenazim homes in anger.
But the well being of the Ashkenazim was never severely disturbed. Hitler attempted to murder the Ashkenazim
and seize their wealth but he failed. Today the Ashkenazim have the highest standard of living in the world.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2008/04/genocide-loophole-jonah-goldberg/
Russia's lower house of parliament passed a resolution insisting that Josef Stalin's man-made 1932-33 famine
-- called the Holodomor in Ukrainian -- wasn't genocide. resolution indignantly states: "There is no
historical proof that the famine was organized along ethnic lines." It notes that victims included
"different peoples and nationalities living largely in agricultural areas of the country." Translation: We
didn't kill millions of farmers because they were Ukrainians; we killed millions of Ukrainians because they
were farmers. And that's all it takes to be acquitted of genocide.
The Ukrainian famine was entirely deliberate and designed to kill off those who were eating up the surplus.
Nazis saw the Soviet liquidation of useless eaters of the surplus in rural areas as the logical outcome of a
correct economic analysis of rural overpopulation. The Nazis thought the Soviets had shown the way the East
could develop. For German economists was the East was not only suffering to many people living on the land and
consuming everything that was produced but but a burgeoning and increasingly impoverished Jewish minority that
had outgrown its niche of occupying trades and peddling that had already blocked the upward mobility of the
rural population and the retarded the development of an indigenous middle class. The Poles wanted the Jews to
emigrate, but few did.
Poles rarely attack anybody unless their prospective victim is already agonizing or unless there is
some "big guy" protecting them
As late as 1939
Hitler wanted to attack the USSR, but Poland would not agree
so Hitler made a pact with Stalin to divide
Poland between them. The Soviets then killed more people in their part of Poland than the Nazis did in theirs.
Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.
"However, when the EU declares in a solemn vote that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both equally
responsible for WWII, then a fundamental red line is crossed, "
Yes and that line is crossed (as you
admonish) by again ignoring history. WWII was obviously caused by WWI and the greed of the Western victors and
leading Zionists who after that war ground down Germany to a point of less than bankruptcy and paved the way
for a leader who would lift the nation and its people to new found prosperity.
@freddiex
"jew oligarchs who raped Russia with yeltsin"
In the early 1990s, the (west) parachuted Jeff Sachs and his IMF jooboys into the former USSR to install a
western style democracy .the word "democracy" meaning the jew and his useful idiots run and loot it.
They
developed a clever chit system for dividing up the resources of the former USSR. Surprise, surprise, jews ended
up with most the chits i.e. resources of the former USSR. 16 time zones is a lot of resources to loot, but
where easy money is to be had ..the jew is usually up to the task.
This looting could not have been
accomplished without the connivance of the local traitorous jews making up a large portion of the nomenklature
in the USSR of the late 1980s. To this day, Russia is in the clutches of the jew ..but at least trying to free
itself, unlike North America which revels in grovelling before the jew. Ask any non-jew Russian about the
pernicious jew in Russia, and you will get quite an earful.
Faulty thinkers who are trying to excise Jews from the essence of Capitalism are doomed to failure. Jewish
characteristics are contained within Capitalism and they are its personification. Capitalism is a Jew and a Jew
is Capitalism. It also means that all people beneath their faade are Capitalists, and all people are really
Jews. Shalom my friends.
@neutral
A quite consensual and mostly non-violent white genocide that most Western whites are perfectly fine with,
versus violent and decidedly non-consensual genocides against certain subsets of the white race in service of
Germanic supremacism. You are very free to think that Hitler did nothing wrong, but you then probably shouldn't
expect much in the way of support from Russians and Poles (who ofc otherwise have their own major arguments
with each other).
@Sean
1934 = Mutually assured Non-Aggression Pact Germany-Poland is signed for 10 year period.
1935 = During a visit to Warsaw H. Goering, appointed by Hitler to lead and groom a warming German-Polish
relationship, proposes to his hosts to join in a "probable" future expansion to the East promising them a part
of Soviet Ukraine as a war trophy /1/.
1938 = March 17th: Encouraged by the success of its ally, Poland presents Lithuania with an ultimatum,
1938 = Sept. 19th: The Polish Government expresses its agreement with Hitler's opinion
1938 = Sept. 21st:
Large border conflict is provoked in the early morning hours at the German-Czech border.
Poland presents Czechoslovakia with a demand
Polish airplane routinely violate Czechoslovak air space. The real news is scarcely reported abroad, except for
"Pravda" in the Soviet Union /2/11.
1938 = Sept. 29th:
1. The infamous Munich conference begins, in rather peculiar manner: the high representatives of the four
Central European Powers deliberate, in the presence of other nations' observers, but the party whose fate is
being discussed and decided upon
Sudetenland is to be annexed by Germany starting on Oct. 1st and to be completed by Oct. 10th; within 3
months Czechoslovakia is to give up its lands on which claims are laid by Poland and Hungary, and to submit to
their demands for annexation -- he phase of real actions:[13]
1938 = Sept. 30th:
1. By 01:00h the Munich Agreement is signed Czechoslovakia is to give up its lands on which claims are laid
by Poland and Hungary, and to submit to their demands for annexation
@Sean
As late as 1939 Hitler wanted to attack the USSR, but Poland would not agree so Hitler made a pact with
Stalin to divide Poland between them. The Soviets then killed more people in their part of Poland than the
Nazis did in theirs. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.
You didn't mention the part of Poland not
wanting to becoming a satellite state.
Hitler didn't need Poland to attack the USSR. It would have been useful if they aligned but Germany but
wasn't strategically required.
The truth is that Hitler wanted to eliminate Poland and take their land.
That is why Warsaw was bombed so heavily. The Nazi command discussed turning it into a lake.
Saving European countries from the Jews and Communism by indiscriminate bombing. What a swell guy.
Half of our problems today come from that psychopath.
the West is a much bigger danger to the Russian civilizational realm than any anti-Russian plans
concocted by Jews
Except that the Jews have concocted those dangerous (((Western))) plans, Saker.
Iran is in the cross-hairs for the greater Israel project and Russia/China for the (((NWO))).
I am in no doubt that Russia has in its archives ample evidence that can blow the official Holocaust story out
of the water. After all, it is undeniable that it was the Soviet Army that liberated the "Death Camps".
The
question is why is Russia so reluctant to release these archives? What are they getting in return?
It is not as though it is protecting them in any way from the Jewish-controlled media. For me, that is a
great mystery.
@John Johnson
It was
American capitalism inseparable from its Jewish component
that Hitler saw as the mortal foe of Germany.
Hitler was obsessed with the massive emigration of the best Germans that resulted in German Americans being
used against their ancestral homeland in WW1. Hitler thought that the most valuable German blood would continue
to hemorrhage across the ocean unless he conquered land in the East that could provide a lifestyle to rival
what America continued to offer. Poland was never going to be that. The real prize was the Soviet Union, and if
Hitler could fight it alone the result was a forgone conclusion (it was only his order to stop for two months
in from of Smelesk that denied Von Bock the chance to smash the bulk of the Soviet Army). Failure to follow up
Army Goup Centre's sucess in a timely manner was was an error fatal for Hitlers'a scheme and thus he was guilty
in his own terms.
https://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-history-of-debt-cancellation-and-austerity-in-europe/
Michael Hudson [00:34:47] The bank models predict that Germany's population must fall, living standards must
fall by 20 or 30 percent and your lifespans must shorten, your suicide rates must go up and your skilled
labor must emigrate in order for your real estate market to provide the revenue to the keep banking system
solvent as private-sector debt increases at today's rates. That will make your banking system look like the
American and British banking system, where eighty percent of bank credit goes into real estate. It's a
circular flow, pushing up the price of housing, causing an umbrella for rents to go up. Germany will end up
looking like Greece. That is the "business as usual" economic plan. Your economic leaders of all your
parties except the Linke want Germany to end up looking like Greece.. They say that that's progress, but
it's only progress for the banking class. This is the implicit war, which somehow is not being discussed in
Germany
As Aly and Heim show in their book
Architects of Annihilation
the top technocratic brains of Germany were trying make the East into an
economically dynamic paradise for Germans on. They weren't planning to kill off all the Poles and other
conquered peoples immediately , like was being done with the Jews because they prevented the economic
development of the gentile middle classes. Von Manstein approved as it would suppress partisan activity.
Anyway certain peoples in the conquered territories that were thought suitable for Germanization in the new
order were assessed, but not according to physical racial characteristics. No. it was 'achievement orientation'
over a number of generations that the Germans were looking for. Economically successful upwardly mobile
individuals and families in other words.
@Sean
It was American capitalism inseparable from its Jewish component that Hitler saw as the mortal foe of
Germany.
No it was clear in his book and his actions that all Jews were the enemy. He viewed them as a racial enemy
regardless of where they were.
He needlessly wasted resources tracking down Jews across Europe that had nothing to do with Communism.
In 1944 he rounded up the small Greek Jewish population and sent them to camps.
So even when the war was clearly lost he was trying to kill as many Jews as possible, even in countries like
Greece where the Jews were well integrated and had practically zero influence in political affairs.
Hitler thought that the most valuable German blood would continue to hemorrhage across the ocean unless
he conquered land in the East that could provide a lifestyle to rival what America continued to offer. Poland
was never going to be that. The real prize was the Soviet Union
He wanted Poland and the USSR. From a military point of view invading Poland was not required to invade the
Soviet Union.
He needlessly gambled that the Allies wouldn't start a war over Poland. It was a stupid gamble since losing
meant world war. Then he gambled he could make a deal with the British which didn't work either.
Hitler said his main enemy was the USSR and then carpet bombed a Christian anti-Communist country and split
it with Stalin. The savior of Europe, coming to bomb your children.
Re the "turncoat" Russian General Andrei Vlasov, who created the "Russian Liberation Army" (ROA) fightng with
the Wehrmacht, see "The Last Secret," by British author Nicholas Bethel, a harrowing tale of shameful forced
repatriation by Allies of prisoners caught outside the Soviet Union. Stalin had them summarily slaughtered lest
their exposure to the West "infect" Soviet society back in Russia.
Stefan Molyneux has an axiom: "Diversity plus proximity equals conflict." I think it is a mistake to take
Russia's unique experience (and others) and project it as indicating universal truths.
National Socialist obsession with race has been severely played up by the victors according to the
smattering of reading I've done. Did the Germans believe they as a group were better than other groups?
Absolutely. BUt did they really want to take over the world and genocide all the 'subhumans'? I don't think so.
So did you not read about how German troops were given orders to show no mercy in the Eastern front because it
was a racial war? There are plenty of letters sent back home from German troops describing their brutality if
you think it is all propaganda. There are also plenty of quotes from Hitler himself.
From Hitler's Table talk:
We'll let the Russian towns fall to pieces let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so
that they won't get themselves run over by our vehicles! .. There is only duty: to Germanise this country by
the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins. I have no feelings about the idea of
wiping out Kiev, Moscow or St. Petersburg
Hitler completely ignored how the Poles had fought off the communists after WWI.
How would you like to have risked your life fighting communists only to be sent to a camp by the great
anti-communist dictator?
I suggest you stop reading the New York Times.
Hitler didn't ignore it at all. The NSDAP was always about defeating the communist menace. After all, many of
the NSDAP, including Hitler himself, had fought in the Freikorps against the communist overthrow of the
Bavarian and Berlin Governments by the Bolshevik Jews Luxembourg and Liebknecht who declared them Soviet
Republics.
The NSDAP signed a non-aggression pact with Poland's leader Pilsudski and was working towards settling
territorial disputes peacefully. The attacks on ethnic Germans in Poland were reduced. After Pilsudski died his
successor ignored Pilsudski's advice to make peace with Germany. Germany gave up claims to a number of
territories in order to work to that end. Pilsudski's successor Smygli-Rydz refused any dialogue with Germany,
ramped up the attacks on ethnic Germans, occupied Danzig, which was under the League of Nations mandate, and
mobilized its army to attack Germany. When it comes to wars, nobody's hands are clean, but the fact of the
matter is peace was there to be had, Smygli-Rydz chose to ignore it.
The undeniable historical truth is that the centuries long occupation of the Russian eastern frontier
lands by the Poles and their Latin masters created so much hatred between all the nationalities involved
that it appears that every time they had a chance to try to persecute or kill each other, they immediately
did so. Here area few examples of that kind of violence:
The examples you give all post-date the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by the Russian,
Prussian and Austrian Empires. The Commonwealth itself had much better religious tolerance than its successor
states.
It is also worth remembering that Kiev was a political centre for centuries before Moscow even existed, and
Western Ukraine came under Muscovite rule only 200 years ago. Before then, the lands of "Great Russia" and
"Small Russia" had never been unified.
An example of a crucial geographical difference would be "pogroms" which, contrary to western propaganda,
pogroms all took place in what would be the modern Ukraine today, never in Russia.
It seems that you are just as confused as everybody else about the identity of these territories. Are they
"Russian eastern frontier lands" whose rule by Poland was an "occupation"? Or are they something distinct from
Russia?
Before 1917, most Jews in the Russian Empire were confined to the "Pale of Settlement" approximately the
territory that had belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This is where the pogroms took place. They
were part of the territory of the Russian Empire, and the countries now called Belarus and Ukraine did not
exist.
It seems to me that most people reading these lines already know that the "collective West" aka the
"AngloZionist Empire" is in terrible shape. Just look at the political chaos in the US, the UK, France,
Germany and all the rest of the NATO/EU countries. The West is not only losing militarily and economically,
it is also agonizing culturally, socially, morally and spiritually. Furthermore, that which we all used to
think of as "western values" is now being replaced by some insipid "multiculturalism" which seems to pious
euphemism for the obvious plan to erase pretty much all of the western historical and cultural legacy.
This is true, except that the USA is still the world's strongest most military power, by a large margin.
Like all forms of persecution, this one is also resulting in an increasingly powerful case of ideological
blowback: a very dangerous and toxic resurgence of both Fascism and National-Socialism.
How could a person (Hitler) and an ideology (National-Socialism) be both declared uniquely evil AND, at
the same time, undergo at least a partial rehabilitation in the same society?
Because the idea of partial rehabilitation isn't actually true. Anybody in the West who doesn't agree with
all the multi-culti nonsense is deemed to be "filled with hatred", and anyone who opposes mass immigration from
the Third World is declared to be "literally Hitler". You must remember this when you read the Western media.
Failure by the Russians to release to the world all of the documentation they have disproving the myths of the
holocaust, will be at their peril, our peril, and most likely the rest of the world's as well.
It seems
obvious that American Jews will do everything possible to keep American gentiles in the dark about the myths
the Jews have rammed down the gentiles' throats.
Those of us who long have wanted to stop the mad American doctrine of world hegemony, and who vehemently
disagree with it, can not rouse our fellow countrymen to our side if we have no solid proof that the lies are
lies.
@Just passing through
"But did they really want to take over the world and genocide all the 'subhumans'? "
And so here you
constructed a straw man against which you argue. Then you excerpt something about Chinese and Eskimos against
whom Nazis did not feel any animus so they could afford making charitable statement about them because in Nazi
vision of the 1000 year Reich they did not seek for Lebensraum in China or Alaska.
Our task is to
humbly
accept the laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that
we are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos.
But they planned to find the Lebensraum in Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. So perhaps you should look
for policy documents from Race Relations Office of NSDPA concerning what they thought and planned for Russians,
Poles and Ukrainians. For example Dr. Erhard Wetzel (the head of the Race-Political Office of the NSDAP) who
actually did not talk about extermination directly but he wrote a lot about curtailing of birth rate proposing
various programs which were being implemented in the occupied territories to reduce population. The memoranda
he wrote in 1939, 1940 and 1942 concerning demographic policy with respect to Jews, Poles, Russian and
Ukrainians with annotations of Martin Bormann were found after war. Actually reading these documents shows how
German thinking and policies were evolving.
@Ian Smith
Saker can't be taken serious. He is a child engaging in wishful thinking and wish fulfillment of his childhood
fantasies. This perhaps might be understandable as he grew up in a milieu of White Russian emigres and a
fatherless, iirc, family. He is an emotional man-child who engages in endless stream of rationalizations,
twisting reality and justifications for the right cause in his mind, the cause of Russia, Mother Russia the
entity that only exists in childhood dreams that were fed by his mother, the entity that never existed even
before the Bolshevik Revolution.
This kind of fantasizing that is data poor but theory rich is something that Russians may have a proclivity
for. It often amounts to casting the spells against reality.
Saker sinks to deeper depths of delusion. Russians are simply being duped by Jewry (just like goyim in the
West). Russians don't remember their history, and history itself has been heavily sanitized by the Soviets to
remove everything that might provoke "anti-Semitism" and ethnic strife in general. So Polish and Banderite
crimes are also mostly unknown.
@Smith
Wow! The death camps were a hoax? How weak and fragile must someone be to be in denial about outright obvious
hatred Hitler had toward Jews, Slav and anyone else that that ignorant and distorted mental case German racist
(primitive tribal fanatic) decided to demonize. When you have Nazis themselves admitting that the death camps
existed and their intent was to kill as many of the inmates as possible through both direct and indirect means
denial is a clear signs of cowardice and weakness.
Now I admit that Saker does come across as a typical
overseas diaspora immigrant romanticising his "homeland" and casting his culture in a ridiculously idealistic
way. For instance he makes a ridiculous claim that Russian culture doesn't contain any racial or racialist
basis in its history: that is plainly a ridiculous claim by someone someone who does not live in Russia and
therefore is not really qualified to make that judgement. I'm sure Central Asian workers in Russia that have
been the subject of brutal Russian beatings murder and violence would differ with this Tsarist Russian
wannabe's foolish characterization of the lack of racism in Russian culture.
The sad thing for Saker is that his blog continues to go downhill because he has surrounded himself with
acolytes (some of his moderators allow absolutely not criticism of him or his holy cows). The moderation
quality ranges from idiotic and emotional to profession depending on who is on shift. Just go to his blog and
see how much fawning there is there and the very weak criticism.
We need to be thankful that the Saker continually reminds us readers of the Unz Review that anti-Semitism
is a sin, that Unz does not promote anti-Semitism, and that nationalism (but not patriotism) is also a sin.
You still believe there are such things as sins, right?
I sure hope this is a satire comment.
It's not a sin to dislike Jews anymore than it's a sin to dislike apples. Dostoevsky is free to dislike Jews
as much as he wants, and considering he never harmed a Jew at all to imply he is "guilty" for simply having a
different opinion from Jews and jew lovers is ridiculous.
One doesn't have to like everything in the world and to even expect that of people is pure folly.
Anti-Semitism these days is equated to a wide arrangement of offences, from criticising Israel and noting their
influence on politics, to criticising Jewish overrepresenation in numerous fields. Perhaps it's anti-Semitic of
me to want to ban circumcision, a disgusting ancient desert rite that has nothing to do with the modern world,
but I guess that's a hate crime for trying to stop their 'freedom of religion' to abuse children.
Anti-Semitism is an opinion and an opinion isn't sin. It would be a crime, and perhaps a sin, if I was to go
out and pogrom some Jews. But nobody here is advocating for that at all. Why is wanting to be free of Jews a
sin? Why are Jews de facto part of your society and you can never remove them? Once again this is total idiocy.
Only the Jews have the right to not be criticised and be part of your state, whereas you are banned from their
ethno-state and to even want to go there could be seen as an 'invasion' as foreigners try to undermine their
sovereignty.
@Weston Waroda
The truth is that, if you read Dostoevsky and not his (presumably Jewish) biographer(s), he didn't feel any
guilt about his feelings about the Jews. He knew (as we do) that he was right (and history tragically proved
him right hundred times over). And the Jews know that he was right as well, but they can't get over it.
@Rich
That foaming at the mouth about 'Banderastan', 'Ukronazis' is a means to divert attention from the fact that
Ukraine is in firm control of the Zionazis! It is impossible to believe that the Saker, who is an above average
intelligent and informed person, is not aware of the real situation. But, as he says: "The topic of Russians
and Jews is clearly a "hot" one". A too hot potato that must be handled with kid gloves.
@utu
"but he wrote a lot about curtailing of birth rate proposing various programs"
iirc the stuff about
propaganda for abortion in occupied Russia was more of a casual aside, not a coherent programme. But Wetzel did
write a lot about Germanization of "racially valuable" Slavs and deportation of the rest to Siberia or
somewhere else; at the very least he was proposing ethnic cleansing programmes of unprecedented scale (and he
seems to have been a "moderate" compared to some at least in the SS). Whether those would have escalated to
mass murder after a German victory like had happened with Jewish policy during 1940-1942 can never be known
with certainty imo.
Wetzel's
Generalplan Ost
memoranda in the German original can be read here (article by Helmut Heiber
starting on p. 281):
https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3.pdf
There were also orders for the expulsion of all inhabitants from Crimea (marked for German colonization) in
1942, but those were halted due to military necessities.
A previous commenter tried to claim Walter Gro wasn't that extreme after all. I hadn't heard of the man
before, so I googled him, and actually he seems to have been a hardliner who in 1941 lobbied for treating
"half-Jews" the same as "full" Jews. But such distortions aren't surprising among the Unz commentariat.
I still don't have any sympathy for Saker's demented anti-Western ramblings though. If he doesn't make me
exactly think that Hitler did nothing wrong, I'm sure beginning to wonder if the crusaders who sacked
Constantinople in 1204 didn't have a point.
@German_reader
The comment I was responding to was ridiculous which unfortunately was amplified by Ron Unz highlighting it.
Wetzel did not advocate direct or indirect extermination (there is no paper trail for it) but he left enough
documents that support the suprematist position.
As far as Saker and Constantinople there is something to it. On Saker I commented in #59 where I almost did
not allude to Eastern Orthodoxy but I did. Eastern Orthodox is anti-intellectual. That's why some Russian
writers like Saker seem to be so obtuse. They are conflicted and full of contradictions in their anti-West
sentiments. There is also this potential for violence in Eastern Orthodoxy. Why Judeo-Bolsheviks succeeded in
Russia? Because Russian were too meek or perhaps because they were too violent? What was the role of Orthodox
priests in instigating the Volhynia massacre during WWII one of the ugliest events of WWII.
@Anonymous
QUOTE When you have Nazis themselves admitting that the death camps existed and their intent was to kill as
many of the inmates as possible through both direct and indirect means END QUOTE
Wetzel did not advocate direct or indirect extermination
He knew about (and apparently approved of) the mass murder of the Jews though. In the
Generalplan Ost
memorandum I linked to, he wrote that such methods can't be used to solve the Polish question, instead Poles
should emigrate to Siberia or Brazil. But who knows if that position would have prevailed or something even
more radical would have been implemented. In any case, his proposals clearly amounted to the abolition of
Poland. Poles must have been really confused, as Saker tells us they were enthusiastic Nazis after all.
Speaking of WWII, Solzhenitsyn believed that Stalin was actually responsible for more deaths in the USSR than
Hitler. The relentless purges, the use of penal battalions to wipe out unreliable troops, and the mass
deportation of entire ethnic groups (e.g., the Chechens) to forbidding wastelands all caused many millions of
deaths.
caucus99percent
free-range politics, organic community
I want to float a theory about Bernie, Chris Mathews and Russiagate.
entrepreneur
on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 4:42pm
Chris Mathews' conflating democratic socialism with communism under a dictator demonstrates a rabid
hatred of policies that help average Americans. It also demonstrates that he is an idiot, but that
is beside the point. Let's assume for second that his radical pants pooping hysteria against a
strong public safety net, healthcare and higher education is a fear shared by many of the 1% and
their surrogates. Although most aren't as vocal about it as Chris Mathews, I am confident that his
blind abhorrence for any program or politician who helps the 99% is common in the DNC and their
billionaire donors.
Now let's go back to the 2016 primary. Remember, President Hillary was a sure thing in 2016 and
she would certainly be the nominee again in 2020. So Bernie wouldn't have a chance to implement any
of his policies for at least 8 years, if ever. But when Trump won that all changed. Even with
Hillary and her surrogates lying and cheating their asses off, and utilizing all of her media and
deep state connections, she still barely beat Bernie, and ultimately lost to Trump.
It was at that point, when she lost to Trump, that the establishment had to suspect that Bernie
would be back. Because they had thrown everything they had at him in 2016 and he damn near won
anyway, against all odds. Even though they botched 2016, they learned something important for 2020.
They learned that there was a public appetite for Bernie's policies, and that he could possibly win
without taking big donor money. They also learned that people weren't buying the policies that the
DNC is selling. Which is a huge problem since their big donors won't allow them to sell anything
else.
So immediately after their loss to Trump the neo-liberals assembled all of their brightest
rocket surgeons to concoct a way to shut down Bernie before he would become a problem in 2020. So
how do you smear a guy like Bernie? Regular smears like sex scandals or corruption allegations
would not stick to a guy like Bernie. They would have to go after his polices.
"Hey!
Why not smear his policies as communist?" They reasoned.
The problem with that
approach in 2016 is that the word communism doesn't really evoke fear like it once did. In order to
be successful they would need to incite anti-Russian hysteria. And so Russiagate was hatched. Once
they thought about it they realized that they could blame all kinds of shit on the Russians, and at
the same time avoid accountability for their own incompetence.
Russiagate :
* Demonizes Russia, lays groundwork for future smears of Bernie's policies as communist.
* Blames Russia for Hillary's loss so she doesn't have to admit that she is a failure.
* Removes need to re-examine neo-liberal policies, which makes billionaire donors happy.
* Fosters cold-war mentality which makes the MIC billionaire donors and deep state happy.
* Provides a scapegoat for election irregularities if DNC is investigated by Trump DOJ.
This is speculation, of course. But Russiagate was pulled out of someone's ass. And I am just
trying to cobble together a reasonable theory about whose ass and why. After watching Chris Mathews
blubber and pee his pants because he's afraid if Bernie becomes president that Fidel Castro's ghost
will take a shit in his mouth while he's sleeping, it makes sense to me that Russiagate may have
been inspired by a deep-seated fear of Bernie's policies, and an attempt to smear them before they
take root for 2020.
Russiagate was invented as soon as Herr Drumpf was elected as an effort to oust him for
colluding with Russia and cheating her heinous out of the election. When that didn't work,
the deep state went back to work and concocted the impeachment move. That failed, too.
They are 0-2. Will they try again? Maybe - if they want to ensure he gets a second term
and deny Bernie.
Russiagate was invented as soon as Herr Drumpf was elected as an effort to oust
him for colluding with Russia and cheating her heinous out of the election. When
that didn't work, the deep state went back to work and concocted the impeachment
move. That failed, too. They are 0-2. Will they try again? Maybe - if they want to
ensure he gets a second term and deny Bernie.
@brae-70
In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of
the delegate
selection
Chis Matthews' "Scare the Bejeezus Out of His Core Boomer
Audience'
plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am
calling on
the Iowa Democratic Party
MSNBC
to immediately begin a
recanvass
of Chris Matthews' brain
.
of what Matthews is doing: "radical pants pooping hysteria". As opposed, say, to
moderate pants pooping hysteria.
Russia == Communism == Socialism only works for old folks. Communist Russia has been gone
for a generation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union the propaganda machine
shifted to Moslem Terrorists. A whole generation has grown up not remotely fussed about
socialism. Young voters prefer "socialism" to "capitalism".
So for this to work at all it has to be directed at the 65+ voters. So far they've been
supporting Biden, but that may not last much longer. They won't sit out the election.
They'll maybe be undecided for a while, but will come home to New Dealer Bernie.
So for this to work at all it has to be directed at the 65+ voters. So far
they've been supporting Biden, but that may not last much longer. They won't sit out
the election. They'll maybe be undecided for a while, but will come home to New
Dealer Bernie.
Judging from my conversations with my 91 year-old mom, she and her friends have
transitioned from Biden to Bloomberg, and she refuses to consider Sanders. When I ask
her why she is so averse to Sanders she says, "I just don't like him, period, and I
can't explain why"! So I just shut up, knowing it would be a waste of breath.
Russia == Communism == Socialism only works for old folks. Communist Russia has
been gone for a generation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union the
propaganda machine shifted to Moslem Terrorists. A whole generation has grown up not
remotely fussed about socialism. Young voters prefer "socialism" to "capitalism".
So for this to work at all it has to be directed at the 65+ voters. So far they've
been supporting Biden, but that may not last much longer. They won't sit out the
election. They'll maybe be undecided for a while, but will come home to New Dealer
Bernie.
@Pricknick
He had agreed to support Hillary, and he honored his commitment.
That was initially my reason for non-support. I might have been convinced to throw
money at his campaign, until he started on the Russia Cold War bs.
Russian interference was never proven, and I lived through the Cold War doing
nuclear bomb drills. Not only is it endangering the globe, it is a horrible fear to
instill in little kids who have to cope with the fear of their family being
vaporized.
We have enough global fear over climate change. Do we really need to foist another
existential threat on everyone?
#4
I have refused to support him monetarily this time.
@janis b
but no.
The russia bullshit was propagated by a loser he worked so hard to support.
He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many tinfoils
will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he wins if he does?
Unless he stands up to those that wish him bad, he will never prevail.
I like Bernie.
He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many
tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he
wins if he does?
I think if the answers to those questions were more clear Sanders might be
more forthright. I support being sincere regardless of outcomes in most cases,
because I think ultimately it is the basis for genuine understanding. But for
Sanders it is critical to 'pick his fights', an approach that seems to apply
even more to politics (unfortunately) than relationships.
#4.2.2
but no.
The russia bullshit was propagated by a loser he worked so hard to support.
He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many
tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he
wins if he does?
Unless he stands up to those that wish him bad, he will never prevail.
I like Bernie.
He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How
many tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear
thinkers will he wins if he does?
I think if the answers to those questions were more clear Sanders
might be more forthright. I support being sincere regardless of outcomes
in most cases, because I think ultimately it is the basis for genuine
understanding. But for Sanders it is critical to 'pick his fights', an
approach that seems to apply even more to politics (unfortunately) than
relationships.
bogus. There is no reason anyone should be parroting the new Cold
War propaganda. This only leads to one thing. We have already put
mini nukes on submarines. Russia responded by launching a new plane
that can carry nukes. This has no happy ending.
@Not Henry Kissinger
I'm pretty sure the leaked emails Wikileaks got have an
outline of the RUSSIA plan. Restarting the Cold War was always the goal (or rather oil
and pipelines were the actual goal.)
was pushing the anti Russia narrative all through the Fall of 2016, in one debate
explicitly calling Trump '
Putin's
puppet
'.
The narrative was initially weaponized against Trump. Only later did they try it
on Bernie.
but the thing to remember here is that Russiagate is a multi-headed beast that
can be used to further a lot of different agendas. So it's not JUST about Trump or
Bernie or McConnell or any other single person.
It's about weaponizing Russiagate against ALL Deep State opponents.
in the chance Trump lost but wouldn't accept the results. If he made a stink about losing
then Obama would've accused him of working with Russia. This was at the start of this 3
year long crap show so I don't know if I can find the article on it.
Joe posted a link in the EBs that talks about how both parties are in on on the scam
because the new Cold War is great business for defense companies and their profits will
make their way into congress hands. And is what the space force is about too. Containing
Russia and China and making lots of money that will of course have to come from social
programs. Yippee.
@snoopydawg
They have a stranglehold on our economy. The only thing we produce is weapons and about
half of our vehicles. In fact, CHINA produces ROM's for our weapons!
in the chance Trump lost but wouldn't accept the results. If he made a stink
about losing then Obama would've accused him of working with Russia. This was at the
start of this 3 year long crap show so I don't know if I can find the article on it.
Joe posted a link in the EBs that talks about how both parties are in on on the
scam because the new Cold War is great business for defense companies and their
profits will make their way into congress hands. And is what the space force is
about too. Containing Russia and China and making lots of money that will of course
have to come from social programs. Yippee.
#6
They have a stranglehold on our economy. The only thing we produce is weapons and
about half of our vehicles. In fact, CHINA produces ROM's for our weapons!
ITT: Empire fanbois trying to hype the impact of their "team's" latest weapon.
It is the same people and motivation behind the loud assertions that America killed
"thousands and thousands of Russians!" when bombing in Dier ez-Zor. Just masturbatory
wishcasting.
My favorite phrase - Americans are suckers and boobies. Pushing Russia out of the circle
of friends of the United States (and Russia has never been an enemy of the United States, who
knows the history of relations between the United States and Russia, knows what I'm talking
about) can only double suckers and boobies. In general, the ship "Russia" finally sailed from
the US coast. It's a pity.
"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
Last month, American military forces
physically blocked Russian troops from proceeding down a road near the town of Rmelan,
Syria. U.S. troops were acting on orders of President Trump, who said back in October that
Washington would be
"protecting" oil fields currently under control of the anti-Assad, Kurdish Syrian Defense
Forces.
Meanwhile, the Russians are acting on behalf of Syrian president Bashar Assad, who says the
state is ultimately in control of those fields. While no shots were fired in this case, the
next time Moscow's forces might not go so quietly.
U.S. officials offered few details about the January stand-off, but General Alexus
Grynkewich, deputy commander of the anti-ISIS campaign, said: "We've had a number of different
engagements with the Russians on the ground." Late last month the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights reported: "Tensions have continued to increase significantly in recent days between U.S.
and Russian forces in the northeastern regions of Syria."
Stationed in Syria illegally, with neither domestic nor international legal authority,
American personnel risked life and limb to occupy another nation's territory and steal its
resources. What is the Trump administration doing?
American policy in Syria has long been stunningly foolish, dishonest, and counterproductive.
When the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, Washington first defended Assad. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton even called him a "reformer." Then she decided that he should be ousted and
demanded that the rest of the world follow Washington's new policy.
"... How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and file? ..."
Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To LoseTrisha , Feb 6 2020 16:12 utc
|
6
The Democratic Party seems to intend to lose the 2020 elections.
The idiotic impeachment attempt against Trump ended just
as we predicted at its beginning:
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia [the Democrats]
now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the
Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently
preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves
to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's
policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about
'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would
never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump
will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is
the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Senate acquitted Trump of all the nonsense the Democrats have thrown against him.
The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving @BernieSanders
delegates to @DevalPatrick who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can dm
me.
We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that @BernieSanders won
the #iacaucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 County Delegates. #NotMeUs
#IowaCaucuses
The whole manipulation was intended to enable Buttigieg to claim that he led in Iowa even
though it is clear that Bernie Sanders won the race. It worked:
If a progressive is about to win #IowaCaucuses:
- remove final polls
- use mysterious app created by former Clinton staffers
- Funnel results thru untested app
- Claim app fails
- Hold results
- Reveal only 62% to give false impression of who won
- Refuse to reveal final results
But the cost of such open manipulations is the
loss of trust in the Democratic Party and in elections in general:
In sum: We are 24 hours into the 2020 campaign, and Democrats have already humiliated their
party on national television, alienated their least reliable progressive supporters,
demoralized their most earnest activists, and handed Trump's campaign a variety of potent
lines of attack.
The other leading candidates are not much better. Sanders might have a progressive agenda
in domestic policies, but his foreign policies are fully in line with his party. Matt Duss,
Sanders' foreign policy advisor, is the son of a lifelong key front man for CIA
proxy organizations. He spills out mainstream imperial blabber:
The only thing that Trump's Venezuela regime change policy achieved is giving Russia an
opportunity to screw with the US in our own hemisphere. That's what they were
applauding.
Giving a standing ovation to Trump's SOTU remarks on Venezuela were of course the
Democratic "resistance" and Nancy Pelosi . That was before she theatrically ripped up her
copy of Trump's speech, the show act of a 5 year old and one which
she had trained for . She should be fired.
Impeachment, the Iowa disaster and petty show acts will not win an election against Donald
Trump. While they do not drive away core Democratic voters, they do make it difficult to get
the additional votes that are needed to win. Many on the left and the right who dislike Trump
will rather abstain or vote for a third party than for a party which is indistinguishable
from the currently ruling one.
Either the Democrats change their whole course of action or they will lose in November to
an extend that will be breathtaking. It would be well deserved.
Posted by b on February 6, 2020 at 15:57 UTC |
Permalink The donor class owners of the "Democratic" party have every incentive to
support Trump, who has cut their taxes, hugely inflated the value of their assets, and
mis-directed attention away from substantial issues that might degrade either their assets or
their power, by focusing on identity politics.
It's obvious to me that the two war parties function as one. The Democrats have been winning
since Trump took office--they get their money and they get their wars. If Trump wins, the
Democrats win as billionaires flood more money into the DNC. If Trump loses, the Republicans
win for the same reasons.
The behavior of a five year old is an appropriate reference point for most of the people
working in DC, albeit engaged parents expect more of their children. This vaudeville routine
is giving satisfaction to Republicans, Trump supporters, and those who have been looking for
a clearer opportunity to say "I told you so" to diehard Democratic believers (who will
continue to refuse to listen).
For an American, even one who has always been somewhat cynical regarding cultural notions of
democracy and the "American Way," the show has become patently and abusively vulgar and
revulsive. It does not appear to be anywhere near "hitting bottom." There can be no recovery
without emotional maturity, and the leaders in Washington exhibit nothing of the kind. The
level of maturity and wisdom of the individuals involved is determinative of the political
result, not the alleged quality of the politics they purport to sell. Right now we don't have
that.
"Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To Lose"
Aren't there 2 levels of "change"?
1. How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling
class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and
file? If you thought anything like that, you should try to find one single instance, in
all history, of this "party" ever having done anything at all out of line with the express
policy of the owners of the country (the high level of people-friendly noise, intended for
the voting peons, never translates into any action of that sort.)
2. If you mean change the electoral policy to win this election, how could they
conceivably manage to change this late? Like a supertanker launched at full speed trying to
make a sharp turn a few seconds before hitting the shore, you mean?
Anyway, in both cases forget what it "deserves", it should be destroyed and buried under,
not only lose.
It would take extreme mental contortions to take U.S. "democracy" seriously at this
point.
I would like to believe that it makes some difference who is elected, but increasingly
doubtful.
How different would it really have been had Hillary been elected (much as it pains me to
consider such a scenario)?
Trump was elected (aside from interference from AIPAC) partly because he was republican
candidate and for some that's all it takes but aside from that because;
- end pointless wars
- improve healthcare
- control immigration
- jobs for coal miners
- somehow address corruption and non-performance of government
- improve US competitiveness, bring back jobs, promote business, improve economy
He claims having improved the economy but more likely is done juice from the FED.
So really, what grade does he deserve?
And yet people are rallying to his side.
Personally I think that the entrenched interests have moulded Trump to meet their
requirements and now it is inconvenient to have to start work on a new president, unless it
would be one of their approved choices.
I voted for Trump because of Hillary.
Now I would not vote for Trump given a decent choice. Fortunately there is an excellent
alternative.
All who count have known for a long time that Trump will have a second term. Baked in. (1)
The Dems agitate and raucously screech and try to impeach to distract or whatever to show
da base that they hate Trump and hope to slaughter! him! a rapist! mysoginist! racist!
liar ! He is horrors! in touch with the malignant criminal authoritarian ex-KGB Putin! Russia
Russia Russia - and remember Stormy Daniels! ( :) ! )
The top corp. Dems prefer to lose to Trump, I have said this for years, as have many
others. In rivalry of the Mafia type, it is often better to submit to have a share of the
pie. Keep the plebs on board with BS etc. Victim status, underdog pretense, becomes ever more
popular.
1. Trump might fall ill / dead / take Melania's advice and wishes into account, or just
quit.
People still talk like democracy really exists in USA.
They channel their anger toward Party and personality.
If only the democrats would ... If only Sanders would ... If only people would see that
...
A few understand the way things really are, but most are still hoping that
somehow that the bed-time stories and entertaining kayfabe are a sort of
democracy that they can live with.
But the is just normalcy bias. A Kool-Aid hang-over. This is not democracy. It is a soft
tyranny encouraged by Empire stooges, lackeys, and enabled by ignorance.
The lies are as pervasive as they are subtle: half-truths; misdirection; omitting facts
like candidate/party affiliations with the Zionist/Empire Death Cult.
The REAL divide among people in the West is who benefits from an EMPIRE/ZIONIST FIRST
orientation that has polluted our politics and our culture and the rest of us.
Wake up. War is on the horizon. And Central Banks can't print money forever.
After watching Pelosi it reminded me that during the Geo. W. Bush era the Democrats were
always claiming to be the adults in the room. It's odd that Mayo Pete's 'husband' is never
seen or heard from. I wonder why? Biden's toast and Epstein didn't kill himself. AND Seth
Rich leaked Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.
-- --
The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the
Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination.
As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family,
himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably
Mossad.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Trump is an installment of The Mossad via blackmail and media manipulation, check "Black
Cube Intelligence", a Mossad front operating from City of London. It would make sense the
establishment in the US would eavesdrop on him. Mossad on the other hand would wiretap the
wiretapers and give feedback on Trump. The Podesta you mentioned once threatened the factions
with "disclosure" possibly to keep the runaway black projects crazies in check not that I
wish to play advocate of these people.
-- --
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to terrorize
the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real suicides.
So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Yes, what we need is just a nazi party in the US to keep communism in check, right? We are
half way there with Trump already aren't we? "Black Sun" technologies (which a part off I
described above) already there, leaking to anyone interested enough that would aid in the
great outsourcing for the Yinon project, so why not? "Go Trump 2020"! (sarcasm)
For whatever reason the only thing the Dems seem to find more terrible than a loss to Trump
is a win with Bernie. I'm no fan of Bernie but it's clear they're out to sabotage the one guy
that would actually beat Trump in an election
While I have no illusions that a Sanders administration will have good foreign policy
objectives, is there not something to be said for shifting money away from the
military-industrial complex in the US? In general Sanders gives me the impression that he
wants to reduce US intervention in foreign affairs in favor of spending more money on
domestic issues. Even a slight reduction in pressure is helpful for giving other countries
the ability to expand their spheres of influence and becoming more legitimate powers in
opposition to the US and EU. Based on this I still see voting for Sanders as helpful even if
he won't bring about any meaningful change in the US's foreign policy.
it's not an actual Stalin quote, but often used as such
he did say something in the same vein, though.
it IS absolutely spot on here:
"It's not who vote that counts, it's who counts the votes"
congratulations, DNC, you're on a par with Joseph Stalin; the most ruthless chairman the
Sovyets have ever had.
so here is your real Russia Gate.
oh, come and smell the Irony. In fake wrestling the producers determine the winner in advance
and the wrestlers ate given their script to follow. The Dems have no intention to win this,
look at the clowns they have running the show not to mention the flawed candidates . The
script calls for the king of fake wrestling, Trump himself, to win yet again. Only a
concerted effort by the Dems and Deep State media, along with some tech help from Bibis crew
can engineer this result, but they are all on board. Dems willing to wait for 2024 when the
producers will write them in for a big Win over somebody not named Trump. The world will be
ready for a Green change by then, and Soros/Gates boys will have their chance to step up to
the plate again.
Enjoy the show if you wish, I'm changing the channel.
Demrats gave Trump the best week of his presidency.
Sadly, this is an example of not letting go.
US Senate Panel Finds No Evidence of Alleged Russian Interference in 2016 Vote
LINK
The Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report released on Thursday that again it saw
no evidence of alleged Russian interference changing any votes or manipulating voting
machines in the 2016 US presidential election.
"The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting
machines were manipulated", the Intelligence Committee said in its report into allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.[.]
found no evidence but Russia, Russia, Russia the bogeyman. Will someone remind D.C. of
U.S. interference in, and overthrow of elected governments in countries around the world?
Then there're several items at Common Dreams , the first having an excellent vid
featuring Krystal Ball of The Hill reporting
how the election was rigged . It also links to an important Twitter thread by Naomi
Klein . I found this message perhaps the most important part:
"If we honestly believe we are building a movement, not just an electoral campaign, then
the relationships we forge, and the political education we do along the way, is never wasted.
It's all part of building power, which we badly need no matter what happens. Nothing is
wasted."
When emotion rules the day facts do not matter. Sadly, that is the reality we confront when
it comes to talking about Iran and terrorism. The U.S. Government and almost all of the media
continue to declare that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a
lie. I realize that calling this assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist
for Iran. But simply look at the facts.
Iran remains the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. The regime has spent nearly one
billion dollars per year to support terrorist groups that serve as its proxies and expand its
malign influence across the globe. Tehran has funded international terrorist groups such as
Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It also has engaged in its own terrorist
plotting around the world, particularly in Europe. In January, German authorities investigated
10 suspected Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force operatives. In the summer,
authorities in Belgium, France, and Germany thwarted an Iranian plot to bomb a political rally
near Paris, France. In October, an Iranian operative was arrested for planning an assassination
in Denmark, and in December, Albania expelled two Iranian officials for plotting terrorist
attacks. Furthermore, Tehran continued to allow an AQ facilitation network to operate in Iran,
which sends fighters and money to conflict zones in Afghanistan and Syria, and it has extended
sanctuary to AQ members residing in the country.
You notice what is absent? A list of specific attacks that caused actual casualties. Plans
and plots are not the same as actions. If Iran's malevolent influence was so powerful, we
should be able to point to specific attacks and specific casualties. But you will not find
those facts in the U.S. State Department report because they do not exist. The statistical
annex that details the attacks and the groups responsible reports the following:
The Taliban was responsible for 8,509 deaths and 4,943 injuries, about 25 percent of the
total casualties attributed to terrorism globally in 2018. With 647 terrorist attacks, ISIS was
the next-most-active terrorist organization, responsible for 3,585 fatalities and 1,761
injuries. Having conducted 535 attacks, al-Shabaab was responsible for 2,062 deaths and 1,278
injuries. Boko Haram was among the top-five terrorist perpetrators, with 220 incidents, 1,311
deaths, and 927 injuries. It should be noted that local sources do not always differentiate
between Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa.
Not a single group linked to Iran or supported by Iran is identified. Look at the this table
from the statistical annex:
No Hezbollah and no Hamas. If a country is going to "sponsor" terrorism then we should
expect to see terrorist attacks. The attacks that are taking place are predominantly from Sunni
affiliated groups that have ties to Saudi Arabia, not Iran.
The State Department's explanation about Iranian support for terrorism exposes what the real
issue is (I am quoting the 2016 report but, if you
read the 2017 or 2018
versions there is no significant difference):
Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related
activity in 2016, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and
various groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East. Iran used the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps‑Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide
cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. Iran has
acknowledged the involvement of the IRGC-QF in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria and the IRGC-QF
is Iran's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
In 2016, Iran supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah, as
part of an effort to fight ISIS in Iraq and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. Iran views the
Assad regime in Syria as a crucial ally and Syria and Iraq as crucial routes to supply weapons
to Hizballah, Iran's primary terrorist partner. Iran has facilitated and coerced, through
financial or residency enticements, primarily Shia fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan to
participate in the Assad regime's brutal crackdown in Syria. Iranian-supported Shia militias in
Iraq have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians and Iranian
forces have directly backed militia operations in Syria with armored vehicles, artillery, and
drones.
The United States is upset with Iran because it has thwarted the U.S. covert action in
Syria. It was the United States, along with the U.K., Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that helped
ignite and escalate the civil war in Syria. Why? The Saudis and the Israelis were growing
increasingly concerned in 2011 about Iran's spreading influence in the region. And what enabled
Iran to do that? We did. When the United States removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed the
Baathist movement in Iraq, the Bush Administration thought it was a dandy idea to install Iraqi
Shia in positions of leadership. Not one of the key policymakers on the U.S. side of the
equation expressed any qualms about the fact that these Iraqi politicians and military
personnel had longstanding relationships with Iran, which included financial support.
Iran also had a longstanding relationship with Syria. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
decided that if we could eliminate Bashir Assad, the Syrian leader, then we would weaken Iran.
This was a policy that many Republicans, most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham,
supported. But the scheme to weaken Iran backfired. Iran, along with Russia, came to the aid of
the Government of Syria in full blown counter-insurgency campaign. Iran, the Russians and the
Syrian Government were fighting radical Sunni islamists, many of whom were funded by the
Western alliance.
Iran's military support for the Government of Syria clearly rankles U.S. policymakers, but
it is not "terrorism." It is pure counter insurgency.
Wikipedia offers additional evidence about the true nature of international terrorism. I
have reviewed the lists of incidents, which includes the description of the attacks, the
perpetrators and the number of casualties for 2016-2018. I have only been able to put the 2016
incidents into a spreadsheet. Here are the actual facts.
In 2016 there were seven terrorist attacks that caused at least 100 casualties. All were
attributed to ISIL aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Not one was linked to Iran
or any group receiving financial support from Iran. There were a total of 1753 terrorist
attacks and at least 15,993 deaths during 2016.
Here is the monthly breakdown for 2016:
January -- 105
terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of at least 1,351 people. There were no attacks linked
to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. The seven attacks in Israel that left 7 dead were
ascribed to a "Palestinian" lone-wolf.
February -- 72
attacks that left 1075 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or
Hezbollah. There were seven attacks and 3 dead attributed to "lone-wolf" Palestinians.
March -- 112
attacks leaving at least 778 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or
Hezbollah. There were 13 attacks in Israel identified as "lone-wolf" Palestinian. No
significant Israeli casualties.
April -- 152
attacks that caused at least 1012 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib
Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
May -- 202 attacks
leaving at least 1600 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or
Hezbollah.
June -- 187
attacks and at least 1693 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas
or Hezbollah.
July -- 187
attacks with at least 1684 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or
Hezbollah.
August -- 139
terrorist attacks resulting in 1224 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah,
Hamas or Hezbollah.
September --
128 terrorist attacks, which caused at least 849 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to
Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
October -- 166
terrorist attacks and at least 2139 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah,
Hamas or Hezbollah.
November --
153 terrorist attacks that killed at least 1446. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib
Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
December --
147 terrorist attacks, which resulted in at least 930 deaths. There were no attacks linked to
Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
The U.S. State Department continues to insist that Iran is providing indirect support to Al
Qaeda. That is pure nonsense. Iran is fighting and killing Al Qaeda forces inside Syria. They
have no ideological affinity with Al Qaeda.
I wish the American people would take the time to be educated about the actual nature and
extent of "international terrorism." There was a time in the 1980s when Iran was very active in
using terrorism as weapon to attack U.S. military and diplomatic targets. But even those
attacks were focused in areas where Iran's perceived national interests were at stake. I am not
excusing nor endorsing their actions. But I do think we need to understand that terrorism
usually has a context. It is not the actions of a mentally ill person who is angry and lashing
out at the nearest available target. Those attacks were planned and very calculated.
The real issue that we should be focused on is whether or not we can halt the expansion of
Iran's influence in the Middle East. This remains a major concern for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
U.S. policymakers are betting that isolating Iran diplomatically, ratcheting up economic
pressure and using some military power will somehow energize the regime opposition and lead to
the overthrow of the Mullahs. We tried that same policy with Cuba. It did not work there and
will not likely work now in Iran.
Iran has options and is pursuing them aggressively. China and Russia, who are facing their
own bullying from the United States, already are helping Iran tweak the the nose of the Trump
Administration. In late December 2019, Iran, Russia and China carried out a joint military
exercise . The Iranians were very clear about their view of this cooperation:
"The most important achievement of these drills . . . is this
message that the Islamic republic of Iran cannot be isolated," vice-admiral Gholamreza Tahani,
a deputy naval commander, said. "These exercises show that relations between Iran, Russia and
China have reached a new high level while this trend will continue in the coming years."
The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and
terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little to
do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their cooperation
with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the longterm interests of
the United States or our allies in the Middle East.
I do not know where you are going with this: "Are you honestly expecting the little people in the US to believe the DC chickenhawks
or the MSM again?"
Trump received massive support for firing missiles into Syria after the purported gas attacks including from ~ 50% in public
opinion polls, so IMO there is no doubt that the "little people" will buy into the next war hook, line and sinker with 65% approval
if there is a long lead-up. The Iran / 9-11 trial balloon is being floated in some rightwing media outlets.
There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those
they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can
create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.
Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.
President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's
revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and the
long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war
propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was
Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having
turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that
would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited
regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of
ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.
As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.
The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil
resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the
country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was
roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner
of speaking.
Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring
Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across
Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and
further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war
initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do
about it.
Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as
merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have
known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely
understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth
began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like
a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the
attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do
any reporting.
The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been
injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the
Internet
by order of the US Treasury !
Last week the US House
voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for
war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move
to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions
like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's
thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .
President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually
makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of
military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in
Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently
fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own
propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination,
Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a
pressure-release or deterrent effect.
As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge
put it recently:
[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran,
jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the
form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major
direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with
two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).
The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if
impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle
East policy.
So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The
Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President
Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a
semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace"
plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel
continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is
clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over
Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?
Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss
website rightly
observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner,
"taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan
is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.
It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes
for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession
that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they
are back on the teevee stations as great experts.
It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough
to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.
a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they
serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are
based on faulty inputs.
The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the
NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty
inputs.
If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and
consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to
consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100%
involved in the neoCON.
"It does not take a poli sci major to figure out that Flynn's immediate removal from the
Administration was essential to undermining Trump's entire foreign policy initiatives
including no new interventionist wars, peace with Russia and US withdrawal from Syria and
Afghanistan."
I always get a chuckle out of the notion that Trump and the neocons are mortal enemies. Do
you know who co-wrote Michael Flynn's "The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War
Against Radical Islam and Its Allies"? Does the name Michael Ledeen ring a bell? A profile on
Flynn in the New Yorker Magazine revealed that much of the book is practically plagiarized
from Ledeen's sorry body of books and articles. Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This is about as neocon as you can get with founder
Clifford D. May now serving as President, who is also a member of the Henry Jackson Society,
an outfit that is infamous for supporting the war in Iraq. Here is Ledeen on the countries
posing the greatest threat to the USA:
It's no coincidence. Russia, Iran and North Korea are in active cahoots. They are
pooling resources, including banking systems (the better to bust sanctions), intelligence
and military technology, as part of an ongoing war against the West, of which the most
melodramatic battlefields are in Syria/Iraq and Ukraine.
To judge by their language, the leaders of the three countries think the tide of world
events is flowing in their favor. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered an
ultimatum to the West, saying that Iran's war against "evil" would only end with the
removal of America. Russian President Vladimir Putin marches on in Ukraine, blaming the
West for all the trouble, and the North Koreans are similarly bellicose.
They are singing from the same hymnal. And they aim to do us in.
Right, they aim to do us in. So it turns out that the guy that Flynn is most closely
allied to ideologically is ten times scarier than Hillary Clinton. If you still have doubts
about Flynn's close ties to Ledeen, I recommend The New Yorker profile linked to above. It
states:
Flynn and Ledeen became close friends; in their shared view of the world, Ledeen
supplied an intellectual and historical perspective, Flynn a tactical one. "I've spent my
professional life studying evil," Ledeen told me. Flynn said, in a recent speech, "I've sat
down with really, really evil people" -- he cited Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Russians, Chinese
generals -- "and all I want to do is punch the guy in the nose."
Get that, people? Flynn said he'd like to punch a Russian in the nose. People get confused
over Flynn's ideological core beliefs by missing that his interest in Russia is solely based
on its usefulness against ISIS. Just because he favored a united military front against ISIS,
it does not mean that he has the same affinity for the Kremlin that someone like Stephen F.
Cohen has. Just remember that the USA and Stalin were allied against Hitler. You know how far
that went.
lundiel ,
Funny you should bring up Ledeen, just after I posted a comment about him, eh Louis?
For whatever reason, Flynn decided to work with Trump and his removal, by his compatriots, is
testament to his problematic policy shift. Who knows if he had a paradigm shift or thought he
knew which side his bread was buttered. The thing is, as Renee says, the FBI are very much
involved in internal politics.
Thank you for another good article. What strikes me is that so many automatically go to, or
refer to, Mr Putin as the voice of reason these days and not Washington DC or any NATO
country. I never thought that I will live to see the US become less trusted than our old
enemy, the commies. BUT, as I say in my books, the Russia of today is not the USSR at all.
Anyway, for those interested in interesting military history, I recently discovered this
myself, see https://www.georgemjames.com/blog/the-fuhrers-commando-order-origins.
I wanted to post on the open thread but got busy and forgot. GMJ.
Turkey is still in NATO, realizes his strategic importance and from time immoral has
always played both sides.
2019 Erdo got what he wanted from Russia - TurkStream. The pipeline is operational and
income flows.
There is this; when one plays both sides of the fence, one day the fence will disappear.
Action in Saraqib. Top Russian, Turkish diplomats hold phone talks, says source in Turkish ministry
ANKARA, February 3. /TASS/. Turkish and Russian Foreign Ministers Mevlut Cavusoglu and
Sergey Lavrov have held phone talks on Monday, a source in the Turkish diplomatic agency
told TASS.[.]
Earlier, the Turkish Ministry of National Defense said that Turkish positions near the
town of Saraqib in Syria's Idlib Province had been shelled, killing six soldiers and
wounding nine more. Ankara claims that the Syrian army was behind the attack in spite of
the fact that it was timely informed about where Turkish forces are located. Erdogan later
revealed that Turkish aviation and artillery had retaliated, striking 40 targets in Idlib
and "neutralizing 30-35 Syrians."[.]
Erdogan has a serious delusion/problem with seeing himself as the head of a pan-turkik
empire. The US in particular plays with fire feeding this obsession.
Instead ofjust supporting militants to destabilize and keep clients dependent (ala
gladio), the empire seems to be mobilizing to use the Turkik racial entity as a block to the
Russian-Chinese OBOR connectivity in Asia.
While the militants destabilization technique works in Africa and Arab areas, it lacks
traction in central Asia -although it cannot be ignored as a potential trigger
(Pakistan-India)
For central Asia, the US is mobilizing pan-turkik feelings. Putin and Xi run a great risk
mollifying (putin) or financing (Xi) such delusion.
More from Reuters Turkey's Erdogan says developments in Syria's Idlib 'unmanageable'
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday developments in Syria's northwestern region
of Idlib had become "unmanageable", after Ankara said Syrian shelling killed five of its
soldiers there.
The foreign ministers of Russia and Turkey on Monday agreed that a deal over Syria's Idlib
region must be observed, amid rising tensions between opposing forces, the Interfax news
agency cited the Russian foreign ministry as saying.[.]
For Erdogan the Arabs are racially inferior and will be pushed aside. Kurds, unfortunately
for them in Erdogans eyes, are a kind of half-breed that threatens turkik racial purity- they
will be subservient or cease to exist.
Not true. Russian doesn't even have a passive "no fly" via S-400s. They don't have full
coverage from the installations at Latakia and Tartus. A no fly zone requires fighter jets to
maintain the clear skies. Russia has no intention of suppressing US air power over Syria
(eastern sector). They use de-confliction talks daily to separate aircraft.
Also, Assad has not asked Russia to impose a "No Fly Zone". At times, for Russian military
uses, they have announced zones where all aircraft are warned to stay clear. But those are
common practice and of limited duration, usually for military exercises.
The thing is, which even the totally Pro-Russian Southfront admits: Turkey has more
(economic) leverage over Putin as the other way around.
The Turk Stream pipeline is critical for Putin, even more with the long delays North Stream
II faces.
With the renewed US-Turkey allaince, Putin and Turkey payed lobbyists like Peskov have
manuvered themselves into a pretty shitty situation. Again, as even Southfront admits, this
could damage all of Russias new prestige in the middle east.
And again, as Southfront even notes, Russia would not admit it if Turkey did strike the
SAA.
In the middle east, if you can not protect your protectorate, you are seen as impotent. SF
seems to believe Turkey did indeed strike the SAA. And with SF sources in Russian military
circles, i would not doubt that.
Either Putin now gives Erdo a bloody nose, and pushes back hard, Russias standing will be
severly damaged.
And everything concerning the middle east Putin build up in the last years, will threaten to
unravel.
I sad for over a year this day would come, while many here dreamed of some mythical/esoteric
alliance between Turkey and Russia. That delusion now finally comes to its predictable
end.
Good riddance.
Another potential contributing factor to Erdogan's erratic behaviour is the Lira is being
squeezed again similar to when the US sought to pressure him to release the US pastor and to
dissuade him from purchasing the S400's. They got the pastor when the Lira hit 6.18 to the
USD after a sudden mercurial rise.
It's a hair shy of 6 per right now after another rapid devaluation. Turkey is very
vulnerable in this area due to a large amount of foreign debt denominated in USD that's due
in the near term. Last time this happened many experts opined the 6 per level was a watershed
moment which threatens to bring down the Turk's economy if it continued for brief period.
Erdogan isn't as popular nor as resilient politically as he used to be especially with
inflation remaining a huge problem and interest rates that would give an American oligarch a
heart attack. Pocket book issues are important everywhere.
"It's the economy stupid."
That said I read an article earlier about Netanyahu flying directly to Moscow after taking
a victory lap with the 'Don' and instead of his usual all about Binyamin bloviating, he
busied himself heaping effusive praise on Putin..who btw demurred. Deal of Century stone
thrown into still waters rippling far and wide methinks. Maximum pressure on the 'Don's' good
friend Recep, the Mob Boss who resides in his new Gilded quarters /Palace in Turkey.
Lastly a worthy read. A story of hope and tragedy;
Leila Janah, Entrepreneur Who Hired the Poor, Dies at 37
"A child of Indian immigrants, she created digital jobs that pay a living wage to
thousands in Africa and India, believing that the intellect of the poor was "the biggest
untapped resource" in the world."
Probably the only chance a significant % of the public will have to hear about her and her
passion. Sadly the mobsters steal the headlines, and capture most of the attention.
Sultan Erdogan seems to have forgotten who saved his ass when America backed and supported a
coup against him in 2016.
If it weren't for Russia, Erdogan would likely be in a Turkish prison somewhere being
subjected to America's Abu Ghraib-style "naked pyramids" or even worse.
@23 Pompeo said this today in his trip to
Kazakhstan: "More than a million persons of Oyghour and Kazakh Muslims have been imprisoned
in China's coercive camps. I demand all of countries to try for ending the China's pressures.
Also we want the international community to act for providing the security of the Oyghour and
Kazakh Turks, that are trying for flee from China and refuge in another country."
He added: "Pioneering of Kazakhstan in returning the terrorists and their families from
Iraq and Syria , is promising and should be considered by other countries."
2019 Erdo got what he wanted from Russia - TurkStream. The pipeline is operational and
income flows. There is this; when one plays both sides of the fence, one day the fence will
disappear.
Or, as John le Carre said in 'Funeral in Berlin', 'if you sit on the fence, they'll run
the barbed wire right through you.'
Yes, folks what the heck the turks have to do with Idlib or syrian territory, IF it is
guaranteed that neither russia nor Assad will support their enemies - the Kurds - from
builing up a state in northwest syria? It is a done deal that there will be no kurd state
there.
Never trust a turk is the old saying, but who s insisting on trying make it true? They
deserve a new direct treason from the empire and from europeans just to find out who is the
faithful partner.
If the Syrian AF attacks the HTS scum in close proximity to any of the observation posts and
more Turks are killed, will Turd.O.Wan bring the Turkish AF into play in Syria?
Gary M #33
Good to hear. Pontious will be repatriating IS and Al Qaida terrorists to California then?
The guy is a lying turd just like his USA boss and his little friend Erdoghan.
trump Regime Secretary of State Job Description; Evangelical Terrorist in Chief..
Differs somewhat from Obama era Red Queen of the Clinton Dynasty, and the not so artful
dodger long john Kerry who wasn't above alluding to the good works of Brown Noses @
Bellingcat to justify the proxy war his Country wrought upon the innocents in secular Syria
by decree of King Barrack the 1st, a fully accredited member of the Court of the Betters than
the rest of us .
The fact that Turkey has to step in itself is a sign of how just weak its Al-Qaeda proxies
have become. The SAA is taking town after town with little or no resistance from HTS.
I really have a hard time understanding Turkey. In addition to the list in the article Turkey
is depending on Russia for:
1) S-400 - these deliveries are not complete
2) Akkuyu nuclear power station - this is not 'a' reactor, it is 4 reactors and $25B financed
by Russia (although they are looking for a Turkish investor)
3) Turkstream gas pipeline - just connected amidst great fanfare ... with others leaders
present (Serbia, Bulgaria, ..)
4) The general economic trade.
Erdogan has stated support for Syrian integrity.
So, why not just get out of Idlib (let the headchoppers die or send them to Libya), make a
deal with Syria to control the border in the East against the Kurds and be done with it?
The idea that Russia is so desperate for gas sales to Turkey or for that matter the EU is
wrong. Russia wants to build good relations with as many countries as possible. But, in terms
of trade, what does Russia need that they can't make for themselves or buy from the Chinese?
I keep thinking that at some point Russia will simply say, 'fine, you don't want the gas, get
it elsewhere, instead of putting up with all this garbage.
So much hate against Turkey without a proper knowledge of its recent history. People blame
how Turks misbehave against the Kurds, but they do not even know Turkey had a Kurdish
president and prime minister in 80s. Erdogan was actually quite warm towards Kurds at the
beginning of his tenure and a lot of ethnic rights were granted to them by his government
which the history of Turkey has never seen before (causing a lot of friction between his
party and the nationalists). They were politically welcome into the parliament, which never
happened in the history of Turkey. But this changed after US fueled up its efforts to oust
Erdogan and the political and militia arm of the Kurds were the first ones to collude with
US, as is the cases in Syria and Iraq. That is why they turned bitter against each other in
the first half of the last decade. Both sides are no angels!
It is easy for Putin to talk about the international law in Syria but act brazenly against
it in Libya and Crimea. It is all about influence. Just as Russia holds a considerable
influence and historical ties in Crimea and annexed it by holding a referendum that was
illegal according to the Ukrainian constitution (which openly states that territorial changes
must be approved by a national vote involving all Ukrainian citizens), Turkey's acts in Idlib
region must be seen in the same direction. I am sure that if Turkey held a referendum in
Idlib region, which would be illegal according to the Syrian constitution, and asked if they
wanted to join Turkey in the cover of self-determination, a high majority would say yes.
Erdo has already tried to get his jets to help but the RuAF won't allow them into Syrian
airspace. And SAaF have bombed next to those Turk OPs.
Roughly an hour ago the SAA's main push began into Saraqib from the West. Again using
superior night vision advantage. An additional attack axis is reported to be aimed at Sarmin,
beyond which is Idlib City.
"The cat might really be nuts, you know...I mean they used to say "transient schizophrenic
psychoses" from the stress... And he's in a pressure cooker. Yeah, he's probably nutty."
I once heard the statement "To do a great evil the devil requires a good man with one or
two proound weaknesses. A really evil / insane man will not do, for the simple reason that he
will never gain enough power to do a great evil."
Theology aside, the point remains. Erdogan is not insane. He has a couple profound
weaknesses one of which is the racially motivated pan-turkic delusion which the Americans
play on.
2nd, like many of pointed out here is his support base, which is partially religious and
partially economic. The economic side is definitely crumbling.
Putin seems to be gambling on the pressure he can apply via the economic side. That
pressure is essentially a negative pressure. Once it's gone there is no control. The pressure
the Americans exert is a positive, visionary pressure. It remains regardless of the economic
or religious support that Erdogan can put together. It may well be the stronger of the two
motivations.
What Erdogan says and what the wannabe Don trump says holds about the same value. Both
bullshit in the hope it will give them leverage.
US Presidents have used bullshit and attacks against innocents to feather their political
nests because stupid people are easy to fool, Erdogan's base are even dumber than dubya's
base which has become trump's base. They never learn anything. Erdogan has an advantage in
his hood that even trump doesn't have, he completely destroyed any media that opposed his
quest to be the Dictator that rules with an iron fist. His religious base (think US
Evangelical base) love that strong man stuff. Even though the US evangelicals have to be the
world's worst hypocrites. Sad that, BIGLY sad.
90 + percent of the crimeans spoke Russian as a mother tongue. 90 + percent of the
inhabitants of idlib spoke Arabic as her mother tongue, not Turkish.
The Turkish Army invaded the Idlib province. Arabs were forced to flee, some of them
residing here in Canada. Turks have been resettled in their place throughout the province. Of
course with ethnic cleansing it's easy to get the census that agrees with you. For you to
equate Idlib and Crimea is beyond laughable.
Even if Turkish military supplies arrive to outposts, they will still be surrounded and
unable to supply their terrorist. Turks will spend their time bored, gambling, drinking and
watching porn. Their morale will sink.
"He has a couple profound weaknesses one of which is the racially motivated pan-turkic
delusion which the Americans play on."
Again - no. This is not the motivation of Erdogan, but the motivation of other players so
important that he must follow them. These do not accept his Muslim Brotherhood stance. There
is, if you like, a partnership between both attitudes.
Any US-hope of using the pan-turanistic dreams against China and Russia is in vain. It may
create unnecessary disturbances but will fail at the end.
Innocent Civilian | Feb 3 2020 21:41 utc | 46
The part dealing with the Kurds is plain political dreamstuff. They were accepted as long
as they were not Kurds, but Turks from the perspective of the Kemalist nightmare. But ok, I
guess it is difficult to get access to unspoilt informations where you live. This is what I
assume.
My question was not whether Erdogan can manipulate his people (that seems to be true of
every country), but what advantage does Erdogan see for himself or his country in persevering
in Idlib, with the possible result of a blowup with Russia, that will be very costly indeed
... for him and Turkey, not Russia.
You might be overestimating the importance to Russia of Turkstream and Nordstream2. Russia
had a financial insurance policy in operation, the new gas pipeline into China that started
pumping last month. Also Turkstream is not properly connected into the EU yet so Turkey is
the only customer of Russia for its gas. Also, given the slowdown in Germany's economy, there
would probably not been much of a net gain in gas sales even if Nordstream2 had been
completed, just a re-balancing of Nordstream1 and Ukraine transit.
" The pressure the Americans exert is a positive, visionary pressure. It remains regardless
of the economic or religious support that Erdogan can put together. It may well be the
stronger of the two motivations."
Posted by: les7 | Feb 3 2020 21:44 utc | 48
I would be most interested in your assertion " The pressure the Americans exert is a
positive, visionary pressure."
Could you indulge me and explain that in detail..as in a significant way?
The video evidence from Libya is that Turkish APCs etc are of questionable quality. This
could give the Turks in Syria the same problems.
Another problem for the Turkish Army is that they are facing a battle hardened SAA with
CAS. The Turks and their proxies are not and don't have air cover.
If such a claim is not 100% assured by sources that have no sympathy for the political
interests of Erdogan it is just a matter of political intelligence to believe that stuff or
not. The Turks are no champions in this discipline.
@All: latest news about this Michael d'Andrea available?
The Syrian military has probably gamed out the different possible scenarios with Turkey ahead
of time. They probably have plans for responding to this Turkish activity.
what advantage does Erdogan see for himself or his country in persevering in Idlib, with the
possible result of a blowup with Russia, that will be very costly indeed ... for him and
Turkey, not Russia.
Posted by: SteveK9 | Feb 3 2020 22:13 utc | 54
See my post on the rapid devaluation of the Turk Lira. The Sultan for all his bravado,
survives at the pleasure of the US / UK based Money Changers.
I repeat, "It's the economy stupid". Erdogan gained support for being a hopey changey
Economic miracle worker who stroked the Turk version of the Evangelicals. He became a God
like figure, then his aura began to wain and he lost elections in places like Ankara where
his 'faith based' Make Turkey Great Again movement began.
He's a nut, and nuts are dangerous. Like Netanyahu.
I read an article some time back when Binyamin Nyet and the Erdogan were jousting, the
headline was "Dictator vs. Tyrant" I thought it substantive and appropriate.
When someone in Erdogan's position seems to being acting in an unaccountable fashion, it is
best to take a look at the military. The Turkish Army is, by far the most powerful in the
region. And it is traditionally allied with "the west", NATO and the US. It hosts US bases,
it is linked at all levels with the Pentagon. The relationship is not unlike that in most
Latin American countries where the military invariably is the US government's last
resort.
Almost invariably: in Cuba and Venezuela bringing the Generals under control was the primary
aim of the revolutionaries. But it is hard to do, as a glance at Egypt reminds us.
It could be that Erdogan is under pressure from the original deep state which has been
oriented against Russia throughout its existence.
Erdogan is the president of Turkey and privy to all the info collected by Turkish
Intelligence and the Turkish army.
These guys have the latest technology drones and modern reconaiasance jets with sophisticated
sensors.
It would be unreasonable to suggest that the president of Turkey is lying on national TV
about the number of
Syrian soldiers killed by Turkish jets. The Russians and other western sources could easily
expose Erdogan if
he's lying. Neither the Russians nor the Syrians denied the aforementioned attacks by the
Turks.
Furthermore, the Jihadis presently have stepped up their attacks even capturing a Syrian
T-90 tank.
Earlier, the Russian center for reconciliation in Syria said Turkish military personnel
had come under an attack of Syrian troops in Idlib, because Turkey had failed to notify
Russia about the movements of its troops in advance
MOSCOW, February 3. /TASS/. /TASS/. Turkey has sent a convoy of armored vehicles to
Syria's Idlib Governorate in order to block the advance of the Syrian army towards the town
of Saraqib, located on the intersection of Latakia-Aleppo and Damascus-Aleppo highways, the
Al-Watan daily reported on Monday.
According to the paper, Turkish military is strengthening observation posts on the
approaches to Saraqib and is installing one more post on the Kfar Amim-Abu al Duhur line.
Turkish armored vehicles have also been spotted in al-Mastum and west of that town. A camp
of the Turkestan Islamic Party, an extremist organization made up of Uyghur mercenaries, is
located there.[.]
So what's going on with Erdo? Is it a complete falling out with Russia?
Today Erdo held a joint presser with Ukraine's Zelensky. Both signed an agreement.
LINK
Turkey reiterates its support for sovereignty, territorial integrity of Ukraine, says
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan [and repeated] "no recognition of annexation of Crimea"
What a snake whisperer?
A friend like Erdo, you keep him very close.
What is important is the Russian military says no Turk planes flew over Syrian troops. I
believe them not the Turks.
No question the trapped rats of al Nusra and Uyghur terrorists are fighting the Syrians
strongly. They are on the verge of being wiped off the face of the earth. Russian military
came to kill them.
And there is a report in Russian media of four FSB officers killed in IED or mortar attack
in the region, their injured bodies then executed by the terrorists. Big payback will be
coming if this report is fully factual. Colonel Cassad had photos of two of the fallen
today.
I personally hope that the Syria government avoids getting drag into a outright war with
Turkey due to Erdogan's latest zany scheme to slice off a part of Idleb. However, in
comparing the two forces it's important to remember that Turkey's military still hasn't fully
recovered from Erodogan's earlier purge after the failed coup. Erodogan fired or imprisoned
something like 5000 troops and more than a dozen senior officers and replaced them with
loyalists and So far their track record against the Syrian Kurds isn't something to brag
about. I suspect Russian diplomacy will once again come to the rescue and arrange some face
saving escape for the Turkish troops.
"Fars News Agency
10 hrs ·
Turkish Military Hits Syrian Troops Near Strategic City in Idlib, Damascus, Moscow Reject
Casualties Claimed by Ankara"
And for evidence of " The pressure the Americans exert is a positive, visionary pressure.
"
How about the positive pressure they put on Iraq, or libya, or Afghanistan, or Haiti, or
Russia, or China, or 8000 sanctions , or, or ,or and on and on.
In terms of the psychology of motivation, for Erdogan, this is a positive motivation. It
remains regardless of the obstacles that get put in its way.It is something to build towards,
the emphasis on building. Again this is from the perspective of Erdogan and other pan-turkik
nationalists within Turkey. Therefore, any deals that are made to achieve this goal remain
valued until it is fully realized. This potentially gives the Americans a lot of long-term
leveridge.
By contrast, the economic problems Turket faces are essentially negative obstacles to be
overcome. The deals that are made to achieve that only last as long as a situation is bad.
Once the economic solution is in, or an alternative is found, there is no need to keep the
deal. Putin's pressure point is short term and Russias role can be replaced.
In making this comment I am only trying to make clear the power of the motivation that the
two power blocks seek to use on Erdogan
My own views on the value, possibility or utility of a pan-turkic grouping is something
quite different
That's how they captured Afrin, thanks to Russian acquiescence.
Afrin was captured because the stupid, over-confident Kurds refused to let the Syrian Army
come and help them. They only came to their senses and accepted the Syrian Army assistance
after most of the Kurdish-held territories were already lost. Russia advised Kurds to accept
the Syrian Army's help, but Kurds rejected Russia's advice.
A small addition to your insistence that turkey invaded Idlib etc... The full picture
needs to be appreciated. Syria has been at war on numerous fronts. At the time of the
attempted turkish annexation of Idlib, Syrian army was fully stretched retaking the East at
Deir Ezzor and the south at Darra along the Golan border and relieving the pressure on
Damascus. Given the belligerent neighbours to the south and west - Jordan and Israel - and
turkey to the north and north west, they chose to secure the South first as the Northern
belligerent was partly 'in the camp'.
It is in the context of achievability and resources that Syria made that strategic
decision. Plus working with Russia to have somewhere to accommodate the terrorist close to
their least capable ally. Had Syria taken Idlib first and sent the terrorists South they
would have been fully in the arms and support of USA and its Jordanian and Israeli
vassals.
Assad acts in order to protect the Syrian people as best he can with the limited military
capability that he has. He will protect the capitol as would any sensible leader and his
persistent work with the Russian 'deconflit strategy' has worked well while he maintains his
military strategy of gradual liberation and minimal soldiers deaths.
Erdoghan on the other hand is acting out a different military strategy (somewhat like the
invading wehrmacht) and opening many fronts, one far from home and across vulnerable
seas.
The rout in Idlib may well happen quickly, I have no idea but if exit fever grips the
jihadis in Idlib then Erdoghan may be well advised to give them all safe passage to Libya -
IF he can. He is trapped by strong political challengers emerging at home, powerful turkish
chauvinism that will not tolerate more land being ceded to 'foreigners from the east' let
alone vicious killer refugees. And he is trapped by his Moslem Brotherhood expectation of
success which he MUST achieve. Otherwise the garrote awaits him.
He has just been conned by the USA who's only goal is to prevent his full use of the S400
in turkey. The USA will go to extremes to prevent that weapon system being installed and
rendered operational anywhere. His citizens will not be entirely happy with that capitulation
as it paints a picture of failure.
IMO Erdoghan has found his Dien Bien Phu in Idlib AND Libya. It is only a matter of time
before he is demised.
" The pressure the Americans exert is a positive, visionary pressure. It remains regardless
of the economic or religious support that Erdogan can put together. It may well be the
stronger of the two motivations."
Posted by: les7 | Feb 3 2020 21:44 utc | 48
This is what I asked;
I would be most interested in your assertion " The pressure the Americans exert is a
positive, visionary pressure."
Could you indulge me and explain that in detail..as in a significant way?
Your response doesn't even come close to answering the simple question I posed to you.
You seem to be endorsing US foreign policy that in essence is whatever it takes to feather
the nests of rich psychopaths regardless of brown folks body count? Christians too. Like,"All
animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. "
I am sure that if Turkey held a referendum in Idlib region, which would be illegal
according to the Syrian constitution, and asked if they wanted to join Turkey in the cover
of self-determination, a high majority would say yes.
If only Syians were allowed to vote, I doubt this would be true. If; however, all the foreign
fighters and their families were given a vote, there might be a majority in favour. But it
would beg the question, should foreigners be given any say in Syrian internal unity?
I think your understanding of the Crimean situation is also simplistic. Crimea was an
autonomous republic within Ukraine Oblast, and should properly have had a say in whether or
not it was incorporated into Ukraine. My understanding is that they tried to declare
themselves independant when the Soviet Union broke up. Regardless of what the Ukraine
constitution said, the Crimean constitution gave them authority to leave Ukraine.
I only said Turkish jets bombed (and most likely killed)Syrian soldiers in Idlib with
Russian collusion simply because it could not have happened if the Russians did
permit it. S-400s were deactivated. Why?
Just like why are Russians building a nuclear power plant in Turkey with their own
money (vendor financing).
Just doesn't make sense if the Russians do not envision a long-term economic and
military alliance with Erdogan's Turkey.
I think it's sad and lends credence to the theory that Putin and his administration
are
compromised.
What is it about the psychology of motivation that you don't understand? If you dangle a
carrot on a stick,the donkey keeps pushing forward in the vain belief he will get it.
Whether it's the American dream, the coming of some Messiah, or World Peace; it's
astounding what lengths people will go to in the hope that their dream can be fulfilled
When Pompeo calls on Kazakhstan to interfere in China on behalf of a turkic group there,
completely unrelated to the kazakhs except by turkic racial identity, he is stoking a
pan-turkik dream.
Pompeo is also indirectly threatening Erdogan by backing the Kazakh leader as a
international spokesman to realize this role, a role that Erdogan had played up until
recentlywhen he fell out with the Americans over the S400.
I also have little doubt that Pompeo is also waving the red flag in front of the bull in
preparation for a lance to be driven home at a suitable time
I too see the forms of the Red Army in the battles SAA and Ru fight.
I too think the SAA must now be in superb fighting shape.
I note Sputnik >
Sputnik
@SputnikInt
·
4h
DETAILS: According to the Russian MoD, a group of 15 #WhiteHelmets members arrived in the
#Idlib de-escalation zone on 1 February to prepare a chemical provocation. https://sptnkne.ws/Bp77 @mod_russia
Which, if we are to consider the implications, means that the Turkish and their client
thugs agree that the SAA and the Ru are, ah, "better at the business"...
They always double because if they are seen to have lost....well, they have to keep Toto
away from that Green Curtain.
Do not forget Turkey is still a member of NATO. He is working with Trump to break up Iraq so
that the US can set up permanent military bases in Iraqi Kurdistan. This is a revival of Joe
Biden's 2007 plan to carve up Iraq. No doubt, [Neosultan] Erdoğan is planning on
charging transit fees for Iraqi and Syrian oil being looted by the US/Kurds. This may well
lead to a major escalation in Syria.
Notes
1. Biden plan for 'soft partition' of Iraq gains momentum By Helene Cooper July 30,
2007
2. Russia Obliterated Turkish Column in Idlib While Erdogan Claims Imaginary Retaliation
Against Syria By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor Feb 3, 2020; Link:
www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/03/intel-drop-russia-obliterated-turkish-column-in-idlib-while-erdogan-claims-imaginary-retaliation-against-syria/
Edward Wong considers the
growing backlash in the U.S. against the forever war, and he reviews Trump's record to show how
he has continued and expanded U.S. military engagement overseas:
Despite his denunciations of endless wars, Mr. Trump's policies and actions have gone in
the opposite direction. In December, he ordered 4,500 troops to the Middle East, adding to
the 50,000 already there. In the last two years, the American military dropped bombs and
missiles on Afghanistan at a record pace. In April, Mr. Trump vetoed a bipartisan
congressional resolution to end American military involvement in Yemen's devastating civil
war.
Perhaps most significant, Mr. Trump withdrew in 2018 from a landmark nuclear containment
deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions, setting off the chain of events that led to the
killing of General Suleimani and a retaliatory missile strike by Iran that caused traumatic
brain injuries to at least 64 American service members.
This is a pretty good summary of the damage Trump has done, but it understates how bad it
has been. In addition to the buildup of troops and the continuation of illegal, unauthorized
military involvement in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, Trump has also presided over a sharp
increase in drone strikes , and he has
loosened the rules of engagement in all U.S. bombing campaigns. In the past week, we
learned that the U.S.
dropped more bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 than in any previous year of the war:
American aircraft released 7,423 munitions in the country in 2019, according to figures
published Monday by U.S. Air Forces Central Command. Coalition aircraft flew nearly 8,800
sorties during the period, over a quarter of which carried out strikes.
The tally surpasses the previous record set last year when 7,362 munitions were released
and comes amid ongoing discussion between American and Taliban officials aimed at ending
America's longest war.
Trump is sometimes described as "reluctant" to use force, but as these numbers show the
U.S. military has been dropping bombs and launching missiles in even greater numbers under
Trump. If anything, the president is only too eager to order attacks on other states when there
is no justification for them, as the illegal attacks on Syria and the illegal assassination of
Soleimani should make clear. Trump uses force when he doesn't have to, he uses more of it than
is required, and he rewards the men who use it to commit war crimes. His foreign policy is one
of rejecting
restraint . He doesn't end the endless wars because doing so would require the kind of
diplomatic engagement that he abhors, and he doesn't end them because he is a militarist. The
president is continuing and adding to the long, ugly record of our excessive use of force
overseas.
To change that, the U.S. won't just need different leadership, but we will also need an
entirely different way of thinking about the U.S. role in the world. We need to stop viewing
and treating other countries as if they are our bombing ranges. We need to recognize that our
hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to foment more conflict that kills and
displaces innocent people in huge numbers. We need to insist that our government resorts to
force only as a last resort, and then we need to make our leaders pay a political price if they
start or join unnecessary wars. If we are satisfied with empty slogans instead of genuine
peace, empty slogans and ceaseless war will be what we get.
"We need to recognize that our hyper-militarized foreign policy achieves nothing except to
foment more conflict that kills and displaces innocent people in huge numbers."
That's called a "self-licking ice cream cone". The more you spend on something to fix
something else, it only causes an increase in the something else, which causes you to have
to spend more. It is the entire basis of the US defense, healthcare and legal markets.
But how else will the US force the other countries to renounce their sovereign status and
relinquish their economies to the extractive, parasitic greed of Wall Street? Andrew
Mellon's brother, Richard, used to say that being in the business of steel making, one
needs a machine gun... When one seeks to be the Hegemon (ultimate monopolist), one needs
"full spectrum dominance"!
It seems fair to assert that the vast majority of Americans have no idea how many bombs we
are dropping around the world. I suspect most assume things are mostly wound-down in
Afghanistan with troops there for no other purpose than to have troops spread throughout
the region. And we've seen with little pressure on our senators to override Trump's veto,
that Yemen doesn't rise even close to the outrage that any daily dose of tweets can muster
when it feeds Trump derangement syndrome.
Yet I do hope and pray we end the wars, the sanctions and the global military
presence.
Anyone who believes that Donald Trump was serious about reducing our military adventurism
is deluding themselves.
The theme of forcing other countries to support our aims is central to his foreign
policy, and he escalates all conflicts in hopes of forcing others to concede. None of that
was hidden during 2016. It's also consistent with how his businesses have treated small
vendors. The Trump you see is not some creation of the deep state, or a product of
aggressive investigations. It's the Trump that has always been there. He's a bully. He's
always been a bully, and he always will be a bully.
You might have missed the evidence in 2016, but you can't pretend in 2020 that Trump is
the guy who will minimize the use of force to accomplish his goals.
I was obvious that Flynn was targeted for elimination by what ludicrously calls itself the
"resistance" right from the beginning using Hoover's G-boys and girls who have by the way
been heavily infiltrated by CIA to get him.
Many of the players involved in this act worked in CI which is closely connected to the
CIA's own counter intelligence. In fact the connections are so incestuous that many of the
FBI's "agents" are sheep dipped Agency officers.
One has to ask themselves why the FBI would be so interested in foreign policy? Hoover
despite his many failings stayed out of the area of Foreign Intel yet the Bureau currently
seems obsessed by it.
Why? Probably because they are working on the same team as CIA, NSA, DIA, DHS and the
other alphabet soup agencies who gain their power from what could be correctly called the War
of Terror. Flynn being a threat because he was in agreement with Trump's proposed
noninterventionist foreign policy.
The same one he promised his voters but has currently reneged on. Remember the
"resistance" as they call themselves but are really the same ol' shit faction want America
constantly embroiled in Foreign conflicts and the operation known as the "Purple
Revolution"by the same group who likes to color code their regime changes was not only to
take down Flynn but Trump as well. A soft coup in other words.
Now that Trump's playing ball they can go after his base and those on the left who oppose
the usual that the so called "resistance' offers.
Seamus Padraig ,
One has to ask themselves why the FBI would be so interested in foreign policy? Hoover
despite his many failings stayed out of the area of Foreign Intel yet the Bureau currently
seems obsessed by it.
The FBI does have a counter-intelligence function, so that would give them some legitimate
interest in the activities of foreign intelligence services, at least; but I suspect their
obsession with Trump and Flynn goes far, far beyond any legitimate legal mandate.
True they've always had a CI function but it was more like a total Keystone Kops' operation.
Still is probably when you consider that Hannssen worked in their CI for over two decades
without being detected.
Of there's CIA with James Jesus Angleton who was a good friend of Kim Philby who wrecked
any CI capability both FBI and CIA had by being suspicious of any Russiaphile.
In fact this whole Russiaphobia and hoax is probably the resurrection of the ghost of
Angleton.
True Hoover spent more time chasing Commie and creating the Red Scare than he did cross
dressing and hanging out a Mob hangouts which he assured us didn't exist.
Michael Robertson says: February 3, 2020 at 3:39 pm
Democrats concluded some time ago that the only viable strategy for removing Trump
requires demonization of Russia as our enemy. And Ukraine as our ally. No one questions how
this came to be, or demands any real reporting about Ukraine. It's a black hole, and we are
expected to simply accept the framing of the Dems. Those who question it are accused of being
brainwashed by RT, or of secretly loving Mr. Trump. And they are simply befuddled by
accusations of neo-McCarthyism.
Clark Shanahan says: February 3, 2020 at 8:03 pm
As the professor warns us, we have gone through some very backwards times:
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi is connecting the dots -- "all roads lead to Putin," she says -- and
making the argument that Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine was not an isolated incident
but part of a troubling bond with the Russian president reaching back to special counsel
Robert Mueller's findings on the 2016 election.
"This has been going on for 2 1/2 years," Pelosi said Friday.
"This isn't about Ukraine," she explained a day earlier. "'It's about Russia. Who
benefited by our withholding of that military assistance? Russia.""
(AP Dec 6, Lisa Mascaro/Mary Clare Jalonick)
Schiff has claimed that the Evil Vlad wakes up every morning, plotting to destroy our
virginal democracy because the US makes Russia look shabby.. He happens to receive a lot of
funding from the arms industry.
Nadler equated Russian meddling to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..
If these three actually believe their own spin, heaven help us.
It truly is obscene.
The Battle of Stalingrad ended February 2, 1943.
Listening to our Russophobes, it seems the wrong people won that war. It is so ugly.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
Flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but no Palestinian leader, President
Donald Trump unveiled “a vision for peace” in the Middle East on Tuesday which
permits Israel to annex much of the occupied West Bank immediately, offering the Palestinians
only local control in isolated Bantustans surrounded by Israeli territory.
As many Israeli political observers noted, the timing of the announcement, just hours after
Netanyahu was indicted on corruption charges in Jerusalem, looked like an effort to boost the
prime minister’s bid to win reelection in March, his best hope for avoiding prison.
A US President facing impeachment and an Israeli Prime Minister indicted for corruption,
leading an interim minority government, are about to announce a plan to solve the conflict with
the Palestinians, without any Palestinian present. Unbelievable farce. — Anshel Pfeffer
(@AnshelPfeffer) January 28, 2020
The release of the 180-page plan — which was drafted by aides to Jared Kushner,
Trump’s son-in-law and an old family friend of Netanyahu — was staged as a
celebration, and acted as a dual campaign rally, with the American president and the Israeli
prime minister boasting of all they had achieved for Israel to a room filled with far-right
supporters of the Jewish state, including business magnate Sheldon Adelson, the Republican and
Likud megadonor who spent millions of dollars to elect both leaders.
Trump, who intervened in a previous Israeli election campaign on Netanyahu’s behalf
— by recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights last year — gave
the embattled prime minister a podium at the White House to detail conditions imposed on the
Palestinians which sounded like terms of surrender.
To start with, Netanyahu said, the Palestinians would be required to recognize Israel as a
Jewish state, cede the entire Jordan Valley, disarm Hamas, and abandon hope for both the return
of refugees who fled homes in what is now Israel and for a capital in Jerusalem’s Old
City.
pic.twitter.com/RmKVVWh9F2 — Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) January 28, 2020
“Your peace plan offers the Palestinians a pathway to a future state,” Netanyahu
told Trump. “I know that it may take them a very long time to reach the end of that path;
it may even take them a very long time to get to the beginning of that path,” he
added.
In fact, as Crisis Group analyst Tareq Baconi observed, “The plan sets out parameters
that are impossible for Palestinians to accept, and effectively provides Israel with a
blueprint to sustain the one-state reality that exists on the ground.”
That sentiment was echoed by Hagai El-Ad, the executive director of B’Tselem, an
Israeli rights group that monitors the occupation. “What the Palestinians are being
‘offered’ now is not rights or a state, but a permanent state of Apartheid. No
amount of marketing can erase this disgrace or blur the facts,” El-Ad wrote. “The
reality on the ground is already one of full Israeli control over the entire area between the
Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and everyone living in it. It is a reality of one,
inherently undemocratic, state.”
The plan was rejected by Palestinian rights activists in the region and abroad.
Netanyahu logic: If Palestinians agree to land theft, annexation, no refugee return,
subjugation and no means of defense, Israel will negotiate with us. — Diana Buttu
(@dianabuttu) January 28, 2020
They want to put us in permanent, high-tech cages and call it peace. #DealOfTheCentury
#ApartheidDeal #Palestine #PalestinianFreedom — Noura Erakat (@4noura) January 28,
2020
CNN interviews Palestinian human rights attorney on the Trump plan. "This is not a deal,
this is a plan to consolidate Israel's colonial takings." @4noura https://t.co/dFfNuKnH08
— Mairav Zonszein ??? ??????? (@MairavZ) January 29, 2020
The US is a colonial state trying to broker a "solution" which favors another
settler-colonial state. The only message is, commit enough massacres, create enough judicial
procedures, create enough diplomatic jargon, and all is allowed. #Palestine #TrumpDeal —
???? ???????? (@MariamBarghouti) January 28, 2020
#Palestinian refugees in Lebanon's Ein El-Helweh camp who have been deprived of a homeland
for years protest and say NO to the so-called #DealOfTheCentury and tell Trump: Our fate is not
for you to decide. pic.twitter.com/Y7We93iIRA — We Are Not Numbers #Gaza
(@WeAreNotNumbers) January 28, 2020
“An impeached and bigoted President works in tandem with a criminally indicted and
racist Prime Minister to perpetuate the reality of apartheid and subjugation,” Jamil
Dakwar, a Palestinian American who was born in Haifa and now leads the ACLU’s human
rights program, wrote on Twitter. “Palestinians will not be coerced to give up their
human rights to live as free and equal human beings.”
Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, described the
plan delivered by Kushner to Trump as “100 percent the ideas I personally heard many
times from Netanyahu and his negotiators. I can assure you that the American so-called peace
team have only copied and pasted Netanyahu’s and the settlers’ councils
plan.”
Amid accusations that his plan was largely based on concepts and details dictated by
Netanyahu, Kushner cast himself as an independent expert on the conflict in an interview with
Sky News Arabia on Tuesday. “I’ve been studying this now for three years,” he
told Sky News Arabia, “I’ve read 25 books on the subject.”
At least one of those books appears to have been written by Netanyahu, however. As Dylan
Williams of the liberal, pro-Israel group J Street pointed out, Kushner’s plan appeared
at one point to borrow language from one of the Israeli prime minister’s books.
On the left, an excerpt from Netanyahu’s book “A Durable Peace.”
On the right, the Trump/Kushner “peace” proposal.
I don’t know an academic integrity panel at any university that would let this fly.
pic.twitter.com/NvgzWOsL2r — Dylan Williams (@dylanotes) January 29, 2020
In a subsequent interview, Kushner even seemed unaware of the length of the proposal
released by his team, referring to the 181-page document as “an over 80-page
proposal.” He appeared to be echoing an error made by Trump during his prepared remarks
the White House ceremony when he said, “our plan is 80 pages.”
Speaking in Ramallah, at a rare gathering of leaders of the major Palestinian factions,
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said that the proposal was not “the deal of the
century,” as Trump and the Israelis described it, but “the slap of the
century.”
“Trump, Jerusalem is not for sale. Our rights are not for sale. Your conspiracy deal
will not pass,” Abbas said, in comments reported by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
While Trump said that Palestinians could eventually have a capital in Jerusalem, the plan
suggested that this would be outside of the city, in a neighborhood close to, but not in the
city, as Telegraph correspondent Raf Sanchez pointed out.
IMPORTANT: the detail plan of the plan confirms that Palestinians will not get any part of
Jerusalem inside the security barrier.
That means they get a few far-flung eastern neighbourhoods as their capital but none of the
Old City or areas where most East Jerusalemites live. pic.twitter.com/ZL6AJVJ565 — Raf
Sanchez (@rafsanchez) January 28, 2020
Within hours of the plan’s release, Netanyahu said that his government would move on
Sunday to formally annex the 131 Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank, all of
which are illegal under international law, as well as the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead
Sea. The plan’s map of the newly expanded Greater Israel, and the fragmented Palestinian
enclaves, were shared on Twitter by Trump.
??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????.
pic.twitter.com/CFuYwwjSso — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 28, 2020
In his remarks, Trump said that Netanyahu had “authorized the release of a conceptual
map” showing the contours of the land to be annexed, and their two governments would soon
form a joint committee “to convert the conceptual map into a more detailed and calibrated
rendering so that recognition can be immediately achieved.”
Because the Israeli settlement blocs, which are home to more than 400,000 settlers, are
stitched together with a network of roads and checkpoints that restrict the freedom of movement
of Palestinians, the territory Trump said his plan “allocated” for a future
Palestinian state would exist only as a series of enclaves inside Israel.
As Ben Silverstein of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington,
explained, the “conceptual map” included in the plan gave an “appearance of
contiguity” that facts on the ground would make impossible.
This map is verrrrry generously shaded to give appearance of contiguity.
100% final map will appear closer to archipelago map on the right.
pic.twitter.com/pLcaWak4R2 — Ben Silverstein (@bensilverstein) January 28, 2020
Yousef Munayyer, who directs the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, noted on Twitter that
the reality would look a lot more like what the French illustrator Julien Bousac sketched out
more than a decade ago for Le Monde Diplomatique to show the impossibility of a functioning
state compromised of enclaves.
The West Bank Archipelago pic.twitter.com/FBIeOKmnUd — (((YousefMunayyer)))
(@YousefMunayyer) January 28, 2020
Daniel Seidemann, director of Terrestrial Jerusalem, pointed out that previous
administrations had privately accepted the erosion of Palestinian hopes for a contiguous
state.
Perspective, for those who think this started with Trump.
This is a slide/map, I presented to a senior official in the Obama White House. His chilling
response: you’re probably right, but the sun still will rise, birds sing, and life will
go on.
Sound familiar? Look familiar? pic.twitter.com/mJ2ZQPzgef — Daniel Seidemann
(@DanielSeidemann) January 28, 2020
Shibley Telhami, a scholar of the region at the University of Maryland, pointed to another
disturbing detail of the plan: a provision to further ethnically cleanse Israel by revoking the
citizenship of Palestinians living in one section of the state, and forcing that region to
merge with those parts of the West Bank not annexed by Israel.
One shocking feature of Trump's "American" plan is that Israel would carve out Israeli-Arab
towns in the "Triangle" region, strip them of Israeli citizenship, and place them under
Palestinian jurisdiction -- something majorities oppose. Un-American Plan.
https://t.co/eQNFzRLvdG pic.twitter.com/bn143hVSRr — Shibley Telhami (@ShibleyTelhami)
January 28, 2020
Trump’s plan was denounced by both Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, among
the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump for the presidency.
While Sanders called the plan “unacceptable,” Warren went further, promising to
“oppose unilateral annexation in any form — and reverse any policy that supports
it.”
Trump's "peace plan" is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real
Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn't diplomacy, it's
a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that
supports it. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 28, 2020
It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an
independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump's so-called 'peace deal'
doesn't come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable. — Bernie
Sanders (@SenSanders) January 28, 2020
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a staunch defender of Netanyahu who reportedly frustrated
Obama administration efforts to confront him over the occupation, did not immediately comment
on the plan.
Politico reported on Tuesday that the Democratic Majority for Israel, a pro-Israel super PAC
led by the Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, plans to run an attack ad in Iowa this week
“that raises concerns about Bernie Sanders’ 2019 heart attack and calls him too
liberal to beat President Donald Trump.”
As I reported earlier this year, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the
conservative pro-Israel lobbying group known as AIPAC, paid for a pressure campaign on Facebook
targeting Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president of the United States — one who
has expressed concern for Palestinian rights and described Netanyahu as “a
racist.”
Russia, China and Iran are already being blamed for using tech to undermine the 2020
election. Yet, the very technologies they are allegedly using were created by a web of
companies with deep ties to Israeli intelligence.
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime
like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.
Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges
that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides
understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.
Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.
Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and
in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing
for him to
do.
Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:
"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."
And
"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."
Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents
and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov
battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy
In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means
much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump
slightly deviated.
The farce has claimed all kinds of convictions, but hardly any related to the actual case at
hand. In fact, the Washington Post , a paper that has done much to whip up Russiagate
hysteria, actually conducted a thorough
analysis of the so-called Russian social media campaign and concluded, "there's no evidence
that [Russians] did any particularly sophisticated targeting." Rather, Occam's Razor-type
reasoning implies that Russian "trolls," like most other entities active on the web, were
simply looking for clicks in order to make a buck from advertisers. In a sign that the
Washington Post might not be completely oblivious to journalistic ethics, one of their
reporters has surprisingly
started a systematic effort to review the journalistic excesses of the last few years
related to Russiagate. The New York Times has not attempted any similar soul-searching
as regards the Russiagate hysteria regrettably, but had itself to
admit that when it comes to "meddling in elections . . . we do it too."
As someone who is occasionally forced to tread water in the Beltway swamp, I would also be
very eager to see a certain draining of foreign influence from the American political process.
But, at this point, I am at least as concerned with Bahrain influence , British
influence , Chinese
influence , German influence , Indian
influence , Israeli influence , Japanese
influence , Nigerian
influence , Norwegian
influence , Pakistani
influence , Polish
influence , Philippine
influence , Saudi influence
, South Korean influence
, Taiwan
influence , Turkish
influence , Ukrainian
influence , UAE
influence , Vietnamese influence , etc. Sorry, President Putin, you are likely
not even in the top twenty foreign powers currently manipulating the conduct of U.S. foreign
policy, but Russiagate sure has made for an entertaining drama.
As for those various espionage escapades, well, when the Hollywood blockbuster film
Argocaptured
"Best Film" back in 2012, that moment seemed to crystallize a new and glorious era for
America's intelligence agencies. Are our spies amazing or what -- not just creative -- but
low-budget and good looking too? Perhaps now is the time for Hollywood to pick up another CIA
script with Iran: the overthrow of
Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953? That event, as much as any other, forms the essential backdrop for
today's ominous developments in the Persian Gulf.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI)
at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also speaks
Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute (RMSI) at
Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely
his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the
U.S. government.
The US calls for apartheid and ethnic cleansing in its primary ME protectorate. Global powers
supposedly concerned with uphholding international law smile knowingly and applaud gently.
Yes it was always going to end this way. Mmmmmm. Might Makes Right. Mmmmmmm. That alone is
international law. Mmmmmmm. More champagne? More vodka?
"The Arab League rejected Trump's plan, saying in a communique it would not lead to a just
peace deal and adding it will not cooperate with the United States to execute the plan.
The ministers affirmed Palestinian rights to create a future state based on the land captured
and occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, with East Jerusalem as capital, the final
communique said.
Israeli officials expressed hope Saturday that the League's rejection could bring the U.S.
closer to green-lighting unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank, in light of the fact
that Jared Kushner opposed immediate steps toward annexation because he thought the Arab League
might support the plan. " Haaretz
----------
Well, pilgrims, the truth is that nobody in the States who matters gives a damn about what
happens to the Palestinians and it was always thus. Kushner's "peace plan" is just another real
estate scam. pl
King Salman called Abbas to reassure him of Saudi support on the agreed upon outline drawn
up long ago. MbS thinks otherwise, and he is the one who really runs Saudi policy.
Opinion Every Time Palestinians Say 'No,' They Lose Things rarely go well for those who try
to live history backward.
By Bret Stephens SimonEsposito 2 days ago ( Edited ) Functionally, this proposition makes no
sense. The imbalance of power is so great that Palestinians couldn't stop any amount
more of encroachment on the occupied territories. So why would the encroachment stop at
this arbitrary point?
It's absurd to think that the settler movement is going to be stopped by the proposed
four-year freeze. (I view that as a booby-trap planted by Likud - and they surely must
be expecting a fair chance of defeat - to make the next government quickly use up its political
capital fighting media-savvy settlers.) Max21c 3 days ago If these things are decided on the
basis of "might makes right" then the position of the PRC to take sea-space in the South China
Sea is acceptable to Washington and its supporters? Similar per a variety of other territorial
disputes around the globe? Max21c 3 days ago ( Edited ) Prior UN Resolutions hold precedent
until such times as the parties themselves agree upon a mutually agreed solution.
Modus Vivendi not Modus Dictatum! Max21c 3 days ago The United States Senate ratified the
United Nations Charter on July 28, 1945. Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States
maintains that "all treaties made...under the authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme law of the land..." The United States is a signatory to the UN Charter and it has
passed the US Senate. There is no Treaty which transfers the Golan Heights to the State of
Israel. There is no Treaty which transfers Palestinian lands to the State of Israel. The
Constitution of the United States of America does not construct, create, convey, or confer the
power or authority to the President of the United States of America to change the borders of
other peoples, lands, or countries. An American President can say whatever they want as to
policy. The United States is not necessarily bound by such situ per statements, proclamations,
declarations, pronouncements, announcements, dictatum, et cetera. There is a well known and
existing mechanism for the exchange of lands and territories between nation states via
diplomacy, diplomatic negotiations, resolution of the dispute by treaty, or genuine
negotiations & diplomacy and resolution in accordance with International law, et cetera. An
American President holds exclusive authority over foreign policy and diplomacy with the
exception of passage of a treaty by the US Senate. The existing mechanisms and ways of
International Law and diplomacy are brought into American Constitutionality by way of the
Supremacy Clause, thus, there exists a potential exclusive instance of an exclusion to a
President's authority per differentiation between the "policy" of an Administration or
pronouncements thereof and the "laws of the land." Thus one could well surmise that the United
States is on an ongoing basis bound by the laws of the land rather than the pro tempore policy
statements in this instance. An American President is neither a Global Sovereign nor King of
the World. Border disputes generally remain the domain between the corresponding sovereigns,
sovereign nations, or bordering parties. The role of the United States as a third party is
generally limited to diplomacy. The United States can assist, facilitate, or provide guidance
on the potential resolution of the dispute. The United States can propose solutions, fanciful
or not, well meaning or not, realistic or reasonable or not, reasoned or not, genuine or not,
bonne foi or not, yet it cannot impose such solutions unless the agreement of the parties be
gained according to the fashion, manner, and mechanisms that are well know and existing under
International law and well recognized within the realm of the community of nations and the
diplomacy therein. zbarski 3 days ago ( Edited ) UN resolutions are not treaties. The former
are generic opinions or recommendations, which have no legal effect, unless accepted by a
sovereign.
Treaties, unlike UN resolutions, become laws of the land once ratified by a sovereign's
parliament.
So, all your UN resolutions on Israel and fake Palestinians are pieces of toilet paper.
Max21c 3 days ago It's none of Washington's business. They should let the parties themselves
work out an agreement if they can. It's not up to Washingtonians to impose a solution.
If the parties cannot come to a settlement at this time then the status quo prior borders
remain. Washington should abide by the existing regimen and provisions thereof until or if the
parties themselves alter such by mutual agreement. The borders can only be changed by agreement
between the parties.
There are long established, longstanding, and well know mechanisms for discussing and
possibly resolving territorial disputes and those pathways and methods should be followed by
both sides.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag zbarski 3 days ago ( Edited )
First, you come up with bogus definitions. Next, when I take apart those, you respond: it's
none of Washington's business. LOL.
The fact stands: UN resolutions are generic/advisory/opinions. The have no legal
significance, unless accepted by a sovereign. Last time I checked, Israel has not accepted
any... .
Having said that, I agree with you that Washington should leave the issue to the parties. It
is the US, which has been preventing Israel from resolving the territorial dispute. Any other
country would have resolved the issue long time ago. That Israel can't or won't do it, is a
crime against the Jews.
Think of this: what would the US do, if let's say, Quebec had separated from the rest of
Canada and then started launching rockets at Vermont? Hint: Quebec would have been nuked...
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Max21c 3 days ago Washington
should abide by International law and respect the existing UN resolution per lands/borders
until such time as the parties themselves resolve the situ.
The US should not become a party to the dispute.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag GLA 3 days ago you are right.
the United States is not a world government. Our government can make recommendations and offer
support. that is it.
The United Nations is an organization formed to promote peace among nations. It is not a
world government, it is not a legislative body, and it has no lawmaking authority.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report GLA 3 days ago Palestinian leadership should develop and
present their own peace plan. That is their right. Palestinian leadership should hold town hall
meetings in Gaza and the West Bank on their peace plan and give voice to every Palestinian.
That is their right. Respect 2 Reply reply Share link
Copy Report flag Mike_71 2 days ago But the
Palestinian leaderships of both Hamas and Fatah have never done that, as allowing the average
Palestinian to participate in nominating and electing their own candidates and publicly voicing
their own opinions, particularly when they contradict those of the leadership, is no more
tolerated in the Palestinian Territories, than it is in the Peoples' Republic of China. The
leadership of the soon to be dissolved "Palestinian Authority" will be by "President for Life"
Mahmoud Abbas, now in the 16th year of the four year term to which he was elected in 2005.
Likewise, Ismael Haniyeh, Yoyo Sinwar and others in Hamas, have never faced a Palestinian
electorate at the ballot box.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Orville 3 days ago One thing
Mr. Mackey leaves out is the US's treating the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, rather than
occupied Syrian territory. Mike_71 2 days ago While International Law unequivocally condemns
initiating wars of aggression for the purpose of acquiring territory, it is silent when the
victim of that aggression retains land captured in a "defensive war of necessity." Thus, like
the Soviet Union retaining land captured in the "Great Patriotic War" until 1991, Israel's
retaining the Golan Heights, likewise captured in a "defensive war of necessity," the 1967 "Six
Day War," does not violate International Law. As the victorious belligerent in a "defensive war
of necessity," Israel may retain the Golan Heights until such time as possession is modified by
treaty. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
(Latin: As you possess, you may possess henceforth) Note that the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula,
likewise captured by Israel in the "Six Day War," was returned to Egyptian sovereignty after an
agreement was negotiated and after a withdrawal period, pursuant to the terms of the
Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. As in the instance of the Egyptian Sinai, the Golan Heights
could be returned to Syria, were the Syrians willing to negotiate a peace agreement with
Israel.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag xochtl 3 days ago
Settler colonialism, white supremacy, and the "special relationship" between the U.S.
and Israel 10 March 2015
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions/From our Staff and Members/Voices of JVP February 24, 2015
talk by JVP Deputy Director Cecilie Surasky at Portland State University from Environmental
Destruction and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement: a panel on international
resistance
1. The 'special relationship' between Israel and the United States is rooted in our common
national narratives and founding mythology. 2. Settler colonialism and white supremacy is the
right, holistic frame with which to understand Israel and Palestine, as well as the U.S. --
it helps us understand what we're really struggling against, and holds us accountable to ways
we may inadvertently be serving the status quo. 3. If the basis of the special relationship
is a common narrative of 'manifest destiny', and the feelings of superiority over others that
it engenders, then to resist we must counter that narrative. One question we often ask
ourselves is why Americans so easily accept the dominant Israeli narrative without question,
and I think the answer is obvious. We have literally been primed, for generations, by our own
national narrative ttler colonialism, white supremacy, and the "special relationship" between
the U.S. and Israel We all are well versed with language about the "special relationship"
between Israel and the United States. And in fact, it is real. Over time, no other country in
the world has been the recipient of more economic and military aid from the U.S., or from any
other country for that matter. Furthermore, many of us hold a power analysis which says that
the key to ending Israel's ongoing occupation and oppression of Palestinians is ending that
unconditional special relationship -- so understanding the roots of this relationship is not
idle curiosity. It's essential if we are to ever achieve a just and durable peace, for both
peoples. There are many reasons for this so-called special relationship, and it has evolved
over time, but I think the foundational aspects of it relate to remarkably similar national
narratives which shape, in an ongoing way, how we see and understand ourselves and our
actions as representatives of a collective national identity -- how we justify killing,
extraction, land theft, and so on, in transcendent moral terms. We have mythical national
narratives of two settler colonial peoples, who both believe that we have a divine mandate,
to settle a so-called empty or savage land, and make it into a kind of heaven on earth.
Ethnic cleansing, even genocide -- these are all divinely justified. Israel is to be a light
unto nations. What would become the United States, a kind of heaven on earth. Both peoples
believe ourselves to be somehow specially chosen by God. As Donald E. Pease, Dartmouth
literary critic wrote about this land, in The New American Exceptionalism: "Virgin Land"
depopulated the landscape in the imaginary register so that it might be perceived as
unoccupied territory in actuality. The metaphor turned the landscape into a blank page,
understood to be the ideal surface onto which to inscribe the history of the nation's
Manifest Destiny". "Virgin Land narratives placed the movement of the national people across
the continent in opposition to the savagery attributed to the wilderness as well as the
native peoples who figured as indistinguishable from the wilderness, and, later, it fostered
an understanding of the campaign of Indian removal as nature's beneficent choice of the
Anglo-American settlers over the native inhabitants for its cultivation " Sounds familiar
doesn't it? The Zionist version is the famous slogan -- a Land with No People for a People
with No Land. And Israel's "miraculous" military victories have always been seen as signs of
God the adjudicator's hand. Of course, that notion of heaven on earth, or A Light Unto
Nations, is predicated on a system of racial and ethnic superiority -- who gets to be human
and "civilized", and who is subhuman. Who exists, and who is invisible or must be
disappeared. Who can claim the land, and who has no rights to it. And the fundamental root of
all that we like to call the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is this essential fact -- it was a
land with people. And specifically, the wrong people who by definition could not be part of
an ethnic exclusivist state. Remember that the original violence of the Nakba, the ethnic
cleansing of the land of Palestinians, continues on a daily basis to this day. The process of
colonization never stopped. Although today we call them "facts on the ground", and
Palestinians are talked about, not as equal human beings with the same hopes aspirations and
rights to freedom, but rather as a "demographic threat."
European Colonialism and White Supremacy What makes this issue so complex and deeply
challenging is that early European Zionists, who first started coming to Palestine in the
late 1800s, had themselves suffered from a profoundly long history of fierce Christian
European anti-Jewish oppression -- forced conversions, ghettoes, pogroms, institutional
repression and discrimination and so on, which as we know, culminated in the horrific
genocide during World War II, the Holocaust or Shoah. They believed the only solution to this
history was for Jews to have a state of their own. But while all genocides and acts of
violence have their unique features, and they must be studied and understood, I believe it is
critical to situate the genocide of Jews, in a broader context -- and not as an exceptional,
metaphysically unique event. Some 6 million Jews died, but another 5 million people were also
targeted for annihilation because they were considered less than human, including the Roma
people, gays, Poles, Ukrainians and so on, totaling 11 million. In Poland alone, Nazis
murdered 3 million ethnic Poles and 3 million Polish Jews. Had they not been stopped, those
numbers would have been infinitely higher in their march to the East. Further, to state the
obvious, the Holocaust did not mark the sudden and inexplicable birth of the white European
capacity to commit genocide. No one knows this better than the indigenous people of this
continent, or the descendants of enslaved Africans. Or the people of the Congo, where 10
million died under the rule of King Leopold of Belgium. I could go on. I could also go on
about U.S. Empire. In Europe, while the specifics looked different, one could be Jewish or a
colonized subject and be called an insect, vermin, an animal -- subhuman. In other words, it
is important that we situate what is happening in Israel and Palestine today, and the work we
must do in the US for justice, as part of a lengthy historical cascade of impacts rooted in
European colonialism, white racism, US Empire, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish oppression,
corporate greed and so on. I'm underscoring this because similarly, even though we understand
that historic Palestine was colonized by the British, there is a tendency to also remove the
story of Israel and Palestine from broader historical contexts and the sweep of history and
to see it as somehow utterly unique, beyond time, and as saying something essential about
Jews and the Arab world especially. The extreme and bigoted versions of this essentializing
view is: -- you either believe that the only story that matters is that the world and
especially Muslims hate Jews and always will, that the hatred of Jews is an essential part of
humanity -- or you believe that Jews are exceptionally powerful and devious, and have managed
to manipulate an otherwise beneficent and inherently just and reasonable U.S. foreign policy
establishment into doing wrong by the Palestinians. Talk about divide and conquer. If we
believe either of these stories, all of us who are natural allies in the struggle against
corporate greed, the destruction of our world, systemic racism and settler colonialism and so
on -- we remain divided from each other. We literally can't build a unified and strong
movement. We create a circular firing range, and we unwittingly become the agents of that
which we should be fighting against. Which is why understanding our struggles as connected --
which is what's happening on campuses throughout the U.S. and world today -- is so
unbelievably powerful, and threatening. I have seen these views manifest in the movement for
Palestinian liberation: sometimes people chant "2-4-6-8 Israel is a racist state", or decry
the disappearance 400 Palestinian villages when Israel was created, without even a hint of
irony or self-reflection that one is literally standing on land built on slavery and the
(still happening) genocide of indigenous peoples. In some cases, we have seen Israeli human
rights advocates try to emphasize the growth of Israeli racism by comparing it unfavorably to
racism here, where presumably, they suggest we have mostly won the battle. All of that said,
what is also absolutely clear is that Early Zionist leaders were simultaneously both the
victims of, and willing agents of white supremacist colonialism. In fact, they made their
case quite explicitly to British colonizers who they knew did not want Jews at home but who
did want to maintain colonial designs on the Middle East. As the Israeli analyst Tom Segev
reports in One Palestine Complete: "The Jewish state in Palestine, Theodor Herzl wrote, would
be Europe's bulwark against Asia. "We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism."
And about early Zionist leader and writer Max Nordau: "..Max Nordau believed the Jews would
not lose their European culture in Palestine and adopt Asia's inferior culture, just as the
British had not become Indians in America, Hottentots in Africa, or Papuans in Australia. "We
will endeavor to do in the Near East what the English did in India. It is our intention to
come to Palestine as the representatives of culture and to take the moral borders of Europe
to the Euphrates River." Early Zionist leaders actually appealed to the anti-Jewish hatred of
European colonizers, making the case that helping to create a Jewish state elsewhere was a
win-win because it would help them get rid of the Jews. Theodore Herzl wrote, "the
anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies"
And they internalized the same white supremacist hierarchy which had been used against them.
The "new Jew" was blond, blue eyed, healthy and muscular, vs. the shtetl Jew who was small,
dark, hunched over, religious, an embarrassment. I want to recognize there is sensitivity
about even raising this issue- but this has nothing to do with Jews specifically and
everything to do with human beings. Virtually every colonized or oppressed group internalizes
the eyes, in some way, of their oppressors, as Frantz Fanon wrote about so eloquently. Women
can be the agents of the patriarchy, blacks can internalize white supremacy, LGBT people can
internalize transphobia and homo-phobia. In a sense, we're all colonized in some way. This
shouldn't be a controversial observation, it's just fact about what it means to be human. The
fact remains that many early European Zionist leaders' disdain for the local Arab populations
was only matched by their disdain for other Jews from the Middle East. The founder of Zionist
Revisionism, precursor to Likud, Zev Jabotinsky wrote: "We Jews have nothing in common with
what is called the 'Orient,' thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses have ancient
spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and
this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with
great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to
sweep out thoroughly all traces of the 'Oriental soul.' As for the [Palestinians] Arabs in
Palestine, what they do is their business; but if we can do them a favor, it is to help them
liberate themselves from the Orient.'" (One Palestine Complete, Tom Segev) And the effort was
"successful". As Arab Jewish scholar Ella Shohat has written, "in a generation or two,
millennia of rooted Oriental civilization, unified even in its diversity," had been wiped
out. Jews from Arab countries were forced to choose between being either Arab or Jewish, but
they could not be both. ( Ella Shohat, "Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of
its Jewish Victims," Social Text, No.19/20 (1988)) Of course those Jews who survived had the
right to their homes after they were ripped from their homes, and their world literally
obliterated -- but it wasn't Palestinians or the Arab world that owed them reparations or a
homeland. It was Europe. But thanks to settler colonialism, it has been Palestinians who have
been forced to pay the price ever since.
The Manipulation of Jewish Trauma I can't underscore enough the extent to which the profound
Jewish trauma over genocide and oppression has been manipulated and deliberately retriggered
over and over by people and institutions who have instrumentalized Jewish suffering to
justify Israeli expansionism and repression. Everyone from Abraham Foxman and the
Anti-Defamation League to the Simon Wiesenthal Center perform this role effectively through a
steady-drip of "the world hates us" iconography, statements, and Boy-Cries-Wolf overwrought
hysteria, which of course cheapens the charge of anti-Semitism. I grew up with a tante who
would literally shake with rage when she described her childhood in Poland. My father didn't
talk about his family story, so as kids we didn't understand. But later we learned the horror
stories, realized it was our own extended families in those pictures of pogroms and prisoner
camps, and we internalized the sense of perpetual fear. After the war, Jews did not talk
about the Holocaust, there was much shame. But it eventually became our central access to our
identity, thanks in no small part to efforts to give the young nation of Israel a perpetual
free pass. And in the process, it was given a kind of mystical exceptionalism. Rather than
teaching us lessons about systems of oppression, it became the horror to end all horrors,
which cast a shadow over history's other horrors. Many children would be taught to ask, not
Why throughout history groups of people hated other groups? or Why do governments oppress
people? We were taught to ask instead, "Why does everyone hate the Jews? " Further, from a
U.S. Empire perspective, it makes sense that the Shoah is commemorated in a massive museum on
the Mall in DC, while there is still no national slavery museum or indigenous genocide
museum. Better to point the finger elsewhere, while shoring up our sense of collective
superiority as heroic Americans. To this day, Jews and our aspirations for freedom have been
unwittingly made a tool of Empire- the struggle against anti-Jewish hatred has been coopted
into the effort to demonize the Arab and Muslim world in order to justify US wars and
intervention- for profit. And of course, to justify Israeli expansionism. When Netanyahu
encourages Danish or French Jews to mass migrate to Israel -- he's cynically exploiting real
fear and trauma to push his expansionist agenda -- new immigrants will be sent to
settlements, not inside 67 borders. Similarly, classic anti-Semitism itself is a tool of
Empire– Jews are scapegoated as a 'secret cabal' that controls the world's finances,
conveniently distracting potential resistance movements from the actual corporate, government
and military sources of global economic exploitation and control. In the end, if we don't
fight this, we all lose. Rather than joining together to resist power, we instead end up
fighting each other over manufactured hatreds and bigotries. Narrative If the root of this
special relationship is not as much AIPAC and money, as much as it is our national narrative
and the feelings it engenders -- and an unquestioning belief that Israel has an infinite
right to expand onto other people's land, then it is narrative that holds unconditional
support in place, and our resistance must also be at the level of narrative. So let's start
with ourselves. All of us in this movement have to decolonize our minds -- and it is a
constant process, we stumble all the time -- because we are fighting the very air we breathe.
But here is our work: We must insist that Israel does not get a free pass, and nor do I as a
white Jew, or anyone else, only because of a personal or collective history of oppression. We
all have to be held accountable to the power we hold when we hold it, like anyone else, like
any other country. Because it is not only possible but likely that many of us will hold
multiple positions at one time- marginalized in some ways and possessing power and privilege
in others. We have to be mindful of Orientialism on the left: just as the left has projected
on, fetishized, related transactionally to many native peoples, it happens in this movement.
There is a tendency to want all Palestinians to either be helpless grandmothers waiting for a
Great White Hope (heroic in the streets activists) -- or Che Guevera. Well , Palestinians in
Gaza and the West Bank are also sports fans, software developers, and capitalists. Freedom is
freedom. The Palestinian struggle is not simply an excuse for us to reflect on how moral the
Jewish or Christian or leftist or (fill in the blank) people are. It is not the surface on
which we write our own story, or a mirror that interests us only because it shows us our own
reflection. We have to simply be allies who love, yes love, our Palestinian friends and
colleagues enough to simply say: Tell me how I can support you? Knowing, also, with humility,
that in the past, present or future–we too need support in our struggles. And for those
of us given a platform because we are "safe" because we are white or Jewish, for example, we
have to know when to shut up, and cede the platform to our Palestinian friends. Most
important, rather than framing the story of Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice in a
historical and political vacuum -- as many do -- and as a unique and exceptional story, for
example, about a reasonable US foreign policy hijacked by an all-powerful Jewish lobby, we
should understand it as part of a much longer unfolding of Christian European Colonialism,
greed, and white supremacy -- that continues to this day and operates everywhere. Narrative's
power is not just about knowing facts, it is a means to exert psychological control, and to
dampen the will to resist. Palestinian American scholar Steven Salaita wrote in The Holy Land
in Transit, Colonialism and the Quest for Canaan: Ethnic cleansing is the removal of humans
in order that narratives will disappear .a blinding of the national imagination so colonial
history will be removed along with the dispossessed. It is only through ethnic cleansing that
the average American can accept without nagging guilt the history of her nation, which is
known to all but decontextualized from its present " The same is true for the Jewish settler,
living in a home that once belonged to a Palestinian family. Salaita goes on: "It is a
mistake to conceptualize ethnic cleansing simply as a physical act. It's importance lies in
its psychological power." Which is why in the US, we are waging this struggle at the level of
narrative. And why universities are on the very front line of this battle. As even Zev
Jabotinsky wrote about years ago, this is war of attrition. Boycott Divestment Sanctions
(BDS) campaigns create a moral crisis, and replace either a conspiracy of total silence, or
the monologue of the Israeli narrative masquerading as a dialogue -- and it places the
Palestinian story right where it belongs -- up front. One of the beautiful elements of the
BDS movement is the way that is has challenged the engineered invisibility of the Palestinian
narrative and analysis -- divestment and boycott votes demand real communication, revealing
that what often passes for dialogue, is monologue. We have to reprogram our neural pathways
-- through social media, through BDS campaigns, through reinterpreting, re-covering and
re-writing our own religious and cultural language. Campuses are the front line, but so are
artists and religious practitioners and community-builders. And we must rewrite our own
language. We began with a slogan -- a land with no people for a people with no land. But now
I'll leave with a new slogan to help us tell a new story -- a rewriting we have embraced in
my community of Jews -- all of us unwavering in our belief that never again means never again
for all people, unwavering in our pursuit of justice and freedom unwavering in our belief
that Jewish liberation and Palestinian liberation are not opposed, but intertwined That new
slogan is: All people are chosen, All land is holy. NationalismSettler-Colonialism Jewish
Voice for Peace is a national member-driven organization dedicated to a U.S. foreign policy
based on peace, human rights, and respect for international law.
Respect 3 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Wnt 3 days ago I still would like to
see an actual graph: Palestinian land area as a function of time, number of Palestinians as a
function of time. We should be able to extrapolate not if but when a final
solution to the crisis becomes inevitable.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag lchabin 3 days ago Stop
whining. The Palestinians haven't accepted any offers of peace. They could have had their own
state a long time ago. Wake up folks; a number of Arab states seem just fine with this peace
proposal. Israel isn't going anywhere, and they get it.
@Richard Pierce - so much bile and ignorance. Yes, Israel is a democracy, and Iran not a
democracy. It takes a lot of hate and/or ignorance not to understand that. Seeing a few of your
posts, my money is on hate. Respect 3 Reply reply Share link
Copy Report flag zbarski 3 days ago
It takes a lot of hate and/or ignorance not to understand that
It also takes a few missing chromosomes.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Richard_Pearce 3 days ago No,
just takes being old enough to remember when folks used your sort of 'reasoning' to call the
White State in South Africa an 'island of civilisation amongst savages', the Shah the 'beloved
leader' of Iran, Saddam Hussein AND Osama bin Laden good guys, Nelson Mandela a radical
terrorist, and spent a few years dealing with guys who's survival often came down to their
ability to lie to others convincingly, and who's ability to look in the mirror and see
something they didn't hate came down to their ability to reject reality even more fervently
than supporters of the Israeli regime have to, street addicts.
That results in a finely honed male cow patty detector, as well as robust immunity to bullying
and peer pressure.
Respect 4 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Richard_Pearce 4 days ago If you
present the American population a choice between the 'one state solution' (one country 'between
the river and the sea' with equal rights for all) and the 'two state solution' (which requires
voiding the Geneva Conventions, the UN charter, close to a dozen human rights laws, barring the
ICC and ICJ from exerting jurisdiction, and the rewriting of the International Convention on
the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and 2002 Rome Statute of the ICC)
they're about equally split.
Guess what happens if you tell them the truth, that the 'two state solution' is a fraud that
will never be accepted and therefore is not an option.
If you guessed that the vast majority of the American population chooses to support the same
solution that the 'terrorist' Hamas and the 'genocidal' Iranian government support.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Mike_71 2 days ago If you prefer
the "one state solution" with equal rights for all citizens living between the river and the
sea, then Israel has been that "single state" since June 10, 1967, when it prevailed in a
"defensive war of necessity" against Palestinian and Arab invaders. Since that time, the
Palestinians have rejected all Israeli offers for negotiating for peace and a state of their
own, which Palestinians rejected in 1967, 2000, 2008 and more recently. There is no
"Apartheid," or "ethnic cleansing" in Israel, despite Palestinian efforts to impose them there.
In an "Orwellian Inversion (war is peace, poverty is plenty and ignorance is strength),"
Palestinians seek to impose a 20% minority "Arab Supremacist Apartheid Regime," over a 75 %
Israeli Jewish majority population. How that would differ from the former "Apartheid South
Africa," once ruled by a 10% minority "White Supremacist Apartheid Regime" over a 90% Black and
Mixed Race African majority, they refuse to explain, or justify. Just as South Africans are
entitled to democratic and majority rule in their nation, Israelis are entitled to those same
rights in theirs.
Have you ever studied the founding documents of both the P.L.O. and Hamas? Both call for the
"ethic cleansing"of Jews from their ancestral homeland in which they were indigenous for over
3,000 years. Read them here:
In rejecting the two state solution, as provided under UNGAR 181 in 1947 and numerous
Israeli offers since, the Palestinians have forfeited all rights to statehood, thus by default
making Israel the "one state" solution, with equal rights for all Israeli citizens, Arabs,
Christians, Druze and Jews. Preferring to remaining stateless to having a state of their own,
Palestinians have sealed their fate. There is no "two state" solution, as Palestinians never
wanted it.
Palestinian "rejectionists" seek to accomplish by propaganda that which they are unable to
achieve through war and terrorism. The Palestinians violated the 1949 Geneva Conventions during
the "Second Intifada" in deliberately targeting and killing over 1,000 Israeli civilians in bus
and cafe bombings in acts defined as "War Crimes, " violating the human rights of Israeli
citizens. The I.C.C has no jurisdiction, as Israel was never a party to the Rome Statute
creating the Court, and "Palestine" is not a "state," as required to become a signatory to the
Rome Statute. Having failed in all other means, including war and terrorism, Palestinians are
grasping at straws to try to achieve statehood, which they can only obtain through direct
negotiation with Israel. The conflict will continue until such time as Palestinians adopt the
requirements of UNSCR 242 and 338, which require:
"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of
the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area
and the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from fear or acts
of force."
The Palestinian demand for a "one state" solution has backfired on them, making Israel the
"one state" solution, while making themselves stateless, impoverished and isolated in a rapidly
changing Middle-East.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Richard_Pearce 4 days ago If
the propasals the US has put forward are 'peace plans', then this https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/79/278375333_dfc587574c.jpg
is brain surgery. Dysnomia 4 days ago The U.S. itself is a settler-colonial state that only
exists because of its genocide of Native Americans. U.S. victory over the native population,
and U.S. control from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is now a fait accompli, and that's exactly
what they want for Israel. Max21c 4 days ago ( Edited )
Lebensraum. Definition: the territory that a state or nation believes is needed for its
natural development. The German concept of Lebensraum comprises policies and practices of
settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s.
Strikingly ironic that they seeks lands in the East!
Irredentism: a policy of advocating the restoration to a country of any territory formerly
belonging to it.
Both sides are wrong. Both sides yield to or harbor irredentist notions,
practices, policies, factions, groups, and beliefs. Some Israelis want to practice irredentist
beliefs and restore the lands of ancient Israel or its Kingdoms. Other Israelis want to harken
back to their heyday when they had freshly captured Gaza and the West Bank and return to or
retain some form of the status quo that prevailed from winning battles. There are various other
groups that want some degree or flavor of irredentism. Some Palestinians want the Israelis gone
entirely and an end to the Israeli state. Some want a return to earlier borders. The "right of
return" is in itself a form of irredentism as those seeking are essentially seeking political
power and control within Israel.
Trump plan is dead. It's DOA DEAD. It's double DOA dead! Hopefully, it won't lead to too many
deaths or be the cause of future warfare or wars.
There are alternatives. There are alternate paths. Peace can be built in the region. Just not
this way and likely not now. There are good and better pathways that can at some point be
explored in the search for peace! mgr 4 days ago Sounds not unlike the way the neocons of the
Bush admin plunged headlong and chest out into the briar patch, er, Iraq, where grateful
citizens waited eagerly to throw flowers on these conquering heroes as they marched on to Iran.
Castles made of sand... Toots 4 days ago OK, we know how the Palestinians will feel about this,
but what cards do they hold? 4 days ago The only card the Palestinians hold is resistance.
Maybe it's time for the PLO to withdraw from the Oslo Accords, and the PA to be dissolved.
Everyone knows that the PA/Fatah is a collaborationist organization. The illusion of
Palestinian sovereignty in PA-"controlled" areas is too useful to Israel. It lets them pretend
they don't really exercise full control from the river to the sea and deny they're running an
apartheid system. Let there be no illusions.
Respect 4 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Richard_Pearce 4 days ago The
same one that the Bantus held.
It's only one card, undervalued, dismissed, at least when genuine (The forgeries, ironically,
are over valued and loudly proclaimed, but their fake nature causes them to turn to dust) but
durable enough to wear all the others to dust over time.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag REALITYCHECK 4 days ago They did
the experiment on giving land back to Islamists in Gaza and Lebanon. They wont be making that
mistake again. Respect 3 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag TheManj 4 days ago Spare us your
tired lies. Respect 3 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Krasny 4 days ago Women and
homosexuals are protected in Israel...if you care about them.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag PerfunctoryUsername 4 days ago
Pfft. Just yell "SQUIRREL" and save everyone some time. Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Art 4 days ago
They did the experiment on giving land back to Islamists in Gaza and Lebanon.
Gaza? The world's largest open-air prison?! HA! Some "give back," with thousands
of innocents assassinated while peacefully protesting their captivity.
You condone murder and assassination.
Respect 5 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag REALITYCHECK 4 days ago Progs
and other useful idiots, you are going to have to learn to live with Islamist control of only
99.8% of the land area of the Middle East and 51 Islamic Apartheid nations. Need a hankey?
Respect 3 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag TheManj 4 days ago 'Hankey' is
the Hebrew spelling, I suppose. Respect 1 Reply reply Share
link Copy Report flag Orville 3 days ago Fortunately, the
Islamists only control Saudi Arabia, portions of Libya, chunks of Afghanistan and Pakistan,
various segments of Africa, and (thanks to Syria, Iran, and Russia) a declining amount of
Syria. Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag ljg500 4 days ago Disgusting. It is
tragic that a nation forged under the horrific tragedy of the Holocaust, should now bow to
virulent racism- obliterating its legitimacy in exchange for puerile and cynical politics.
Respect 7 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Alex 3 days ago NOW??
LEGITIMACY??
It's time to wake up and realize that Zionism has always been an extremely racist,
supremacist, violent form of European settler-colonialism which is exactly the reason this
creation never had any legitimacy at all.
The Zionist plans for the violent colonisation and ethnical cleansing of Palestine from it's
native population have been made decades before Hitler even appeared on the political stage.
Actually the reason that Zionists and Nazis cooperated so well, were their common believe that
members of a self-declared master race are free to steal and murder sub-humans.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Mike_71 2 days ago Zionism is the
National Liberation Movement of the Jewish people. Like the Vietnamese National Liberation
Front, it has had to fight racist, colonialist, supremacist, bigoted and Imperialist forces to
win national independence. In the pre-state periods of their respective national struggles, in
1946 David Ben Gurion and Ho Chi Minh met in Paris, where the two founders of their respective
nations developed an affinity, with Ho offering Ben Gurion a Jewish homeland in Vietnam. Ben
Gurion declined Ho's offer, as the indigenous Jewish homeland was in the Middle-East, not
Vietnam. In 1975, Vietnam finally won its national struggle and since a border clash with China
in 1979, Vietnam has not engaged in war since. For Israel, however, the "armed struggle"
continues!
Don't believe this historic meeting of two revolutionary founders? Google Israeli-Vietnamese
relations and learn about the Gallil (assault rifle) factory Israel built in Vietnam and
negotiations for joint Israeli-Vietnamese army training and operations. You will be amazed and
educated!
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag CraigPurcell 4 days ago Do I
detect foreign influence (like Trump) in the campaign against Sanders ? With Facebook ads and
all the rest. No doubt business would pay many to get rid of Sanders. Respect 1 Reply
reply Share link Copy Report flag SimonEsposito 4 days ago One point
that maybe isn't being brought out adequately is that this deal won't satisfy Jewish
nationalists either. This is one of those situations where everything you need to assess the
situation is obvious from just one wide-scale map. Nationalists will still see this as a
territorial threat at the heart of Israel, and the use of settlements as an unofficial security
strategy will continue.
And, in any case, the allocated Palestinian territories are not just broken into dozens of
islands, they will be subject to years of being negotiated down even further. No-one will stop
the settler movement continuing to encroach in the meantime, especially because the territories
shown have no stable logic or legal viability to them. (The last remotely viable territorial
unit is 1967.)
So it's actually a plan to formalize and stabilize the gains made so far in the making of
one single territorial state in Palestine. Rinse and repeat.
I like that Elizabeth Warren is emphatically supporting the legitimate status quo - for the
purposes of the two-state solution - of international law and traditional US policy. It should
not be for outsiders to impose the one-state solution, which is what Western far-right
politicians know they are doing. This is opening Israel-Palestine up to the hazards of
historic struggle, and the potential for great suffering, to decide the character of its one
state. What they are unleashing is no more likely to end in ethno-religious apartheid (as some
on the far right explicitly want) than it is in an inclusive constitutional democracy.
For all practical purposes, by this plan, there will soon be two equal and coterminous
sovereignties in the lands from the Jordan River to the sea (including Gaza and Golan). No
involuntary shrinking of Palestinian sovereignty beyond 1967 borders has moral force, and in
fact the unilateral abrogation of 1967 leaves the entire territory constitutionally up for
grabs.
Progressive politics in the US can at least start articulating the characteristics of
a state that deserves a continuing security guarantee from the US, or at least continuing aid.
For me it's common rights for all the inhabitants of Israel-Palestine, under a constitution
built on the spirit of Israel's declaration of independence, based on a belief that the best
friends the Jews and non-Jews of Palestine could ever have in the world are each other.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag SimonEsposito 4 days ago One
of the most difficult problems in a dignified constitutional settlement, where international
help would be needed (for Jordan and Lebanon as well as Israel-Palestine) - and where
international aid needs to be directed - is to agree on some form of negotiated-down right of
return, with just compensation. The Kushner-Netanyahu plan appears to simply cancel the right
altogether, unilaterally. Respect 2 Reply reply Share link
Copy Report flag Art 4 days ago
What they are unleashing is no more likely to end in ethno-religious apartheid...
I hate to have to break it to you but unfortunately Israel is already an Apartheid
state.
Respect 4 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag SimonEsposito 2 days ago I
guess, to be really precise about it, what it is now is "proto-apartheid". It's a piecemeal
collection of segregationist measures, failures to administer existing law justly, and the
perverse outcomes of repeated decisions by the US to veto efforts to uphold the 1967 "reference
standard". The Kushner-Netanyahu plan is a scheme to break 1967 forever, legitimize
settlements, and create a permanent apartheid structure embedded in international law.
The only way two states can work is on the basis of 1967. And actually I don't see why a
Palestine on pre-1967 borders couldn't include a large Jewish minority, in a mirror image of
Israel. So when Elizabeth Warren re-affirmed the "reference standard" without equivocation,
there's an subtle radicalism there. The settler movement can't finally extinguish 1967, as a
theoretical option at least, unless it forms a Jewish majority in the occupied
territories.
To be generous to the administrations that used the veto, I think it was originally intended
to protect the ability of the Zionist left to win the case for two states in friendship. The
veto protection should really have been ended before 2000. On the other hand, it was always
likely that the Israeli far right would win the political contest.
So, however this works out, the best anyone can do is allow Israel-Palestine's future to be
the result of self-determination by its inhabitants. That doesn't exclude boycotts and
sanctions, though, or the suspension of various forms of aid, because that is the sovereign
decision of other polities about who is "fit and proper" to deal with. (Conciliation within the
South African system was still fundamentally self determined, despite the steady pressure of
boycotts.)
It remains the case that Jewish nationalists are the ones with the deep choice to make:
accept the unalterable reality of 1967 for the foundation of two states, or open up a long
struggle to determine the character (and level of isolation) of one state with its competing
sovereignties. Respect Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Mike_71 2 days ago But, the
Palestinians seek to impose a minority dominated "Arab Supremacist Apartheid Regime," over a
conquered and subjugated Jewish majority population, which would then be subjected to "ethnic
cleansing." As the Palestinians have unequivocally rejected the concept of "two states for two
peoples," in favor of a "single state," the question thus becomes will it become a "majority
ruled" state, as 75% of the Israeli population is Jewish, or a "minority ruled" state, like the
former "White Supremacist Apartheid Regime" of South Africa, as only 20% of the Israeli
population is Arab. It becomes more an issue of minority rule vs majority rule, as opposed to
"Apartheid vs "Non-Apartheid." Minority ruled racist regimes, such as the former "White
Supremacist Apartheid Regime" of South Africa, tend to be unstable and subject to violent
internal revolts, such as those led by Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, as
would a minority ruled "Arab Supremacist Apartheid Regime. Minority ruled racist "Apartheid
Regimes," like that of South Africa, cannot last when subjected to repeated popular revolt!
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Art 2 days ago It's the
zionist Jewish colonialists who have - or should have - no rights to the place
whatsoever.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Mike_71 22 hours ago Even the
United Nations, today hardly a rampant pro-Zionist organization, recognized the rights of the
Jews to a significant part of their ancestral homeland in 1947, pursuant to UNGAR 181, the UN
partitioned the former British Mandate into two proposed states, "one Arab and one Jewish." The
Israelis accepted the proposal, while the Palestinians, joined by the Arab League member
nations, rejected it by declaring war on Israel. They lost that war, as well as the subsequent
1967 "Six Day War," resulting in the capture of all West Bank land, for which the Palestinians
refused to negotiate peace to obtain its return. See my discussion concerning about the
difference between "wars of aggression" for the purpose of territorial expansion and territory
captured in the course of "defensive wars of necessity" and the comparison of land captured by
the U.S.S.R. in the "Great Patriotic War" and Israel in the 1967 "Six Day War." If the
Palestinian - Israeli Conflict is strictly a "one to the exclusion of the other" proposition,
and a compromise through direct negotiations is not an option, as specified in the founding
documents of both the P.L.O. and Hamas, then Israel is entitled to the entirety of the land
captured in the 1967 "Six Day War," a "defensive war of necessity." One does not "colonize," or
"occupy" one's ancestral homeland of over 3,000 years. "From the river to the sea, Palestine
will never be!"
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Art 59 minutes ago Ardent Zionists
like you will never acknowledge anything like justice for Palestinians.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag The_Wolf 4 days ago Wow, only
7 comments. Guess there are other things going on. Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Toots 4 days ago You're smart. You
think just like me. Respect Reply reply Share link
Copy Report flag Art 4 days ago I guess the zionists
are busy on other comment boards. But don't worry, they'll come back here in a day or so.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Mona 4 days ago "How I How
Israel exploits Holocaust Remembrance Day"
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-exploits-holocaust-remembrance-day
Surviving Auschwitz
Esther Bejarano, now in her nineties, was sent to Auschwitz as a girl. There she played in
the women's orchestra – as long as the camp commanders were happy, she and her fellow
musicians avoided being murdered. She is still a performing musician today. Her parents
Rudolf and Margarethe Loewy did not survive. They were murdered by the Nazis in Lithuania in
1941. After the war, Bejarano emigrated to Palestine, but eventually returned to her native
Germany, disgusted at how Palestinians were being treated. She says that even she – an
Auschwitz survivor – has been labeled an anti-Semite for speaking out for Palestinian
rights. Yet she is not deterred. Refusing to be silent, she told The Electronic Intifada in
2018 that Israel's government is "fascist" and that she supports BDS – boycott,
divestment and sanctions – if it helps challenge Israel's persecution of Palestinians.
Jacques Bude, a retired professor from Belgium, survived the Nazi genocide because he was
saved by farmers who hid him as a child. His parents were deported and murdered in Auschwitz.
After the war, he was sent to Palestine against his will as a Zionist settler. "I really felt
in exile," Bude told The Electronic Intifada in 2017. "I was destroyed by German militarism
and I came to Israel and again encountered militarism." He returned home to Belgium. The Nazi
ideology "led to the genocide of the Jews, the Roma, the Sinti, homosexuals and the mentally
disabled," Bude said. "It is the worst dehumanization that happened until today. It was
industrial and they went all the way. They dehumanized them completely, to a pile of hair and
gold." "So the duty of memory is to say never more dehumanization," Bude added. "If we say
'never again,' we have to decide where we stand and condemn it." And that includes condemning
Israel's crimes: "I am against ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, which is a form of
dehumanization." Hajo Meyer was deported to Auschwitz in 1944. After surviving the war, he
returned to the Netherlands where he had a long career as a physicist. He was also a fierce
anti-Zionist and staunch supporter of Palestinian rights. That made him a target of
relentless smears from Israel's supporters, even after his death in 2014. But he too was
never silenced by such attacks. In his last interview, which was with The Electronic
Intifada, Meyer urged Palestinians "not to give up their fight," even if that meant armed
struggle. The lesson Israel wants us to take from the Holocaust is that it has the right to
do whatever it wants to Palestinians with impunity in the name of protecting Jews. But the
right lesson to take – and it is more urgent than ever – is that all of us must
stand together against racial and religious hatred and oppression, no matter who its victims
are.
Respect 14 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Art 4 days ago Good excerpt.
Respect Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag AtheistInChief 4 days ago The
control over Palestinians is SO complete, that Palestinians don't have rights not only to the
water under their feet, but also to the earth's magnetic field that passes through the air
(lest they make electricity out of it). But you'd have to read Max Blumenthal to find that kind
of stuff out, definitely not the apartheid complicit NYTimes.
Respect 4 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Andrew_Nichols 4 days ago The
Euros will mumble some indignation ...and then pursue business as usual...beating up on
Palestinian rights like BDS , selling Irrael more weapons anmd inviting them to join NATO
training. ...all to be expected from cowardly vassals. Respect 6 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag photosymbiosis 4 days ago If
anything demonstrates the sheer scale of propagandistic media control in the United States and
around the world, it's the Israel story. It's just the same old tedious boilerplate narrative,
from the 'left' to the 'right'. The glaring issues just are not allowed to get any air. These
issues are:
1) Israel has a 'covert' nuclear weapons program, and under the terms of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, it's a violation of the treaty to for a nuclear signatory to that
treaty to assist another country with their nuclear weapons program ; the USA's NNSA (DOE
division) has close relations with the Israeli nuclear weapons program. There are other treaty
violations with other countries relating to the Pakistani and Indian nuclear weapons programs
as well, but the silence on Israel is pretty hilarious. They've got over 100 ballistic-weapon
capable boosted fission-fusion nukes with working delivery systems! Yes, they're not going to
give them up, fine, but at least make them admit to it in international forums. And about that
$4 billion a year in U.S. taxpayer money... why do they need that, again?
2) Israel and Saudi Arabia, the closest US Empire allies, are not democracies. You cannot
claim to be a democracy while giving special rights to one religious or ethnic group , and
the only way Israel would become a real democracy is to grant the Arab Muslim population the
same rights as the European Jewish population has, on immigration, land ownership, and yes,
that means giving all the human beings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip voting rights in the
Israeli national elections, I mean that's just common sense. Okay, you then have parity between
Jews and Muslims, who cares, it's like the Protestants vs. the Catholics in medieval Europe,
and ditto for the Sunnis and Shias in Saudi Arabia. Why are we involved with these backwards
feudal assholes anyway? We don't need the oil, we don't need the money, we don't need the
entangling relationships with dictators and crooks, just get out already.
Even from the whole imperial perspective, I mean, the whole rationale for being involved in
the region was control of the oil and the money from the oil, and since the world is getting
off oil, the Middle East will soon become as economically attractive as sub-Saharan Africa, so
why not just limit involvement to arms-length diplomacy and let the maniacs try to solve their
own problems themselves?
As far as all the anti-Semitism claims, how about a proposal to spend oh, $2 billion year
rebuilding all the synagogues the Nazis destroyed across Europe instead, and cut off all aid to
Israel? Now, that would really piss off the real anti-Semites, wouldn't it?
Respect 13 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Art 4 days ago Yep, good
post.
Respect 3 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Wnt 4 days ago A cute idea,
but technically rebuilding synagogues would be establishment of religion, whether inside or
outside the U.S., and therefore unconstitutional. But our politicians don't seem to have any
problem with not being racist against blacks while not giving them money, and they were
impoverished by our version of nazis, not nazis from europe.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag The_Wolf 4 days ago ( Edited )
Establishment of religion is an American constitutional precept. Not sure about European
countries in which the Nazis destroyed synagogues.
Good points otherwise, and in fact the Nazis from Europe actually looked to the segregated
American south and Jim Crow as a model for how to impose their racist ideology on the people of
Germany and the countries they were to conquer in Europe.
Bill Moyers: You begin the book with a meeting of Nazi Germany's leading lawyers on June 5,
1934, which happens, coincidentally, to be the day I was born. James Whitman: Oh boy, you
were born under a dark star.
[...snip...]
Moyers: A stenographer was present to record a verbatim transcript of that meeting.
Reading that transcript you discovered a startling fact. Whitman: Yes -- the fact is that
they began by discussing American law. The minister of justice presented a memorandum on
American race law that included a great deal of detailed discussion of the laws of American
states. American law continued to be a principle topic throughout that meeting and beyond.
It's also a startling fact that the most radical lawyers in that meeting -- the most vicious
among the lawyers present -- were the most enthusiastic for the American example.
Respect 3 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag mgr 4 days ago ( Edited ) photo:
Well put. Slightly related, I understand that Tom Perez, in addition to lobbyists, added a
number of Israeli-firsters to the DNC nomination council for the 2020 election.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Wnt 4 days ago I think the
acid test of any such plan would be an airport. I mean, in theory "Palestine", the nation, can
have an international airport, right? Somebody can get on board a plane in Russia, land in
"Palestine", walk through Customs & Immigration, make a claim for asylum or citizenship at
the courthouse, right?
I think it would be interesting if the Palestinians would try this, just to see whether the
Israelis have the courage to shoot down civilian airplanes on regular flights in the name of
stopping terrorism. I have little doubt they would disappoint ... my expectations, that is.
Any word on whether the "peace" plan explicitly would ban this?
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag zbarski 4 days ago ( Edited )
If they do, you can take all commenters above with you (take Mackey + Electronik Intifada too)
and go on that flight. If the plane doesn't get shut down, you could walk through the customs
and ask for polutical asylum.
Indeed, it'll be interesting to see...
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Wnt 4 days ago With millions
of their own citizens locked on the wrong side of a border for almost a century simply because
they fled to avoid a war zone for a little while, I think Palestine's immigration agency, if
they ever get one, is going to have quite a backlog to clear before they get around to any
actual foreigners.
Respect 1 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag zbarski 3 days ago
if they ever get one, is going to have quite a backlog to clear before they get around to any
actual foreigners.
Ahh. What a pity. Such a deserving crowd above.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag Alex 3 days ago What happened
to Gaza Airport? Donor nations invested millions, it operated about 2 years under israeli
control and then the Judeonazis bombed it....
There is absolutely no reason to believe, that anything invested/built in Kushner's
"Palestinian State" would meet a better fate.
Respect 2 Reply reply Share link Copy Report flag zbarski 3 days ago Still recovering
from your:
The story that Iran shut down the Ukranian airliner is BS. Iran is perfectly capable of
distinguishing between civilian and military objects.
It is astounding and deeply disturbing that 75 years after the end of World World Two the
history of that event is being re-written before our very eyes.
That war resulted in over 50 million dead with more than half of the victims from the Soviet
Union. It incorporated the worst crimes against humanity, including the systematic mass murder
of millions carried out by Nazi Germany, known as the Holocaust. The victims included Jews,
Slavs, Roma, Soviet prisoners-of-war and others whom the fascist Nazis deemed to be
"Untermensch" ("Subhumans").
The Soviet Red Army fought back the Nazi forces all the way from Russia through Eastern
Europe, eventually defeating the Third Reich in Berlin. Nearly 90 per cent of all Wehrmacht
casualties incurred during the entire war were suffered on the Eastern Front against the Red
Army. That alone testifies how it was the Soviet Union among the allied nations which primarily
accomplished the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Seventy-five years ago, on January 27, 1945, it was Red Army soldiers who liberated the
notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. It was during the Vistula-Oder Offensive which drove
the Nazis out of Poland paving the way for the eventual final victorious battle in Berlin some
three months later.
It is incredible that within living memory, these objective facts of history about the most
cataclysmic war ever waged are being falsified or insidiously distorted.
Germany's most-read magazine Der Spiegel, American-European journal Politico, a U.S. embassy
announcement, as well as American Vice President Mike Pence, are among recent sources who have
either falsified or downplayed the heroic role of the Soviet Union in liberating Auschwitz.
This is part of a disconcerting trend of rewriting the history of World War Two, by which,
preposterously, the Soviet Union is being equated with Nazi Germany. Such pernicious fiction
must be resisted and repudiated by all conscientious historians and citizens.
Der Spiegel and the U.S. embassy in Denmark both had to issue embarrassed apologies after
they separately stated that it was American forces which liberated Auschwitz. It is
mind-boggling how such an error on the 75th anniversary of one of the most iconic events in
history could have been made – by a leading magazine and a diplomatic corps.
More sinister was an article published in Politico on January 24 written by the Polish Prime
Minister Mateusz Morawiecki which claimed, "Far from being a liberator, the Soviet Union was a
facilitator of Nazi Germany."
The Polish politician is no exception. It has become a staple argument in recent years
contended by other Polish leaders and politicians from the Baltic states who seek to revise the
history of the war, blaming the Soviet Union for being an accomplice with Nazi Germany. The
corruption of history is partly driven by a desire to whitewash the nefarious role played by
these countries as quislings to the Third Reich who helped it carry out the Holocaust.
Vice President Pence's speech at the Holocaust memorial event in Jerusalem on January 23 was
another deplorable sleight of hand. In his address, he never once mentioned the fact of the
Soviet forces blasting open the gates of Auschwitz. Pence merely said, "When soldiers opened
the gates of Auschwitz " A sentence later, he went on to mention how "American soldiers
liberated Europe from tyranny."
It is quite astonishing how brazenly false narratives about World War Two are being told,
not merely by Neo-Nazi sympathizers and cranks beyond the pale, but by supposedly senior
politicians and respectable media. It is perplexing how the heroic role of Soviet commanders,
soldiers and people is being eroded, airbrushed and even maligned into something grotesquely
opposite.
Washington's belligerent geopolitical agenda of trying to isolate and undermine Russia is no
doubt underlying the process of re-writing history in order to deprive Russia of moral
authority and recast it as a malign nation. Of course the obsessive Russophobia of Polish and
Baltic politicians neatly plays into this agenda.
This reprehensible revisionism is in flagrant contradiction and denial of international
libraries of documented history, archives, official and personal correspondence, photographs,
as well as first-hand witness accounts.
An excellent
essay by Martin Sieff this week recounts how Soviet soldiers and medics tended to the
remaining 7,000 wretched inmates of Auschwitz. More than a million others had been exterminated
by the Nazis before they fled from the advancing Soviet forces.
The Soviet officer in command of liberating Auschwitz was Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly
Shapiro. He was himself a Russian-born Jew. The Soviet soldiers spoke of their horror and
heartbreak upon discovering the hellish conditions in which skeletal men, women and children
were teetering on the brink of death. Bodies of dead lay everywhere among pools of frozen
blood.
Another Jewish Soviet officer Colonel Elisavetsky told how Russian doctors and nurses worked
without sleep or food to try to save the emaciated inmates.
As Sieff notes:
"For Colonel Shapiro, the idea that he, his Red Army comrades and the medical staff who
fought and died to liberate Auschwitz and who worked so hard to save its pitifully few
survivors should be casually equated with the Nazis mass-killers would have been ludicrous
and contemptible The true story of the liberation of Auschwitz needs to be told and retold.
It needs to be rammed down the throats of Russia-hating bigots and warmongers
everywhere."
Maintaining the historical record about World War Two – its fascist origins and its
defeat – is not just a matter of national pride for Russians. Ominously, if history can
be denied, falsified and distorted, then the danger of repetition returns. We must never let
the heroic role of the Soviet Union be forgotten or belittled, especially by people who seem to
have a penchant for fascism.
The point of the article is revisionism, for example......" It is astounding and deeply
disturbing that 75 years after the end of World World Two the history of that event is being
re-written before our very eyes."
and....... Vice President Pence's speech at the Holocaust memorial event in
Jerusalem on January 23 was another deplorable sleight of hand. In his address, he never once
mentioned the fact of the Soviet forces blasting open the gates of Auschwitz. Pence merely
said, "When soldiers opened the gates of Auschwitz " A sentence later, he went on to mention
how "American soldiers liberated Europe from tyranny."
******* muricans lie, twist and distort at every opportunity. They conveniently ignore the
truth so they can brag about their
imaginary conquests.
Lost in korea, still losing in korea 70 ******* years later, lost in iran, still losing 50
years later, lost in afghanistan, still losing 20 years later, lost in iraq, syria,
ukraine,venezuela, couldn't put the russians away when they were on their knees,
can't get into space without riding the russian rocket. Yet here they are running their
lips as though they have actually done one good thing for the planet. A nation of revisionist
lying hypocrite douchebags....
Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler
The problem is government by criminal psychopathic cartels , NOT the Russian,
German, American or French people.
And NOTHING in this article addresses this fundamental evil of government by criminal
psychopathic cartels.
Leftist-fascist-socialist-communist-globalist-control everybody-else-but-themselves, is a
SPECTRUM that describes the varieties of governments created by criminal psychopathic
cartels.
They're all the same, they differ as to the degree of evil.
According to the University of Hawaii, " death by GOVERNMENT " (" democide ") is
the problem.
" I soon was overwhelmed by the unbelievable repetitiveness of regime after regime,
ruler after ruler, murdering people under their control or rule by shooting, burial alive,
burning, hanging, knifing, starvation, flaying, beating, torture, and so on and on.
Year after year.
Not hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands of these people, but millions &
millions.
The awful toll may even reach above 300,000,000 , the equivalent in dead (human beings)
of a nuclear war stretched out over decades."
The COMMUNIST Russian GOVERNMENT aren't saints: Stalin is responsible for 100 MILLION
slaughtered.
China even MORE millions slaughtered, making Hitler look like a literal piker by
comparison.
"The strategic culture foundation" must be owned lock stock & barrel by A VERSION of
the leftist-fascist-socialist-communist-globalist-control
everybody-else-but-themselves-absolutely-certifiable- psychopathic loonies .
BIG GOVERNMENT is the problem, not the relative cultures.
While American CEO's insisted that they had to honor their contracts with Nazi Germany,
leaving The US without the resources - as late as 1942 - to build armaments.
FDR threatened those treasonous a**hats with treason - a death penalty offense which could
also lead to confiscation of property. FDR also directed the US government to finance new
companies that would supply resources and armaments to The US Government. Created millions of
jobs. Reynolds Aluminum and other corporations were created that way.
Money has no loyalty. You can see that with American CEO's who watch their stock prices
(and thus compensation) rise as they ship jobs and factories to China or Mexico or elsewhere.
What was China supposed to do? REFUSE? No.
THERE IS YOUR F*CKING PROBLEM.
Government is not a real person who can do anything. Voters elect the people who act in
the name of government. Big Business buys the best government money can buy in America.
Stop blaming Government because there is no a**hat that was born, named Government.
Got a bad Government? A**hats like Trump and Pelosi and McConnell and prior a**hats such
as Obama and Bush and The Clintons on down the line.
It's funny when voters who elect the people to represent them and act in their name as a
"government" to watch those voters turn around and blame government. When the voter is
responsible for those politicians being there in the first place.
A voter like that is simply an a**hat moron who deserves to be ruled by their masters and
elites.
Rosie memos @almostjingo - 1:40 UTC · Jan 30, 2020
Well geez this is awkward. Despite being told for years that "Internet Research Agency"
was working for Putin the DOJ admits it's not going to offer any evidence in the case "that
the Russian Government sponsored the alleged conspiracy" MUH RUSSIA. @TheJusticeDept
-- --
Neither The DoJ or the FBI are aware of the fact that more than 60% of Israeli army speak
Russian fluently just like their native hebrew, or better!?
US Vice President Mike Pence used his speech at the Holocaust memorial last week to bang a
war drum at Iran. It revealed a deplorable lack of dignity and understanding of the event,
despite Pence's efforts to appear solemn. But not only that. It showed too how out of touch the
United States – at least its political leadership – is with the rest of the world
and a growing collective concern among others to ensure international peace.
Maybe that's why Britain's Prince Charles appeared to snub Pence, declining to shake his
hand while attending the commemoration of the Holocaust and 75th anniversary of the liberation
of Auschwitz. Charles warmly greeted other dignitaries, including Russian President Vladimir
Putin and France's Emmanuel Macron. It was curious how he blanked Pence.
But there again, maybe not that curious.
Pence and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on starting a war with Iran. A war
that would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly ignite a world conflagration.
Washington's wanton threats of violence against Iran and its recent assassination of one of
Iran's top military leaders stands as a shocking repudiation of international law and the UN
Charter. It's the kind of conduct more akin to an organized crime syndicate rather than a
supposedly democratic state.
The UN Charter was created in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War precisely to
prevent repetition of the worst conflagration in history and all its barbaric crimes, including
the Nazi Holocaust. Over 5o million people died in that war, and nearly half of them belonged
to the Soviet Union.
The prevention of war is surely the most onerous responsibility of the UN Security Council.
Yet the United States is the one power that routinely ignores international law and the UN
Charter to unilaterally launch wars or military interventions. Washington's threats against
Iran are, unfortunately, nothing new. This is standard American practice.
Putin, Macron, Prince Charles and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier all invoked the
need for collective commitment to international law and peace. They implied that such a
commitment was the best way to honour those who were killed in the Holocaust and the Second
World War; the surest way to prevent the barbarity of fascist ideology and persecution ever to
be repeated.
Those speakers one after another denounced the ideology of demonizing others which fuels
hatred and wars. How pertinent is that to the way Washington routinely demonizes other nations
and foreign leaders?
In sharp contrast, when the American vice president made his address, his apparent solemnity
was contradicted by a
blood-curdling call to arms against Iran , which he accused of being the "leading state
purveyor of anti-semitism". Pence urged the whole world "to stand strong against the Islamic
Republic of Iran", spoken as if he was spitting out the words like venom.
There is little doubt that Pence was formulating a rationale for military confrontation with
Iran. That has been the consistent policy of the Trump administration over the past three
years.
It was no surprise that Pence's speech was in sync with the usual bellicose rhetoric from
Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu towards Iran. But what was arresting was just how out of sync
Pence and the Trump administration are with the rest the world.
That's what is perplexing about many American politicians. They seem ignorant of history
(Pence gave no acknowledgement to the Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and other death
camps); they are consumed by self-righteousness and arrogance like a puritan preacher without
an ounce of humanity.
Anyone who reflects on the horror of war would surely be advocating the respect of and
adherence to international law, commitment to peace, and the earnest pursuit of dialogue and
partnership among nations.
Russia's Putin has repeatedly called for the members of the UN Security Council to urgently
get together in order to guarantee a multilateral commitment to peace. Putin has also
repeatedly appealed to the United States to get serious about negotiating renewed arms control
treaties. Washington has ignored those latter calls.
Mike Pence's menacing words and attitude at the Holocaust memorial showed a disturbing and
pernicious disconnect with the need for preventing war and genocide. It was a disgraceful
dishonouring of victims.
Out of sync with the world, the US has returned to the ashes and lawlessness of 1945.
Even After the Afghanistan Papers, the Washington 'Blob' Still Embraces Staying Forever
January 30, 2020 Written by Mark Perry
Share Copy
Print
James Clad, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia, remembers the exact
moment, back in 2001, when he learned that the U.S. had invaded Afghanistan. As chance would
have it, he was in a meeting with a dozen or so South Asia experts at the Council on Foreign
Relations. "It was in early October of 2001," he recalls, "and word came that U.S. warplanes
had attacked three Afghan cities. Well, you could have heard a pin drop. I looked around the
room and everyone was studying their shoes. And I thought, 'well, this isn't going to work.'
And we all knew it. All of us. This was going to be a morass."
Clad wasn't alone in his thinking. In the wake of the December 9 publication of the
Afghanistan Papers in the Washington Post, retired CIA officer Robert Grenier, who ran
covert operations in support of the 2001 U.S. intervention, reflected on the papers' key
finding – that U.S. officials lied about the 18-year campaign, hiding "unmistakable
evidence" that the Afghan war had become unwinnable. "Frankly, it strikes me as weird that
people should only be waking up to this now," he told me. "The Washington Post series doesn't
convey anything which those who've been watching with even moderate attention should long since
have understood."
Which may be why the papers, comprising some 2000-plus pages of interviews with generals,
diplomats, aid workers and Afghan officials conducted by SIGAR, the Pentagon's Office of the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, landed with a thud – "a
bombshell that has yet to explode," as one commenter described it
. For good reason: celebrated as a second Pentagon Papers (the 1971 documents that bared the
lies of the Vietnam War) the Afghanistan revelations didn't actually reveal anything that
foreign policy officials, or the American people, didn't already know: that the U.S. was not
winning and could not win in Afghanistan, that senior U.S. diplomats and U.S. military
commanders knew this soon after the 2001 intervention, that the hundreds of billions of dollars
spent to build a responsive Afghan government was squandered, misspent, diverted or stolen, and
that officials consistently misled the American people about the prospects for victory in the
war – promoting optimistic assessments in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
"In news conferences and other public appearances," the Post report noted, "those in charge
of the war have followed the same talking points for 18 years. No matter how the war is going
– and especially when it is going badly – they emphasized how they are making
progress." Among the most outspoken critics quoted by the papers is retired Lt. Gen. Douglas
Lute, who served as the Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama years. "We were devoid of a
fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn't know what we were doing," Lute told
SIGAR officials in an
oft-quoted judgment . "What are we trying to do here? We didn't have the foggiest notion of
what we were undertaking."
In truth, the big "reveal" of the Afghanistan Papers came after their release, when most of
official Washington reacted to their publication with a collective shrug. Despite this, though
not surprisingly, while the State Department and White House remained silent on the
revelations, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley
rejected the claim that officials had purposely misled the public about the war. "I know
there's an assertion out there of some sort of coordinated lie over the course of 18 years,"
Milley
told reporters . "I find that a bit of a stretch. More than a bit of a stretch, I find that
a mischaracterization." Optimistic reports on the war in Afghanistan, he argued, were "honest
assessments" that were "never intended to deceive the Congress or the American people." While
Milley's response was unusually strident, it was not a surprise for most Pentagon reporters,
many of whom knew that senior military officers and Pentagon policy makers were carefully
studying proposals that would keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan for at least the next five years
– if not longer.
Among these is a paper authored by Michael O'Hanlon, the high profile Foreign Policy
Director of Research at the influential Brookings Institution. Entitled "5,000 Troops for 5
Years," O'Hanlon's offering was previewed in an op-ed in The Hill in late October, presented
formally by Brookings officials on the same day as the Post published the Afghanistan Papers,
then circulated to a wider audience in an O'Hanlon-authored
op-ed in USA Today on January 3. O'Hanlon provides a less outspoken critique of the Post
story than Milley (calling it "badly misleading" and arguing that U.S. officials "have been
consistently and publicly realistic about the difficulty of making progress" in the war), while
acknowledging the "limits of the possible" in a "beleaguered and weak country." Even so,
O'Hanlon says in taking issue with the Post report, the Afghanistan mission "has not been an
abject failure" because, as he argues, the Afghan government "continues to hold all major and
midsize cities" and the U.S. has "not again been attacked by a group that plotted or organized
its aggression from within Afghan borders."
O'Hanlon concedes that while these are modest accomplishments, they are sustainable "at a
far lower cost in blood and treasure than before." Here then, is O'Hanlon's payoff: "The United
States needs a policy that recognizes Afghanistan for what it is – a significant, but not
a top-tier, U.S. strategic interest – and builds a plan accordingly. That overall
strategy should still seek peace, but its modest military element should be steady and stable,
and not set to a calendar. Roughly 5,000 troops for at least five years could be the crude
mantra."
O'Hanlon's proposal has gained traction among a number of senior military officers who are
frustrated with a war that drains military assets and erodes readiness, but who are loathe to
concede Afghanistan to the Taliban – an outcome they believe is certain to follow a full
U.S. withdrawal. Then too, O'Hanlon confirms, his proposal reflects the thinking of a large
swath of Washington's foreign policy community. "I think I am codifying and encapsulating and
distilling the wisdom of a lot of people here, with a couple of my own twists," he told me in
response to a series of questions I posed to him in an email exchange. "I think the chances of
something like this [being adopted] are therefore pretty good."
Indeed, the O'Hanlon proposal seems to have something for everyone: it foregoes the large
nation building expenditures that have characterized the U.S. intervention ($7 billion to $8
billion each year – "not trivial, but only 1 percent of the defense budget"), it
maintains enough military capacity to check the growth of ISIS or al-Qaeda (the U.S. would
maintain "two or three major airfields and hubs of operations" in the country), it allows time
for the U.S. to put in place a more effective Afghan military presence (O'Hanlon provides five
specific recommendations on how this can be done), it signals the Taliban that the U.S. will
not leave the country out of frustration (that they cannot simply "stall for time"), and
perhaps most crucially, it gelds the controversy surrounding the conflict by taking it out of
public view: "By laying out a plan designed to last for several years," O'Hanlon writes,
"Washington would be avoiding the drama and the huge consumption of policy bandwidth associated
with annual Afghanistan policy reviews that have typified the late Obama and early Trump
years." Which is to say:
maintaining a presence in Afghanistan at 5,000 troops ("I'd rather see 5,000 as a rough goal
not a formal or legislated ceiling or floor," O'Hanlon says) over an extended period takes the
war off the nation's front pages – it regularizes the U.S. deployment at an acceptable
cost (that's what sustainable means) and it makes the war in Afghanistan publicly
palatable.
If any of this sounds familiar, it's because it is. "5,000 Troops for 5 Years" seemingly
institutionalizes what then-Afghan commander General David Petraeus called "Afghanistan Good
Enough" in August of 2010: "This isn't to say that there's any kind of objective of turning
Afghanistan into Switzerland in three to five years or less," he said at the time. "Afghan good
enough is good enough." At the time, any number of pundits predicted that the Petraeus
statement would come back to haunt him, but his mantra has been adopted by senior military
officers who cite the O'Hanlon paper as a means of, if not exactly winning the Afghanistan war,
at least not losing it – if victory isn't possible, they argue, then "good enough" is
next best. Or, as one senior military officer told me, the O'Hanlon proposal recasts the
political calculus of Vermont Senator George Aiken on Vietnam, who said that the U.S. should
"declare victory and get out." In this case, the officer said, O'Hanlon is proposing that "the
U.S. declare a stalemate and stay in."
The O'Hanlon proposal details what has been quietly talked about in military circles for the
last decade, but was given credence in a monograph written by retired Army Colonel David
Johnson ("Doing What You Know") published in 2017. Johnson, whose paper circulated widely in
Army circles, argues that "good enough" might well be the most appropriate model for fighting
counter-insurgencies – a form of warfare that has traditionally been outside of the U.S.
military's "strategic culture." In these conflicts, what Johnson calls a "least bad outcome"
might be all that the U.S. military should expect. In Afghanistan, this means accepting limits
to success. "In Afghanistan, what is good enough is a government that can successfully protect
itself and take the fight to the Taliban with minimal U.S. support," Johnson wrote. "Whether
the Kabul government is corrupt or not representative is secondary to its ability to prevent
Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist haven. That would be good enough."
That this model might well be adopted in Afghanistan (and in Iraq), and in any of the other
"grey zone" conflicts of the Middle East, is no longer at issue. The model is already in place,
while O'Hanlon's 5000 Troops for 5 Years is fast becoming a reality. But the adoption of the
program has come at a price – in Afghan lives. While the U.S. has continued to withdraw
troops from Afghanistan, it has escalated its air campaign against the Taliban (U.S. aircraft
dropped 7423 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 – more than any other year), thereby embracing
a strategy that allows U.S. deployments to remain in place, but without the consequent
escalation in U.S. casualties. ("More U.S. troops die in training accidents than in Afghanistan
so, you know, there's that," a senior military officer told me.) Meanwhile, Afghan civilian
casualties have spiked, reaching unprecedented levels in the period of July to September of
2019. That trend is likely to continue.
And so, the results of the Washington Post's publication of the Afghanistan Papers
"bombshell" in December have now come sharply into focus: Afghanistan is off the nation's front
pages, American casualties are "sustainable," the war continues – and, ironically, the
chances for ending it are now even more remote than before the Post published its
revelations.
In other news, the Houthis have imposed a massive defeat on the Saudis at Marib - 3500 Saudi
forces killed, wounded or captured, along with 400 trophies. It is bigger than the earlier
massive defeat at Najran.
I perfectly understand why Westerners still love capitalism (and will continue to do so for
the forseeable future): capitalism represents (and will forever represent) the first and only
time in human history the so-called western culture became universal and the center of
humanity. In fact, I would be surprised if the opposite case was true.
The clash of civilizations doctrine makes sense both to Americans and Europeans, but in
different ways.
For the Americans, it creates a legitimizing narrative for the masses to draw capitalist
Russia to its sphere of influence, divide Eurasia again and then essentially kill two birds
with one stone: the destruction of China and socialism.
For the Europeans, it creates a narrative where Europe, somehow, reborns from the ashes
and make a spectacular comeback to the center stage of the imperialist game. That is the case
because it fantasizes about some kind of western culture solidarity where the USA, by magic,
begins to treat Europe as equals, and not as vassals (because they have "the same culture").
The USA then self-dissolves in order for a "Westernia" to rise in the North Atlantic, with a
foothold in the Pacific thanks to Australia. Socialism in the form of Western European
welfare state will be allowed to exist because what matters is not capitalism vs socialism,
but western culture vs eastern culture. USA and Western Europe then make amends, and fuse
together in a Western Paradise (Eden).
I must say, this is a very inventive - even ingenious doctrine. Shame the Europeans waste
their creativity with such useless garbage.
P.S.: nobody was complaining on "being raped" when it was the First World countries
benefitting from globalization during the "golden age of capitalism" (post-war miracle). The
narrative was completely different: the Third World was the uncivilized and corrupt monkeys,
who were being blessed by the charity of the First World, and should be forever thankful for
that. It's not funny when you're on the receiving end, it seems.
There's no need to rehash the sordid politics of the U.S.-Russia relationship since 2014.
That relationship became collateral damage to gross corruption in Ukraine.
The U.S. and its allies, especially the UK under globalists like David Cameron, wanted to
peel off Ukraine from the Russian orbit and make it part of the EU and eventually NATO.
From Russia's perspective, this was unacceptable. It may be true that most Americans cannot
find Ukraine on a map, but a simple glance at a map reveals that much of Ukraine lies East of
Moscow.
Putting Ukraine in a Western alliance such as NATO would create a crescent stretching from
Luhansk in the South through Poland in the West and back around to Estonia in the North. There
are almost no natural obstacles between that arc and Moscow; it's mostly open steppe.
Completion of this "NATO Crescent" would leave Moscow open to invasion in ways that Napoleon
and Hitler could only dream. Of course, this situation was and is unacceptable to Moscow.
Ukraine itself is culturally divided along geographic lines. The Eastern and Southern
provinces (Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea and Dnipro) are ethnically Russian, follow the Orthodox
Church and the Patriarch of Moscow, and welcome commercial relations with Russia.
The Western provinces (Kiev, Lviv) are Slavic, adhere to the Catholic Church and the Pope in
Rome, and look to the EU and U.S. for investment and aid.
Prior to 2014, an uneasy truce existed between Washington and Moscow that allowed a
pro-Russian President while at the same time permitting increasing contact with the EU. Then
the U.S. and UK overreached by allowing the CIA and MI6 to foment a "color revolution" in Kiev
called the "Euromaidan Revolution."
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych resigned and fled to Moscow. Pro-EU protestors took
over the government and signed an EU Association Agreement.
In response, Putin annexed Crimea and declared it part of Russia. He also infiltrated
Donetsk and Luhansk and helped establish de facto pro-Russian regional governments. The U.S.
and EU responded with harsh economic sanctions on Russia.
Ukraine has been in turmoil (with increasing corruption) ever since. U.S.-Russia relations
have been ice-cold, exactly as the globalists intended.
The U.S- induced fiasco in Ukraine not only upset U.S.-Russia relations, it derailed a cozy
money laundering operation involving Ukrainian oligarchs and Democratic politicians. The Obama
administration flooded Ukraine with non-lethal financial assistance.
This aid was amplified by a four-year, $17.5 billion loan program to Ukraine from the IMF,
approved in March 2015. Interestingly, this loan program was pushed by Obama at a time when
Ukraine did not meet the IMF's usual borrowing criteria.
Some of this money was used for intended purposes, some was skimmed by the oligarchs, and
the rest was recycled to Democratic politicians in the form of consulting contracts, advisory
fees, director's fees, contributions to foundations and NGOs and other channels.
Hunter Biden and the Clinton Foundations were major recipients of this corrupt recycling.
Other beneficiaries included George Soros-backed "open society" organizations, which further
directed the money to progressive left-wing groups in the U.S.
This cozy wheel-of-fortune was threatened when Donald Trump became president. Trump
genuinely desired improved relations with Russia and was not on the receiving end of laundered
aid to Ukraine.
Hillary Clinton was supposed to continue the Obama policies, but she failed in the general
election. Trump was a threat to everything the globalists, Democrats and pro-NATO elites had
constructed in the 2010s.
The globalists wanted China and the U.S. to team up against Russia. Trump understood
correctly that China was the main enemy and therefore a closer union between the U.S. and
Russia was essential.
The elites' efforts to derail Trump gave rise to the "Russia collusion" hoax. While no one
disputes that Russia sought to sow confusion in the U.S. election in 2016, that's something the
Russians and their Soviet predecessors had been doing since 1917. By itself, little harm was
done.
Yet, the elites seized on this to concoct a story of collusion between Russia and the Trump
campaign. The real collusion was among Democrats, Ukrainians and Russians to discredit
Trump.
It took the Robert Mueller investigation two years finally to conclude there was no
collusion between Trump and the Russians. By then, the damage was done. It was politically
toxic for Trump to reach out to the Russians. That would be spun by the media as more evidence
of "collusion."
Russian President Vladimir Putin (l.) has recently named a new Prime Minister, Mikhail
Mishustin (r.). This is part of a complex government reorganization designed to extend Putin's
rule beyond existing term limits. This is a setback for democracy, but may be a plus for the
economy because it adds stability and continuity to Putin's programs.
This whirl of false charges, cover-ups, and deep state sabotage finally led to Trump's
impeachment on December 18, 2019.
Fortunately, the Senate impeachment trial may soon be behind us with Trump's exoneration in
hand (although new impeachment charges and false accusations cannot be ruled out).
Is the stage finally set for improved U.S.-Russia relations, relief from U.S. sanctions, and
a significant increase in U.S. direct foreign investment in Russia?
Right now, my models are telling us that Russia is one of the most attractive targets for
foreign investment in the world. Just because U.S. policymakers missed the boat does not mean
that investors must do the same.
Russia is often denigrated by Wall Street analysts and mainstream economists who know little
about the country. Russia is the world's largest country by area and has the largest arsenal of
nuclear weapons of any country in the world.
It has the world's 11th largest economy at over $1.6 trillion in annual GDP, ahead of South
Korea, Spain and Australia and not far behind Canada, Brazil and Italy.
It also is the world's third largest producer of oil and related liquids, with output of
11.4 million barrels per day, about 11% of the world's total. The U.S. (17.8 million b/d),
Saudi Arabia (12.4 million b/d) and Russia combine to provide 41% of the world's liquid fuels.
The latter two countries effectively control the world's oil price by agreeing on output
quotas.
Russia has almost no external dollar-denominated debt and has a debt-to-GDP ratio of only
13.50% (the comparable ratio for the United States is 106%).
In short, Russia is too big and too powerful to ignore despite the derogatory and uninformed
claims of globalists. Importantly, Russia is emerging from the oil price shock of 2014-2016 and
is in a solid recovery.
The stage is now set for significant economic expansion as illustrated in the chart below
from Moody's Analytics:
This graphic analysis from Moody's Analytics divides major economies into categories of
Recovery, Expansion, Slowdown and Recession. Economies revolve clockwise through these four
phases. The U.S. is in a Slowdown phase with some risk of Recession. Russia is in the Recovery
phase heading toward Expansion. The Russian situation is the most attractive for investors
because it offers cheap entry points with high returns as the Expansion phase begins.
Russia has also gone to great lengths to insulate itself from U.S. economic sanctions. Their
reserves have recovered to the $500 billion level that existed before the 2014 oil price
collapse with one important difference. The dollar component of reserves has shrunk
substantially while the gold component has increased to over 20%.
With the recent surge in gold prices, Russia's reserves get a significant boost (when
expressed in dollars) because of the higher dollar value of the gold reserves. Gold cannot be
hacked, frozen or seized, as is the case with digital dollar assets.
Russia's fortunes have been improving not only because of low debt and higher gold prices
but also because of higher oil prices. The country is poised for a strong expansion, even if
U.S. hostility caused by the Democrats continues.
If Trump regains his footing after impeachment and wins a second term (which I expect),
investors can expect warmer relations with Russia and an even more powerful Russian economic
expansion than the one already underway. Tags
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft warned the
Palestinians on Friday that bringing their displeasure with the U.S. peace plan to the world
body would only "repeat the failed pattern of the last seven decades."
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will speak in the U.N. Security Council in the next two
weeks about the plan, Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour said on Wednesday, adding that he
hoped the 15-member council would also vote on a draft resolution on the issue.
However, the United States is certain to veto any such resolution, diplomats said. That
would allow the Palestinians to take the draft text to the 193-member U.N. General Assembly,
where a vote would publicly show how the Trump administration's peace plan has been received
internationally.
Craft said that while the Palestinians' initial reaction to the plan was anticipated, "why
not instead take that displeasure and channel it into negotiations?"
"Bringing that displeasure to the United Nations does nothing but repeat the failed pattern
of the last seven decades. Let's avoid those traps and instead take a chance on peace," she
told Reuters.
Craft said the United States was ready to facilitate talks and that she was "happy to play
any role" that contributes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan unveiled by U.S. President
Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Mansour said on Thursday: "There is not a single Palestinian official (who) will meet with
American officials now after they submitted an earthquake, the essence of it the destruction of
the national aspirations of the Palestinian people. This is unacceptable."
Israel's U.N. mission signaled on Tuesday that it was preparing for the Palestinians to
pursue U.N. action, saying in a statement that it was "working to thwart these efforts, and
will lead a concerted diplomatic campaign with the U.S."
Harry Stotle George Galloway accused Chritopher Hitchens of 'proselytising for the devil'
after Hitchens gave neocons the intellectual thumbs up for unleashing hell after 9/11, while it
is common knowledge the pro-war, liberal media had to acquire a paint factory because so many
coatings were required to white-wash the lies and fabrications employed to rationalise Bush's
'war on terror' and many events leading up to it (not least the fact the US buddied up with
Saddam a decade earlier in order to foment war with Iran).
By contrast counterveiling forces (such as Galloway) have almost no voice within political
spheres, the academic world and certainly the MSM, and when necessary certain propaganda
operations unfold to subvert meaningful investigations, such as the alleged chemical attack in
Douma (where, ironically, Peter Hitchens amongst others has called bullshit)
Of course its important to deconstruct flagrent untruths (as Kevin Ryan does in this fine
article) not least because they have been used as a platform for the current reign of terror in
the Middle East – but the question is, in totalitarian states like America (where
authorities effectively act as judge, jury and executioner) how can this knowledge be used to
shake up a system that has closed its eyes and ears to truth or reality?
Put another way who expects the likes of Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher to ever hold authority to
account?
Now depending on your ideologial outlook the actions of the US are either a facet of the
'international rules based order' (which IMO is no more than a self-aggrandising term neocons,
like Tony Blair, love to apply to themselves), or abject betrayal of the holocaust: a critical
moment in history when the world vowed to learn from the terrible conseqeunces that arise when
powerful, lawless states are unconstrained by public opinion or cultural watchdogs.
One clue to answering this rhetorical question is the way whistleblowers or publishers are
treated by those they accuse of wrong doing – the evidence tells us that just like
Guantanamo they are likely to be tortured and subject to sham legal proceedings.
As an aside it begs questions about the kind or people, such as prosecutors who are willing
participate in this cruel process – they are the same sort of people that would have
cropped up in Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany I imagine?
Maggie ,
your link buffers and I can't access.
Harry Stotle ,
Search: 'Christopher Hitchens prosthelytized for the Devil – George Galloway' –
in YouTube. that should find it.
Patrick C ,
Harry, I was reading along nodding in agreement and then, as the song says, you spoil it all
by saying, I hate you. The Soviet Union, by equating it with Nazi Germany. As you say it's
important to, "deconstruct flagrant untruths." And this is possibly the granddaddy of all
untruths. But as this isn't even a comment, rather it's an answer to a comment, there simply
isn't the space to fully contest that characterization. I would hope given your obvious
intelligence you might make it a priority to research and understand the Cold War
demonization of the USSR and before that the attempts to crush them. I am not excusing their
crimes I'm saying there weren't any. Certainly not in the sense that we've been brainwashed
to believe. You can dismiss me as an idealogue if you wish or you can start the hard slog
towards understanding. Otherwise loved what you wrote.
Harry Stotle ,
Thanks, Patrick – I am not suggesting equivalence except to the extent the legal
systems in Russia and Germany were co-opted to fulfil certain ideological goals (as they are
in the west today given high ranking political figures are more or less exempt from any sort
of meaningful judicial scrutiny).
Talking about Russia in particular it is claimed, "According to the International
Memorial, the law on rehabilitation covers 11-11.5 million people in the territory of the
former USSR. The latest (2016) statistical calculations are given in the article by A.
Roginsky and E. Zhemkova "Between sympathy and indifference – rehabilitation of victims
of Soviet repressions".
About 5.8 million people became victims of "administrative repressions" directed against
certain groups of the population (kulaks, representatives of repressed peoples and religious
denominations). From 4.7 to 5 million people were arrested on individual political charges,
of which about a million were shot. These are preliminary estimates obtained as a result of
many years of work by researchers with internal statistics of punitive bodies at the central
and regional levels, investigative cases.
As the "Memorial" movement, it is fundamentally important to establish the names of all
the repressed. At the moment, in the consolidated database "Victims of Political Terror in
the USSR", there are more than 3 million people. This base was compiled mainly on the basis
of regional Books of Remembrance, in the preparation of which members of local Memorial
organizations often took part. The database is currently being updated." (site contents can
be translated into English) https://www.memo.ru/ru-ru/history-of-repressions-and-protest/chronology-stat/
Just to add I know a reasonable amount about 9/11, know a little about the US empire (and
Britain's role in it) and have also looked at historians who have questioned specifics about
the holocaust (and here I mean David Irving, a brilliant but deeply flawed, and unempathic
man).
Russia however I am less sure about.
I would just add that revolutions are always violent because no one ever relinquishes
power without a fight, while reverberations from such convulsions can carry consequences long
after they first occured.
For example, Trotsky was tried and found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in
absentia – as you must know he was murdered in Mexico following severe head wounds
inflicted by an icepick.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I hope that Hitchens' water-boarding didn't cause his oesophageal cancer. That would be
ironic.
"... Presently, the West is trying to overthrow governments in several independent countries, on different continents. From Bolivia (the country has been already destroyed) to Venezuela, from Iraq to Iran, to China and Russia. The more successful these countries get, the better they serve their people, the more vicious the attacks from abroad are, the tougher the embargos and sanctions imposed on them are. The happier the citizens are, the more grotesque the propaganda disseminated from the West gets. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, some young people, out of financial interest, or out of ignorance, keep shouting: "President Trump, Please Liberate Us!" Or similar, but equally treasonous slogans. They are waving U.S., U.K. and German flags. They beat up people who try to argue with them, including their own Police Force. ..."
"... So, let us see, how the United States really "liberates" countries, in various pockets of the world. ..."
"... Let us visit Iran, a country which (you'd never guess it if consuming only Western mass media) is, despite the vicious embargos and sanctions, on the verge of the "highest human development index bracket" (UNDP). How is it possible? Simple. Because Iran is a socialist country (socialism with the Iranian characteristics). It is also an internationalist nation which is fighting against Western imperialism. It helps many occupied and attacked states on our planet, including Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia (before), Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, to name just a few. ..."
"... Washington is getting more and more aggressive, in all parts of the world. It also pays more and more for collaboration. And it is not shy to inject terrorist tactics into allied troops, organizations and non-governmental organizations. Hong Kong is no exception. ..."
"... Thank god the US is heading, quite unmistakably now, down the same flush which swallowed the USSR! ..."
"... Yep. America bringing "freedom and democracy" to the world one bomb and bullet at a time. Pretty soon they'll be nobody left to freedomize and democratize. ..."
"... The Democrats deplore humanitarian reasons prior to invading a sovereign nation-state, while Republicans says militarism will keep us safe, however, in actuality the objectives of the political duopoly as reflected in the military/security/surveillance corporate state is rather consistent they're interested in usurping precious resources by acquiring hegemony over significant geostrategic territories. ..."
"... Orwellian speech aside, everything currently boils down to genuine freedom in all its forms not just physical slavery (like in the neoliberal/neocon/zionist wars and its outcomes) but also the mental slavery that leads us to physical slavery. Unfortunately we do not live at the best of times currently, the net of complete neo- slavery is almost upon us and we only have a small window of opportunity to try to stop it. The Smart Grid/IoT system is almost on top of us. Let's fight it with sharing info; and hopefully as a very large population make the establishment listen to us through sustained, strategic non-violent civil disobedience.
"... After 500+ years of Western colonial & now neocolonial plunder and mayhem, maybe it's time to look a bit deeper into how Western cultural narratives have shaped a way of seeing ourselves, others and the world not shared by literally most of the human family. The WEIRD research is an illuminating and interesting examination of some of these differences and how they challenge the very concept of "human nature" associated with Western societies. ..."
"... "Closely related to the depoliticising practices of neoliberalism, the politics of social atomisation and a failed sociality is the existence of a survival of the fittest ethos that drives oppressive narratives used to define both agency and our relationship to others. Mimicking the logic of a war culture, neoliberal pedadogy creates a predatory culture in which the demand of hyper competitiveness pits individuals against each other through a market based logic in which compassion and caring for the other is replaced by a culture of winners and losers" ..."
"... Neo-liberalism ends in neo-feudalism, with 99.9% of humanity serfs and villeins, and a tiny ruling elite controlling EVERYTHING. The project proceeds apace, with road-kill like Corbyn and the 500,000 'antisemites' who joined Labour littering the road to Hell on Earth. ..."
There are obviously some serious linguistic issues and disagreements between the West and the rest
of the world. Essential terms like "freedom", "democracy", "liberation", even "terrorism", are all mixed up and
confused; they mean something absolutely different in New York, London, Berlin, and in the rest of the world.
Before we begin analyzing, let us recall that countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United
States, as well as other Western nations, have been spreading colonialist terror to basically all corners of the
world.
And in the process, they developed effective terminology and propaganda, which has been justifying, even
glorifying acts such as looting, torture, rape and genocides. Basically, first Europe, and later North America
literally "got away with everything, including mass murder".
The native people of Americas, Africa and Asia have been massacred, their voices silenced. Slaves were imported
from Africa. Great Asian nations, such as China, what is now "India" and Indonesia, got occupied, divided and
thoroughly plundered.
And all was done in the name of spreading religion, "liberating" people from themselves, as well as "civilizing
them".
Nothing has really changed.
To date, people of great nations with thousands of years of culture, are treated like infants; humiliated, and as
if they were still in kindergarten, told how to behave, and how to think.
Sometimes if they "misbehave", they get slapped. Periodically they get slapped so hard, that it takes them
decades, even centuries, to get back to their feet. It took China decades to recover from the period of
"humiliation". India and Indonesia are presently trying to recuperate, from the colonial barbarity, and from, in the
case of Indonesia, the 1965 U.S.-administered fascist coup.
But if you go back to the archives in London, Brussels or Berlin, all the monstrous acts of colonialism, are
justified by lofty terms. Western powers are always "fighting for justice"; they are "enlightening" and "liberating".
No regrets, no shame and no second thoughts. They are always correct!
Like now; precisely as it is these days.
Presently, the West is trying to overthrow governments in several independent countries, on different continents.
From Bolivia (the country has been already destroyed) to Venezuela, from Iraq to Iran, to China and Russia. The more
successful these countries get, the better they serve their people, the more vicious the attacks from abroad are, the
tougher the embargos and sanctions imposed on them are. The happier the citizens are, the more grotesque the
propaganda disseminated from the West gets.
*
In Hong Kong, some young people, out of financial interest, or out of ignorance, keep shouting: "President Trump,
Please Liberate Us!" Or similar, but equally treasonous slogans. They are waving U.S., U.K. and German flags. They
beat up people who try to argue with them, including their own Police Force.
So, let us see, how the United States really "liberates" countries, in various pockets of the world.
Let us visit Iran, a country which (you'd never guess it if consuming only Western mass media) is, despite the
vicious embargos and sanctions, on the verge of the "highest human development index bracket" (UNDP). How is it
possible? Simple. Because Iran is a socialist country (socialism with the Iranian characteristics). It is also an
internationalist nation which is fighting against Western imperialism. It helps many occupied and attacked states on
our planet, including Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia (before), Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, to
name just a few.
So, what is the West doing? It is trying to ruin it, by all means; ruin all good will and progress. It is starving
Iran through sanctions, it finances and encourages its "opposition", as it does in China, Russia and Latin America.
It is trying to destroy it.
Then, it just bombs their convoy in neighboring Iraq, killing its brave commander, General Soleimani. And, as if
it was not horrid enough, it turns the tables around, and starts threatening Teheran with more sanctions, more
attacks, and even with the destruction of its cultural sites.
Iran, under attack, confused, shot down, by mistake, a Ukrainian passenger jet. It immediately apologized, in
horror, offering compensation. The U.S. straightway began digging into the wound. It started to provoke (like in Hong
Kong) young people. The British ambassador, too, got involved!
As if Iran and the rest of the world should suddenly forget that during its attack on Iraq, more than 3 decades
ago, Washington actually shot down an Iranian wide-body passenger plane (Iran Air flight 655, an Airbus-300), on a
routine flight from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. In an "accident", 290 people, among them 66 children, lost their lives.
That was considered "war collateral".
Iranian leaders then did not demand "regime change" in Washington. They were not paying for riots in New York or
Chicago.
As China is not doing anything of that nature, now.
The "Liberation" of Iraq (in fact, brutal sanctions, bombing, invasion and occupation) took more than a million
Iraqi lives, most of them, those of women and children. Presently, Iraq has been plundered, broken into pieces, and
on its knees.
Is this the kind of "liberation" that some of the Hong Kong youngsters really want?
No? But if not, is there any other performed by the West, in modern history?
*
Washington is getting more and more aggressive, in all parts of the world.
It also pays more and more for collaboration.
And it is not shy to inject terrorist tactics into allied troops, organizations and non-governmental
organizations. Hong Kong is no exception.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia, China, Venezuela, but also many other countries, should be carefully watching and
analyzing each and every move made by the United States. The West is perfecting tactics on how to liquidate all
opposition to its dictates.
It is not called a "war", yet. But it is. People are dying. The lives of millions are being ruined.
Rhisiart Gwilym
,
Thank god the US is heading, quite unmistakably now, down the same flush which swallowed the USSR!
Yep. America bringing "freedom and democracy" to the world one bomb and bullet at a time. Pretty soon
they'll be nobody left to freedomize and democratize.
Hey we voted against all this BS but what does
that matter in what they call "democracy" or even "republicanism" in the land of the free fire zone?
Charlotte Russe
,
The Democrats deplore humanitarian reasons prior to invading a sovereign nation-state, while
Republicans says militarism will keep us safe, however, in actuality the objectives of the political
duopoly as reflected in the military/security/surveillance corporate state is rather consistent
they're interested in usurping precious resources by acquiring hegemony over significant geostrategic
territories.
Norn
,
150 years ago, The US saw Korea as too isolationist and decided to [what else?] '
liberate
'
the Koreans.
Western Disturbance in the Shinmi 1871 year Korea
On 10 June 1871, about 650 American invaders landed [on korean shores] and captured several forts,
killing over 200 Korean troops with a loss of only three American dead.
Tallis Marsh
,
Orwellian speech aside, everything currently boils down to genuine freedom in all its forms not just
physical slavery (like in the neoliberal/neocon/zionist wars and its outcomes) but also the mental
slavery that leads us to physical slavery. Unfortunately we do not live at the best of times
currently, the net of complete neo- slavery is almost upon us and we only have a small window of
opportunity to try to stop it. The Smart Grid/IoT system is almost on top of us. Let's fight it with
sharing info; and hopefully as a very large population make the establishment listen to us through
sustained, strategic non-violent civil disobedience.
To make a start: are you as confused as I
am/was about why too many of the general public are just not informed, not 'awake? Why they do not
seem to know the reality about the lies & corruption by a small global-establishment; how our world is
really run; who is running it; and what their plans and ultimate agenda is? The following video so
precisely pin-points how & why; it would be a terrible shame if people did not watch it and share it.
Thank you to a leader who did share it so much appreciated!
Tallis Marsh, Great video, and I agree with a lot of it, but I think the numerology stuff is
bollocks, as is the idea that "the elite" have this secret very advanced technology, and can
perform "magic powers", beyond the basic principles of physics and maths.
However, the Truth is
quite horrendous. I personally felt, I had been physically kicked very hard in my guts, and to the
depths of my soul, when in a moment, I became personally convinced that the Official US Government
story of 9/11 was impossible, because it did not comply with the basic principles of physics and
maths.
I understood all the implications in that moment in February 2003. It was not an alien culture,
that I did not understand, that did this atrocity, it was my culture, and I knew almost exactly
what was going to happen.
Most people, don't want to know, and won't even look, because they are not mentally capable of
tolerating the horror. The truth will send many such people mad. They are better off not knowing,
carrying on their lives as best they can. Most people are good, and not guilty of anything. It's
just that they won't be able to cope with the truth, that it is our culture, our governments, our
institutions, and our religions, which are so evil.
Why isn't Tony Blair on trial for War Crimes Against Humanity?
Its because the entire system is rotten to the core, and will eventually collapse.
Tony
Tallis Marsh
,
I have a few questions (that imo are vital). How would you define magic/magick?
What about magic/magick being the manipulation of sound and vision to influence/control
others?
Observe our industries like the publishing industry newspapers, academic books, brands,
logos, internet; tv, film internet video industry; music industry Who founded and instituted
all these industries using the particular system of 'words', numerals, symbols, music and sounds
these are now all-pervasive in our world; who is using them to manipulate us and for what
purposes? What are the meanings of these sounds and symbols, etc? E.g. What are the hidden
meanings of words/parts of words e.g. el as in elder, elite, election, elevate ? Traditionally
'el' was Saturn.
What is the real history of our world, country, local area (and who is in charge of academia,
publishing of all kinds are they the ones who have rewritten history in order to keep almost
all of us in the dark)? How can we find out the true history of our world and know its accuracy?
E.g. Why are the worshipers of El/Saturn; and all their Saturnalian symbols around us in the
world? e.gs: black gowns worn by the judiciary, priests, graduates; black cubes/squares found on
hats of religious leaders, graduates' hats and black cubes found as monuments in such
culturally-different places around the world like Saudi Arabia, NYC, Denmark, Australia?
Note: I do not have the answers (I'm still researching) but are these not good questions to
explore because the more you look/hear, the more you see that many of the things mentioned above
seem to be related; and some would call this magic/magick. To be clear, I am not superstitious
and I do not believe in or practice these things myself but as far as I know, a group with
immense power do seem to believe these things described.
Tallis Marsh
,
For symbols, a good place to start for research is geometry and alchemy. Traditionally, a
major part of elite education studied/studies geometry (including 'sacred geometry') and
ancient education studied alchemy/chemistry and subjects like astrology/astronomy? Part of
the Seven Liberal Arts (the trivium and quadrivium combined), I think.
For history, it is
good to research the ancient places and cultures of Phoenicia, Canaan, Ur, Sumeria and
Babylon (apparently all of which were brought together into a hidden eclectic culture through
the elites which moved into ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and then moved into/by Celtic/Druidic
culture in Central and Northern Europe and now practised in various forms (some hidden but
apparent in symbols) in major religions, the freemasons and modern royalty?
Tallis Marsh
,
Re: Saturnalian symbols. Forgot to mention almost all, if not
all
corporate brand logos (which companies buy for
extortionate prices?! Who and why gives out the ideas for brand logos?) seem to be a
variation of Saturnalian symbols like the planet's rings, the colour black, cubes, hexagrams;
and parts of these things like XX, swish, etc
Not confused, frankly. The ruling classses must always devote massive resources to promoting the
dominant ideology that underpins their rule or else they are finished. The hight priests who pump
out this ideology have always had high status look at Rupert Murdoch.
nottheonly1
,
Just remember one 'thing(k)':
EVERYTHING you know was told to you by another human.
Everything human believes in was made up by human to suit his needs.
Human makes stuff up as it goes.
God/religion/the unknown is all evidence for 'not knowing'.
For it is the one who sees and hears 'thinks' the way they are.
That everything is and human has absolutely no clue as to why.
No whatsoever clue. But lots of all kinds of stories.
There is only one veil the veil of delusion. To be deluded enough not
to understand that 'The Universe' is an Organism (with all kinds of organs)
that lives and grows.
On Earth, this Organism has cancer. Mankind is that cancer on The Universe.
Mankind is Earth's cancer.
Those who have the porential to look through it all already do.
Those who don't have the potential to look through it all never will.
One day, the 'history' of mankind will also become just another story.
With no one to listen to.
Gary Weglarz
,
After 500+ years of Western colonial & now neocolonial plunder and mayhem, maybe it's time to look a
bit deeper into how Western cultural narratives have shaped a way of seeing ourselves, others and the
world not shared by literally most of the human family. The WEIRD research is an illuminating and
interesting examination of some of these differences and how they challenge the very concept of "human
nature" associated with Western societies.
"To date, people of great nations with thousands of years of culture, are treated like infants;
humiliated, and as if they were still in kindergarten, told how to behave, and how to think."
As
happenned right HERE in the UK last month at the polls when they were offered the first REAL hope of
lifting the yoke of the ancient imperialist forces for over half a century- the election of a GENUINE
social democratic Labour government.
"..the West is trying to overthrow governments in several independent countries, on different
continents." confirms Vltchek.
As the West (the ancient imperialists to be exact) DID overthrow what should be the current UK
government BEFORE it could take office a Advance Coup avoiding all the nastiness of having actual
military parking its tanks in Whitehall and having Betty supporting it as beardy gets dragged off for
crucifixion.
Achieved by the dirtiest election EVER in UK history using the combined forces of the 5+1 eyed
Empire ordered into action, by Up Pompeo Caesar General, who visits his latest victorious battlefield
today. Here to collect his tributes for delivering his Gauntlet to stop the Corbynite Labour
government taking office by vote rigging using the favourite DS big data Canadian company CGI and
its monopoly, of the privatised postal vote system of the UK.
Here to celebrate a brexit so long planned and also to deliver the final final solution victory for
a Israeli APARTHEID state which like a lightning rod is doomed to be struck by such forces.
A coup. A junta. At the heart of a diseased, decrepit, shrinking Empire doomed just like Rome.
Morbidly persuing a 'last ditch' master plan to reverse the decline from ever deeper bunker
mentality and hoping to form a Singapore on Thames to keep its ancient City home.
Huzzah! the crowds lining the grand avenues sceam as he arrives to claim his triumph.
In his dreams.
UP POMPEO! UP YOURS!
Francis Lee
,
"As happenned right HERE in the UK last month at the polls when they were offered the first REAL
hope of lifting the yoke of the ancient imperialist forces for over half a century- the election of
a GENUINE social democratic Labour government."
Errrm the Labour party is not a genuine
social-democratic formation. It is a pantomime horse consisting of the party in the country and the
Parliamentary party a parliamentary party that is thoroughly Blairite and shows no signs of
becoming anything other. Moreover, there is the 'Labour Friends of Israel' a zionist-front
organisation consisting of a majority in the Parliamentary party which takes its its foreign policy
cue from Tel Aviv. In this respect it has accepted the IHRA definition of anti-semitism. Jewish
members of the Labour have been expelled for alleged anti-semitism. Bizarre or what.
You see the problem with the Labour party is that it wants to be thought of as being
respectable, moderate, non-threatening and so forth. Therefore, it is Pro monarchy, pro-NATO,
pro-Trident, pro-FTTP, pro-Remainer and consists of a Shadow cabinet key positions of inter alia,
Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, John MacDonnell, who seems to have had a Damascene conversion. The
position left vacant by the departure of Tom Watson is still unfilled. Is this the team that is
going to lead us to the social democratic society. In short it is a thoroughly conservative (small
c)political party and organization being pulled in several different directions at the same time.
It has only gained office (I say office rather than power) by detaching itself from its radicalism
and then sucking up to a new constituency of the professional and managerial middle class, which is
precisely where its leadership is drawn from.
But socialism or even social-democracy if it wants to be taken seriously as a movement which
fundamentally change the landscape of British politics must cease this sucking up to the PTB and
playing their game and stop being nice, cuddly and respectable. Unfortunately I do not see any sign
of this happening, now or in at any time in the future.
Dungroanin
,
Ah Francis "Errrm the Labour party is not a genuine social-democratic formation."
I would
guess you would say the same of the 1945 Labour party too.
You 'Marxist' tools of the bankers since the C19th have like a religious order been insistent
on promoting nationalist rebellion against a social democratic world.
Thats why you sell not just brexit but a HARD brexit while incantating Marxsist creed for
your Banker masters if two centuries.
Enjoy your damp squib celebrations in two days 11 pm,not midnight, because the bankers
don't even control time anymore!
As the FartAgers embarrassed us all with their willy waving union jocks the rest of the EU
held hands and sang Auld lang syne to us.
Lol.
paul
,
Labour is a waste of space and a waste of a man's rations. The sooner it consigns itself to
oblivion the better.
nottheonly1
,
There are obviously two Andre Vitschek.
But if you go back to the archives in London, Brussels or Berlin, all the monstrous acts of
colonialism, are justified by lofty terms. Western powers are always "fighting for justice"; they
are "enlightening" and "liberating". No regrets, no shame and no second thoughts. They are always
correct!
It is much worse. The fascists rewrite history as we type. Everywhere. Soon, WWII was started by
Russia and brave American murderers taught the Bolsheviks a lesson: Get Nukes!!!
Here is the Holy Grail of fascism. The God of fascism. The real 'uniter'. All the lies about how
bad Hitler was are Bolshevik propaganda and character defamation against which a dead person cannot
protest.
Some say that not all humans are like that. Like those who recklessly and generously dispose off
the well being of others, including their lives. Someone, however, must have told them that it is okay
to perpetrate crimes against humanity when you call them 'collateral damages'. But there is truth to
that.
Humanity will experience the collateral damages of the religious freaks that are see above
ready to follow the worst dictator ever or others into ruins. Based on the story that there is an
'Afterlife'. People who seriously believe in someone standing there at a gate in the sky dtermining if
you are allowed to eternally be with virgins, or do whatever is now worthless, because there are no
one-sided situations in a world of action and reaction.
Homo Sapiens is dead. He was replaced by Homo Consumos, Homo Gullibilitens, Homo Terroristicus,
Homo Greediensis, Homo Friocorazoniens and Homo Networkiens Isolatiens et insane al.
This is not working. Because close to eight billion people are helpless, because it would take one
billion to remove the one million that have hijacked the evolution of Homo Sapiens into a being that
better goes extinct before it can further spread.
All ya gotta do is read Mein Kampt to realize that uncle 'Dolf was nuttier than a fruit cake and a
total loony tune and that he should have been transferred from Landsberg to the nearest sanitarium
but then they took him seriously and as they say the rest is history
Millions upon millions of fellow human beings dead due to the direct consequences of imperialism, neo
colonialism, sanctions and rampant neoliberal economic policies that destroy people's lives and the
notions of solidarity and compassion.
Today, one of my mag customers said to me: "people have become disposable and forgotten about now,
especially those struggling to survive".
I couldn't have said it better myself.
It's all like a dog eat dog race to the bottom for most of us.
So many human beings just disposable and thrown on the scrap heap to die while the billionaires gorge
themselves from the rank exploitation and deaths of so many people.
How many of them would have shares in the merchants of death like Raytheon or Lockheed Martin or the
Big Banks?
Such dizzying levels of vast wealth and opulence next to grinding poverty, despair and chasms of
inequality.
Here's a quote from an article called 'Depoliticization Is A Deadly Weapon of Neoliberal Fascism' by
Henry Giroux:
"Closely related to the depoliticising practices of neoliberalism, the politics of
social atomisation and a failed sociality is the existence of a survival of the fittest ethos that
drives oppressive narratives used to define both agency and our relationship to others.
Mimicking the logic of a war culture, neoliberal pedadogy creates a predatory culture in which the
demand of hyper competitiveness pits individuals against each other through a market based logic in
which compassion and caring for the other is replaced by a culture of winners and losers"
And meanwhile, most of us stare, trance like, at our digital screens or we shop shop shop till we
drop, or sadly, the more sensitive souls fully lose themselves in drugs or gambling or alcohol to
deaden the gnawing pain of living in a dystopic, cruel, neoliberal society.
Or as Thatcher said: 'there is no such thing as society'. Bitch.
And things are only going to get worse.
I really really get your anger and frustration Andre.
nottheonly1
,
Or as Thatcher said: 'there is no such thing as society'. Bitch.
There is a song (electronic music) by Haldolium that uses a Thatcher impersonator to repeat
throughout the song:
"Yes, I am with You all the way to the end of the government."
We are witnessing the transfer of governance into private hands. The hands of the owner class.
Let's see how they see the problems of the many, the masses. Oh? They're not even looking?
Yes, this is a Dead End.
lundiel
,
Don't rely on music. Stormsy & Co won't liberate you. They are supporting the establishment. I
who love R&B, the music of struggle, know corporate bursaries to enter the class system when I
see them.
N probably already told you, but there's a huge site called Neoliberalism Softpanorama with
many hundreds of linked articles (if you have lots and lots of spare time!). Every subject
imaginable related to this warped cancer, espec the role of the media presstitutes.
Will check out that song later. Music helps keep me sane, as well as venting my spleen here and
elsewhere!
Bands such as Hammock, Whale Fall, Maiak, Hiva Oa, Yndi Halda. Six Organs Of Admittance to name
just a handful in my collection.
Highly contemplative and soothing.
Especially knowing how things are and what's coming, what most of us see.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Neo-liberalism ends in neo-feudalism, with 99.9% of humanity serfs and villeins, and a tiny ruling
elite controlling EVERYTHING. The project proceeds apace, with road-kill like Corbyn and the
500,000 'antisemites' who joined Labour littering the road to Hell on Earth.
Yes it does. You see where all this is heading. I see where all this is heading (tho can be a
bit naive at times) and except for our pet trolls who visit here, nearly everyone else at OffG
can see where all this is heading.
It's bloody frustrating that the large majority refuse to open their eyes, even when you explain
what is happening, and direct them to sites like here or The Saker or The Grayzone, etc.
Things are going to get really ugly and brutal, tho they already are for the tens of millions
just discarded like a bit of flotsam, all the homeless, and those living in grinding poverty,
those one or two paychecks away from losing their homes .
Society has become very callous and judgemental and atomised.
Just how the 0.01% planned it.
Richard Le Sarc
,
It's like the Protocols. Whether a 'forgery' by the Russians, or created as a pre-emptive
fabrication by certain Jewish figures (in order for the truth to be distorted and denied)it
describes behaviour that we do see. Just as all the 'antisemitic conspiracy theories' that
are denounced, concerning the attempts by Jewish and Zionist elites to control the West, are
attested by evidence that is impossible to deny. Except it MUST be denied. It is like the
JFK, RFK hits, the 9/11 fiasco and countless other examples. The truth is out there, and it
does NOT come anywhere near the Official Version. Meanwhile the Sabbat Goy Trump, and the
Zionist terrorist thug, simply eviscerate International Law in Occupied Palestinians, and NOT
ONE Western MSM presstitute scum-bag dares to say so. That is power.
Yes, the much heralded, deal of the century, Peace Plan, another stinking pile of lies and
garbage to further (if that's possible) screw the Palestinians into the dirt and rob them
of everything.
With scores more dead kiddies blown up or shot in the head or burned alive by the settler
fascists, and the World's most moral army. Kiddie killers.
I'll have a look at Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada shortly.
This outrage, decade after decade, is another main reason I boycott the whore filth
masquerading as . 'journalists'.
paul
,
People talk about the Protocols either as a genuine document or a forgery.
I think it is more likely to have been something of a dystopian piece of writing, like
Orwell's 1984.
This is what lies in store for you if you don't watch out, etc.
Looking at the Zionist
stranglehold over the world today, the author would probably say, "You can't say I didn't
warn you."
Seriously, how do we get the "woke" generation to stop dicking around with identity and "social media
influencers" and see just what they've bought into? It's not like it's even hard to understand, there
seems to be a miasma over Britain with the old seeking solace in social conservatism and the young
resigned to neoliberalism, debt, multiple careers, impossible targets, performance evaluation,
micromanagement,
Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic and Time
specified goals (SMART)
for your "stakeholders and customers". It's all so Disney. No wonder
people are going mad.
Fair dinkum
,
Just when I thought business jargon couldn't get any slimier.
'SMART' sounds like an MBA having a wet dream.
Harry Stotle
,
When working men and women were sent off to die in the trenches during WWI most, I suspect, would
have known virtually nothing about the geopolitics driving the conflict.
Now we have boundless
information streams yet the public is more outraged by some dickhead sounding off on Twitter than
they are about cruelty and trauma arising from brutal regime change wars.
Surely it is glaringly obvious that this kind of carnage is orchestrated by amoral politicians
acting at the behest of rapacious corporations and a crazed military?
What has gone wrong: unlike earlier generations they do not have the excuse of saying we didn't
know what has happening?
They do, or should know, for example, that around 3 million Vietnamese were killed because of a
childish theory (the domino theory), yet to them Twitter etiquette seems the more pressing issue.
Twatter's useless. Jack and his team of imperial censors shadowban anything that might upset the
comfortable applecart of consumerism. This is why you don't see anything relevant other than the
latest football, basket ball and baseball scores. If I was into sports betting I'd be on twatter
otherwise it's a waste of time.
nottheonly1
,
You should stop dicking around with identity.
Fair dinkum
,
The history of (mainly) white men and their religions, whether they be Christian or Mammon, is a
history of exploitation, human and ecological.
As a white western male I am ashamed.
Extinction will be too good for us.
Jasper
,
As a brown western male, I can say that you should not be ashamed. You are also one of the
exploited, the 'cannon fodder' during the wars contained high proportions of white western males
and we can see the contempt with which white working class communities are treated in the west
today.
True what they call "white trash" are beat up multiculturally as well as by the self righteous
white limousine liberal elitists. I'd say they are the most oppressed group in the country right
now.
Some of their trailer parks have worse poverty than Pine Ridge and that's saying
something. Many of them go to the city looking for gainful employment end up living on the
streets or in their cars even when they have job because the cost of living exceeds their
income.
San Francisco is a perfect example.
Peter Charles
,
Not
"The history of (mainly) white men
"
People only think that because that is the modern (edited at that) history we
are familiar with. Look a little deeper and we can see it is the history of Man, period, throughout
our existence. Man, black, white, yellow or anything in-between is and always has been greedy,
acquisitive, violent and jealous, it is our innate nature, likely the exact reason we are the most
successful animal species on the planet. Probably because we developed our intelligence during the
drastic changes that drove our predecessors from the trees to the plains and then out of Africa.
Civilisation and a satisfactory quality of life somewhat tempers these natural urges but as soon as
things get difficult we revert.
At the same time we have a small proportion of people that make these characteristics the
bedrock of their lives and for the majority of people they are the pack alphas they all too
willingly look up to and follow.
Fair dinkum
,
Most successful?
Reckon the cockroach family might prove that wrong.
Peter Charles
,
Hence the reason I included 'animal' in the phrase, or do you maintain that there has been
another animal more successful than Man?
Fair dinkum
,
Point taken Peter.
Rhisiart Gwilym
,
"Successful", Peter? "Man"? Really?
anonymous bosch
,
"Throughout our existence, Man, black, white, yellow or anything in-between is and always has
been greedy, acquisitive, violent and jealous, it is our innate nature, likely the exact reason
we are the most successful animal species on the planet."
Firstly, so that is our 'innate
nature' ? I wonder how many would agree with that assertion ? Secondly, in respect of "we are
the most successful animal species on the planet", I must question the use of the word
"successful" here for what have "succeeded" in doing right up until now has actually brought
us to the brink of extinction are you suggesting that our "innate nature" is to bring an end
to everything ?
Ramdan
,
greedy, acquisitive, violent and jealous, it is our innate nature
,
To be closer to truth this is just one side of the "innate nature". We are not black OR white
(inside) we are BOTH. that means we are also loving, compassionate, collaborative creatures.
Like in that native american tale: there are two wolves (black&white) the one you feed is the
one that prevails.
Unfortunately, humanity-from the very beggening- fed the black wolf : the rapacious predator and
elevated the most egregious of all beigns to positions of leadership. They were made kings,
presidents, prime ministers.
Meanwhile, the white wolfs were given a cross and placed at an almost unreachable
distance venerated with our tongue, desacrated with our actions.
This behaviour has reached its peak and today, competition, killing, betrayal, economical
success, hedonism have been elevated to the level of virtues.
Interestingly, those characteristic you mention (greedy, acquisitive, violent and jealous)
Buddha calls them: poisons of the mind, the defining symptom of a deranged mind ..but well, that
was another white wolf: Buddha, a MAN not a HU-man.
We'll do well and not wrong, if we took some time for internal exporation . To continue to
postpone our internal growth means postponing humanity's survival.
Not true. Some cultures are more willing to share with others. What you're are talking about are
those who have embraced the Social Darwinist "philosophy" of survival of the fittest which is
dominated mainly by whites but there are also other races who embrace this twisted 'philosophy"
then there are those who consider themselves the "chosen ones" 'cause the bible or torah or
talmud tells them so.
Antonym
,
As China is not doing anything of that nature, now.
Who is hiding behind bully no.1, the CIA/FED US?
Bully no.2, Xi / CCP-China.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Coming from an apologist for the planet's Number Two bully-boy, Israel, with its hatred of others,
belligerence, aggression, utter hateful contempt for International Law, dominance of industries of
exploitation like arms trafficking, surveillance methodologies and equipment, 'blood diamonds',
human organs trafficking,sex trafficking, pornography, 'binary options', online gambling, pay-day
lending etc,that takes real CHUTZPAH.
Antonym
,
All that with just 6.5 million Israeli Jews in total; Compare that to 1.3 billion Chinese in
China or 1.4 billions Sunnis.
Dyscalculia much?
Fair dinkum
,
The Chinese do not claim to be perfect, but then they also make no claim to be the chosen.
Antonym
,
No, China just calls itself modestly "Zhongguo" Central or Middle Kingdom, while for
Sunnis
all
others are
infidel
s.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Chinese civilization aims for harmony within society and between societies. Talmudic
Judaism sees all non-Jews as inferior, barely above animals, and enemies. Chalk and
cheese.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Yes, you really are busy little beavers, aren't you. With perhaps 40% of Israeli Jews
actually opposed to Israeli State fascism and terror, the numbers become even more stark. But
what counts is the money, the 'Binyamins' as they say in Brooklyn, and the CONTROL that they
purchase.
Antonym
,
Sure, plenty of Jews are not happy with Netanyahu's hard line. Your number reduces the
supporting Israelis to 3.9 million, even less. One big city size in the ME.
Money /
control: Ali Baba's cave with gold and treasure is not in Lower Manhattan -paper dollars +
little gold- but along the Arabian West coast-
real
oil and gas. The Anglo American and Brit 0.1% know that, but you don't
apparently.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Very poor quality hasbara. The Sauds are rich, the petro-dollar vital to US economic
dominance, but compared to Jewish elite control of Western finances, of US politics, of
US MSM, of the commanding heights of US Government and of the Ivy League colleges, it
is PEANUTS. And, in any case, the Sauds are doenmeh.
Richard Le Sarc
,
Jewish control of the West is mediated by the number of 'Binyamins' dispensed to the
political Sabbat Goyim, not the numbers of Jewish people. You know that-why dissemble? Can't
help yourself, can you.
paul
,
Olga Guerin at the state controlled, Zionist BBC, is apparently the latest Corbyn style
rabid anti-semite to be unmasked by the Board of Deputies.
In her coverage of the
Holocaust Industry's Auschwitz Jamboree, she made a very brief passing reference to
Palestinians living under occupation, and apparently that is unpardonable anti Semitism.
Capricornia Man
,
Rich. you forgot to mention gross, systematic interference in the politics of the UK, US,
Australia and who knows how many other countries.
paul
,
There are some grounds for optimism despite the utter undisguised barbarism of the US, Israel
and their satellites.
These vile regimes are having their last hurrah.
The US is on the brink of imploding. It will collapse politically, financially, economically,
socially, culturally, morally and spiritually.
When it does, its many satraps and satellites in the EU, the Gulf dictatorships, Israel, will go
down with it. It will be like eastern Europe in 1989.
All it takes is for the front door to be kicked in and the whole rotten structure will come
crashing down. Some sudden crisis or unforeseen event will bring this about. A sudden unwinding
of the Debt and Derivatives time bombs. Another war or crisis in any one of a number of
destabilised regions, Iran being an obvious favourite. There are many possibilities.
And the blueprint for a better world already exists. In fact, it is already being implemented.
Russia, China and Iran have survived the aggression directed against them. They have been left
with few illusions about the nature of the US regime and the implacable hatred and violence they
can expect from it.
These are the key players in the Belt And Road, which provides a new template for development
and mutual prosperity throughout the planet.
China has built infrastructure and industry in Africa and elsewhere in a single generation which
colonial powers neglected to provide in centuries of genocide, slaughter, slavery and rapacious
exploitation. It is not surprising that these achievements have been denigrated and traduced by
western regimes, who seek to ascribe and transfer their own dismal record of behaviour to China.
The Zio Empire is lashing out like a wounded beast. It is even attacking its own most servile
satellites and satraps. It just has to be fended off and left to die like a mad dog. Then a
better world will emerge.
George Cornell
,
Taiwan has been a US vassal for a very long time and its location next to China, its history as a
part of China and its lack of recognition should not be ignored. Its people are ethnically Chinese,
speak Chinese and follow most Chinese customs. For you to equate this to the presence of American
bases all over the world, meddling in hundreds of elections, assassinating elected leaders who
won't kowtow, invading country after country and causing millions of deaths for "regime changes" is
absolutely ridiculous.
paul
,
Taiwan is just another part of China that was brutally hacked off its body by rapacious western
imperial powers. Like Hong Kong, Tsingtao and Manchuria.
paul
,
Or Shanghai. No self respecting nation would accept this, but China has been a model of
restraint in not using force, but patient diplomacy, to rectify this imperial plunder.
Antonym
,
Or the Tibet, Aksai Chin, the Shaksgam Valley or the South China Sea. What's next,
Siberia?
paul
,
Tibet was Chinese before the United Snakes or Kosherstan even existed.
The South China Sea was recognised as Chinese until 1949, when the US puppet Chiang Kai
Shek was booted out and skulked around on Taiwan.
Then suddenly the SC Sea was no longer Chinese. Lord Neptune in Washington decreed
otherwise.
Martin Usher
,
I remember the downing of flight 655 because it was on the evening news in the US. Literally. The
Vincennes, the ship that shot down the airliner, had a news crew on board and they recorded the entire
incident, the excitement of the incoming threat, the firing of a couple of Standard missiles at the
threat, the cheering when the threat was neutralized followed by the "Oh, shit!" moment when they
realized what they had done. This was in the pre-youTube days and the footage was only shown once to
the best of my recollection so its probably long gone and buried. The lessons learned from that
incident was that the crew needed better training -- they appeared to be near panic -- and you shouldn't
really have those sorts of weapons near civilian airspace. Another lesson that's worth remembering is
that this was 30 years ago, far enough in the past that the state of the art missile carrier has long
been scrapped as obsolete (broken up in 2011). Put another way, we (the US) have effectively been in a
state of war with Iran for over 40 years. Its expensive and pointless but I suppose the real goal is
to keep our aerospace companies supplied with work.
johny conspiranoid
,
Yes, I remember that news clip as well. It was shown in the UK. There was one young 'dude' on a
swivel seat working the aiming device and a bunch of people cheering him on, then "oh shit!" as you
say. I also wonder if the whole thing was staged latter though, for damage limitation.
I remember seeing clips at the time, but this documentary is excellent, thanks for sharing. The
Capt of the USS Vincennes should have been put behind bars.
Richard Le Sarc
,
But he got a medal! The Vincennes returned to the USA to a 'heroes' welcome'. 'Warriors' one
and all.
No surprise. Many of the low life cretins that were responsible for the Wounded Knee
Massacre received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Ironic that many of the post humous
awards and the Purple Hearts received were those wounded or killed by the 7th's own
"friendly fire".
"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath:
Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"
Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former
United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January
2017 until April 2018
Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."
Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career
Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the
former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the
Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
The misconduct for which Donald Trump has been impeached centers on an attempt to drag a
foreign government into a U.S. election campaign. That caper has increased public attention
to the problem of foreign interference in U.S. politics, but the problem is more extensive
than discourse about the impeachment process would suggest.
Words matter, they can be as precise as scalpels or as blunt as a sledgehammer. In skilled
hands, a word-tool can be either be a scalpel or a sledgehammer.
Jewish ethnonationalism (Zionism) was well underway from the mid-1800s, and well-supported
(at least in terms of "solving the Jewish problem") in some elite circles in the early 1900s
as the Balfour Declaration proves. The Nazis erred in thinking it was the Jewish population
was the "problem", when the problem resided in the Jewish/banking and intellectual elites
(e.g. Rothchilds).
AIPAC etc. shows this malignant ideology continues to grow in scope and influence.
We here at MoA should adopt Florin's more correct terms and use them here at MoA AND
ANYWHERE ELSE WE POST... From and acorn of an idea, a mighty oak of understanding may grow.
But it won't grow if we don't nurture it.
Semitism refers to speakers of Semitic languages, of which Hebrew-speakers are but one
part... most of the rest are Arabic speakers. The term antisemitism was hijacked in the early
1800's.
"... also antisemitism, 1881, from German Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr
(1819-1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga
in 1879; see anti- + Semite.
Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost
always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try Hermann
Adler's Judaeophobia (1881). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also
antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article
in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature. Jew-hatred is attested
from 1881. As an adjective, anti-Jewish is from 1817."
---------
Words matter as the Israel Project's "Global Language Dictionary"(IP-GLG) demonstrates,
the Jewish ethnonationalists (Zionists) use words to hide their intentions. Why not call the
IP-GLD "Propaganda Language to support the theft of, and genocide in, Palestine"? It's a far
more accurate description of the contents and intents... but being honest and transparent is
not what the international Jew/Israel Lobby/elite is all about. https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/08/global-language-dictionary/
Trump and his Israeli partners are betting on Palestine's Arab friends to recognize the
finality of the window of opportunity that has presented itself and prevail upon the
Palestinian people to act accordingly.
For Israel, a rejection of this ultimatum benefits them far more than any Palestinian
acceptance. This fact, more than anything else, opens the door to the possibility that the
Palestinians can be dissuaded from their current hardline position rejecting the deal.
Most see this deal as cover for Israel's annexation of Occupied Palestine. The deal was
made public yesterday. Bibi rushed home today for the vote on Sunday to annex the Jordan
Valley and West Bank Settlements. This agreement was constructed for the occupiers and
negotiations did not include proprietors of the land.
Read on it is for the sole benefit of Israel.
Why the rush?
Kushner said not so soon...wait a month. but in Israel ......
"We have been working on this for three years, hundreds of hours, to bring the best
agreement in Israel," the source noted, adding that Trump's move to recognize the
application of Israeli law to the Jordan Valley, the Northern Dead Sea, Judea and Samaria
was "a huge thing" and an undeniable success for Israel.
The source clarified that the US side had preferred an Israeli annexation of these
territories "all at once" instead of a slice-by-slice approach, calling this a "technical
problem" but emphasizing that there was "no argument about the essence" of the
matter.[.]
Well, King Donald Trump giveth. The same king who abrogates international treaties has no
respect for the rights of others.
Ok btw. Mike Bloomberg is not really running a campaign to be president. He said, "I am
spending my money to get rid of Trump." Thing is whoever comes after must be approved by
the landlords.
"... I think they were trying to start a war when they killed Soleimani, and the Iranians decided to use it against them instead. Which is smart. Neocons talk a lot but they are not smart. They are bullies and cowards. ..."
Posted by: Patroklos | Jan 30 2020 23:02 utc | 124
I think they were trying to start a war when they killed Soleimani, and the Iranians
decided to use it against them instead. Which is smart. Neocons talk a lot but they are not
smart. They are bullies and cowards.
At present what I notice is what you do, there is a lot going on, but you won't find it in
the MSM. They are busy reducing their audience share with propaganda.
They kicked the jams out when they droned Soleiman. No more "deals".
But I expect Iran to do these things while this is going on:
1.) Annoy Trump and his minions and USG political class as much as possible, stay in their
face.
2.) Watch, and help their "proxies" work on making life unbearable in the Middle East for
us.
The Houthis seem to have just kicked the shit out of the Saudi coalition again. Quite a
few damaged ships and down aircraft reports too, not just Afghanistan.
The House voted 236 to 166 to kill the 2002 Authorization for Military Force (AUMF) on
Iraq. The law was drafted during the presidency of George W. Bush to authorize the 2003
invasion of Iraq, and has been used by subsequent administrations to continue military
activity in the country – most recently to justify the US drone assassination of
Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad earlier this month.[.]
The bill was one of two pieces of legislation passed by the House on Thursday aimed at
curbing Trump's warmaking powers. Prior to its passage, a bill prohibiting Trump from using
federal funds for "unauthorized military force against Iran" cleared the House floor, again
along party lines, with a vote of 228-175.[.]
Putin is nothing if not a pragmatist. A nationalist as well. See where Russia was when he
began his first term as President and where it is now which is even more impressive when
resistance from the US and 'friends' is taken into account.
Being pragmatic doesn't always satisfy everyone. He doesn't have the same political system
as the US and Western Democracies either, so there's that. I think a large part of his appeal
to those who see him objectively is his attempts to be a broker rather than a hot head
reactionary and that would apply to the nasties in Israel. Capt Obvious says Israel isn't a
standalone problem.
Putin and Netanyahu's relationship is too close for comfort.
Posted by: SharonM | Jan 30 2020 13:01 utc | 6
Name one national leader to whom Putin displays a lack of respect?
He's not a big-mouthed AmeriKKKan or a sleazy Pom. It's Russian (and Chinese) policy to keep
the door to the path of diplomacy open at all times.
I'm surprised that everyone is pretending not to notice that Trump hasn't finished helping
the "Israelis" to outsmart themselves. He's made several of their criminally psychotic dreams
come true and they've lapped them up without any apparent reservations about the legal and
moral ramifications.
He'll keep 'giving' them increasingly ridiculous concessions because he's probably as curious
as everyone else to discover if there's a practical limit to the quality and quantity of
asinine bullshit the "Israelis" will believe.
Thank you for the informative article by Sharon Tennison, about Putin.
Those who find it interesting and/or informative will also be interested in this much
earlier, much more detailed article that she wrote six years ago, about her initial and
considerable interactions with him when he was a civil-servant bureaucrat in St Petersbug in
the 90s. http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2014/04/russia-report-putin-.html
I wholeheartedly recommend this linked article (along with the one from Moe, above), and
am sure that anyone reading it will find it informative and a very helpful tool with regard
to understanding Putin's actions in today's world.
Sharon Tennison's rather in-depth account of the Vladimir Putin that she knew and dealt
with when he was a civil-servant bureaucrat in St Petersburg in the 90s will shed a lot of
light on the actions of today's Putin.
The first alteration in the global balance of power enabled by Russia-China cooperation
took place during the 1950s, of course. In that period, the PRC went from being a military
"basket case," with no defense industry to speak of, to possessing a reasonably modern force
within a span of just a decade. That super-energized process was inspired by the hard school
of war against a vastly better-armed opponent in the bloody Korean conflict, as is well
known. But the massive progress in Chinese military capabilities also could not have taken
place without enormous Soviet assistance. With respect to naval-related arms transfers,
Moscow had already given ten torpedo boats and eighty-three aircraft by the beginning of
1953, according to the scholarly journal. The process accelerated during 1953–55 with a
total of eight-one additional vessels transferred (amounting to 27,234 tons) and 148
aircraft. Among these ships were four destroyers, four frigates, and thirteen submarines.
Additionally, the Russians provided the Chinese with more than five hundred torpedoes and
over fifteen hundred sea mines, as well as coastal artillery pieces, radar and communications
equipment. A third batch of naval transfers was comprised of sixty-three vessels and
seventy-eight aircraft. Added to these very substantial allocations, five Chinese shipyards
apparently produced another 116 naval vessels, relying heavily on advisors, designs and
technology purchased from the USSR, during the period up until 1957. Finally, several
transfers agreed to in early 1959 "caused China's Navy to enter into the missile age."
Notably, these transfers included the R-11 , a primitive submarine-launched
ballistic missile (SLBM), and also the P-15 , one of the
earliest anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). Yes, these are the earliest progenitors of today's
JL-3 and YJ-12 missiles that now present quite credible threats.
In keeping with the presently jovial mood surrounding current Russia-China relations, very
little is said in this Chinese article regarding the Sino-Soviet conflict that brought the
two Eurasian giants to the brink of war in the late 1960s. The authors imply that the break
was really between the two respective Communist parties, rather than between the two navies,
but it is noted that the Kremlin's stated objective to form a "joint fleet" was viewed in
China as an encroachment on Chinese sovereignty. Nevertheless, this substantial military
cooperation between Moscow and Beijing during the 1950s is evaluated in this Chinese
appraisal to have had "major historical impact
[重要历史作用]." These authors contend that it
"effectively decreased the threat of American imperialism
[有效抵制美帝国主义的军事威胁].
They additionally conclude regarding this period: "The achievements of building up the
Chinese Navy cannot be separated from the assistance of Soviet experts
[中国海军建设的成绩是与苏联专家的帮助分不开的]."
For a long time, "Soviet revisionists" were not given such favorable treatment by Chinese
scholars, but now evidently the "east wind" is blowing once more. If the USSR very
substantially helped boost PRC military prospects during the 1950s, this paper by two Chinese
naval analysts argues cogently that a similarly ambitious and fateful program of Russia-China
military cooperation has had an analogous effect, starting in 1991. When seen in aggregate,
the numbers are indeed quite impressive. Russia has sold China, according to this Chinese
accounting, more than five hundred military aircraft, including Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, and
Il-76 variants. Almost as significant, Russia provided China with more than two hundred
Mi-171 helicopters. Just as these pivotal purchases launched China's air and land forces into
a new era, so the Chinese acquisition of four Sovremeny destroyers, along with twelve
Kilo -class submarines helped to provide the PLA Navy with the technological
wherewithal to enter the twenty-first century on a robust footing. That shortlist here,
moreover, does not even catalog other vital systems transferred, such as advanced air defense
systems, which have formed a bedrock of Chinese purchases from Russia.
Citing a Russian source, these Chinese authors claim that China spent $13 billion on
Russian weapons between 2000–05. That amounts to a decently hefty sum of cash,
especially by rather penurious post-Soviet standards. In fact, this raft of deals was not
only intended to rescue the PLA from obsolescence but simultaneously aimed to "resolve . . .
the survival and development problems [解决 . . .
生存和发展问题]"of the post-Soviet Russian
military-industrial complex too. Just as important as these technical transfers, however,
have been the human capital investments in cooperation. Here, this study points out that two
thousand intermediate and high-level Chinese officers have already graduated from Russian
military academies. The upper ranks of the PLA Navy, in particular, are said to be full of
these graduates, as reported in this study. Perhaps most critically for the future of the
Chinese armed forces, cooperation with Russia has entailed "in particular, promoting the
development of domestic weapons development levels and concepts.
[尤其带动了国内武器研制水平和理念的提升]."
Take, for example, the YJ-18 ASCM, which seems to be superior to any U.S. variants, is a
derivative of the Russian SSN-27 missile and is now becoming pervasive throughout the Chinese
fleet, with both surface and sub-launched variants.
For all the major results on the regional balance of power wrought by these two major
periods of Russian-Chinese security collaboration, however, there are very real reasons to
doubt that such a partnership will truly alter global politics. After all, the Chinese
analysis points out that arms sales from Russia to China have declined substantially from the
peak in 2005. Joint military exercises, moreover, are now quite regular, but they actually do
not seem to exhibit a bellicose trend toward larger and larger demonstrations of military
might. These tendencies may reflect new confidence in Beijing regarding its own abilities to
produce advanced weapons, of course, but also might reflect a certain degree of restraint --
a realization that too close a Russia-China military alignment could provide ample fuel for a
new Cold War that might be in the offing.
Still, American defense analysts must evaluate the possible results of a significantly
closer Russia-China security relationship, whether it is formalized into an actual "alliance"
or not. China and Russia currently have numerous joint development projects underway,
including both a large commercial airliner, as well as a heavy-lift helicopter. In the
future, will cooperative endeavors encompass frigates and VSTOL fighters, or nuclear
submarines and stealth bombers, or even aircraft carriers? Will Moscow and Beijing begin to
launch joint exercises of a large scale that have major strategic implications in highly
sensitive areas? Are third countries, such as Iran, set for "junior associate" status in the
so-called "quasi-alliance? And will China and Russia strive to coordinate strategic
initiatives to bring about common favorable strategic circumstances in the coming
decades?
Such a future is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. The combination of Russian
weapons design genius with Chinese organizational and production prowess could be formidable,
indeed. That will be another reason for states comprising the West to now exercise restraint,
embrace multi-polarity, and seek to avoid a return to the 1950s "with Chinese
characteristics."
Lyle
J. Goldsteinis Associate Professor at theChina
Maritime Studies Institute(CMSI) at theU.S. Naval War Collegein Newport, RI. The opinions expressed
in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy
or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
KREMLINOLOGY. I've been at this business for a while and one of the things I've learned is
that "Kremlinology" is a waste of time: speculating about who's who and the meaning of
personnel appointments is worthless . Why? Because we simply don't know: we don't know why X
was given that particular job and not another, we don't know how X and Y get along together and
how they interact with Z . In fact we really don't know very much about X, what he thinks, why
he thinks it and how he reacts to new things . It's all a black box: we see some of what goes
in and what comes out and have little idea of what happened inside the box . (We don't know
these things about our own countries – was
Freeland promoted or demoted ? – so what makes anyone think that we know these things
about far-away Russia?) So it's hardly surprising that Kremlinology has been a complete bust
– every move, including Putin's latest, surprises its practitioners . So I don't waste my
time speculating : I don't know enough; nobody does. (The only worthwhile legacy of years of
wasted effort is the
HAT .)
ANNIVERSARY. Saturday, as I calculate it, marked the day when the US and its minions had
been in Afghanistan twice as long as the Soviets were.
Record year for bombing, too .
ASSASSINATION. Did Pompeo threaten Russian and Chinese officials with assassination?
Misreported say I (
Veterans Today and Pravda.ru – not a winning combination); don't see it in the
actual speech .
(Sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity to go full Rosanna Rosanna Danna on your excellent
piece.)
Posted by: Larry
Johnson |
30 January 2020 at 01:41 PM I think this is pertinent to
the "Russian Sitrep" issue. Can one or more persons with a clearer view than mine comment on
the constant rhetoric regarding Ukraine being "at war with Russia" and more specifically
in a "hot war with Russia?"
Likewise with the hold on the aid to Ukraine being an "endangerment to US national
security" because it "encouraged Russian aggression in Ukraine."
My perception is that such talk is nonsensical, but both sides are using it and the endless
repetion is beginning to make me question my own mind.
Posted by: Patrick Armstrong |
30 January 2020 at 02:46 PM Thanks, Patrick. I recall
some time ago a Russian official (I believe it was Lavrov) being questioned about Russia having
invaded eastern Ukraine and replying that, "If we had invaded Ukraine you would not have to
be asking if we had done it." IIRC, he went on to ask if anyone was wondering whether or
not we had invaded Iraq.
Is it known to what (if any) degree the Russian government is assisting the eastern
separatists, and if so are they providing tanks? My understanding is that Russian individuals,
many of them military veterans, are going to Ukraine as volunteers.
The question if Russia was or is somehow militarily intervening in the Ukraine was recently
put to the German equivalent of the Congressional Research Service (both have an excellent
reputation).
The 'Scientific Service of the Bundestag' did find lots of media reports but no factual
evidence that any Russian military intervention had happened or is taking place.
A report, in German, on the issue can be found here:
I've said it a long time ago, that actual science (Political, Social, and in some cases
– "Hard" one as well) had been replaced with the Shamanism by now. It's latest iteration
is no longer a perverse union of the Press and think-tank(er)s, but anonymous Telegram channel.
Now, THEY know everything! Reliable insider, each and every one of them.
These failures of various "experts"/modern day Shamans, reminded me of some events in
Russia's past, that took place nearly a millennium ago:
"Year 6579 ( 1071) At this time, a magician appeared inspired by the devil. He came to Kiev
and informed the inhabitants that after the lapse of five years the Dnieper would flow
backward, and that the various countries would change their locations, so that Greece would be
where Rus' was, and Rus' where Greece was, and that other lands would be similarly dislocated.
The ignorant believed him, but the faithful ridiculed him and told him that the devil was only
deluding him to his ruin. This was actually the case, for in the course of one night, he
disappeared altogether
"A magician likewise appeared at Novgorod in the principate of Gleb. He harangued the
people, and by representing himself as a god he deceived many of them; in fact, he humbugged
almost the entire city. For he claimed to know all things, and he blasphemed against the
Christian faith, announcing that he would walk across the Volkhov River in the presence of the
public
"Then Gleb hid an axe under his garments, approached the magician, and inquired of him
whether he know what was to happen on the morrow or might even occur before evening. The
magician replied that he was omniscient. Then Gleb inquired whether he even knew what was about
to occur that very day. The magician answered that he himself should perform great miracles.
But Gleb drew forth the axe and smote him, so that he fell dead, and the people dispersed. Thus
the man who had sold himself to the devil perished body and soul."
- The Russian Primary Chronicle (Laurentian text).
bill h... if you want to keep your head in the spin cycle, here's another dispatch today
from propaganda central on the topic of ukraine and russian ''malign'' influence.. https://www.state.gov/secretary-pompeos-visit-to-ukraine/
Re: "Can one or more persons with a clearer view than mine comment on the constant rhetoric
regarding Ukraine being "at war with Russia" and more specifically in a "hot war with
Russia?""
Ukraine is waging tireless, constant, unrelenting war against Russia without declaring war
against Russia, without closing borders with Russia, without severing diplomatic relations with
Russia, without banning its citizens from travelling and working in Russia. And, of course,
Ukraine dares not to hinder its oligarchs from earning money by trading with Russia. Yes,
including Poroshenko. The scandal that erupted shortly before the elections, uncovered a scheme
by his party member, which allowed to supply the mighty Ukrainian military with the sub-par
spare parts made in Russia.
Needless to say – Ukraine also trades with DNR and LNR. Rinat Akhmetov, in fact,
became slightly richer since the victory of the Glorious Maidan Revolution of Dignity.
Re: US military assistance to Ukraine.
US military aid is so numerous, crucial and important, that a fetishistic love for the
"Javelin" rockets became a meme. The Ukrainian military loves "Javelins" so much, that don't
give them to their frontline troopers. Most (not yet sold out by underpaid Ukrainian warrant
officers) of the American hardware is placed in secure (ha-ha!) storage in the Western
Ukrainian depots that under the glorious reign of Poroshenko often suffered unexplainable
explosive combustions mere weeks before expected revisions of their contents.
So, yes, Bill H! Only American military aid helps Gondor-Ukraine to resist constant
onslaught of Mordor-Russia! So, American taxpayers – gib more! And if not the Ukrainians,
Putin will surely march to the English Channel. Any moment now. Juuuuuuust wait.
Posted by: Lyttenburgh |
30 January 2020 at 05:57 PM Hey Larry, the Gilda Radner
character you have in mind was actually Emily Litella. I made the same mistake once and was
corrected.
lizabeth Warren wrote an
article
outlining in general terms how she would bring America's current foreign wars to an end. Perhaps the most significant part of the
article is her commitment to respect Congress' constitutional role in matters of war:
We will hold ourselves to this by recommitting to a simple idea: the constitutional requirement that Congress play a primary
role in deciding to engage militarily. The United States should not fight and cannot win wars without deep public support.
Successive administrations and Congresses have taken the easy way out by choosing military action without proper authorizations
or transparency with the American people. The failure to debate these military missions in public is one of the reasons
they have been allowed to continue without real prospect of success [bold mine-DL].
On my watch, that will end. I am committed to seeking congressional authorization if the use of force is required. Seeking
constrained authorizations with limited time frames will force the executive branch to be open with the American people and
Congress about our objectives, how the operation is progressing, how much it is costing, and whether it should continue.
Warren's commitment on this point is welcome, and it is what Americans should expect and demand from their presidential
candidates. It should be the bare minimum requirement for anyone seeking to be president, and any candidate who won't commit to
respecting the Constitution should never be allowed to have the powers of that office. The president is not permitted to launch
attacks and start wars alone, but Congress and the public have allowed several presidents to do just that without any consequences.
It is time to put a stop to illegal presidential wars, and it is also time to put a stop to open-ended authorizations of military
force. Warren's point about asking for "constrained authorizations with limited time frames" is important, and it is something that
we should insist on in any future debate over the use of force. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books and have been abused
and stretched beyond recognition to apply to groups that didn't exist when they were passed so that the U.S. can fight wars in
countries that don't threaten our security. Those need to be repealed as soon as possible to eliminate the opening that they have
provided the executive to make war at will.
Michael Brendan Dougherty is
unimpressed with Warren's rhetoric:
But what has Warren offered to do differently, or better? She's made no notable break with the class of experts who run our
failing foreign policy. Unlike Bernie Sanders, and like Trump or Obama, she hasn't hired a foreign-policy staff committed to a
different vision. And so her promise to turn war powers back to Congress should be considered as empty as Obama's promise to do
the same. Her promise to bring troops home would turn out to be as meaningless as a Trump tweet saying the same.
We shouldn't discount Warren's statements so easily. When a candidate makes specific commitments about ending U.S. wars during a
campaign, that is different from making vague statements about having a "humble" foreign policy. Bush ran on a conventional hawkish
foreign policy platform, and there were also no ongoing wars for him to campaign against, so we can't say that he ever ran as a
"dove." Obama campaigned against the Iraq war and ran on ending the U.S. military presence there, and before his first term was
finished almost all U.S. troops were out of Iraq. It is important to remember that he did not campaign against the war in
Afghanistan, and instead argued in support of it. His subsequent decision to commit many more troops there was a mistake, but it was
entirely consistent with what he campaigned on. In other words, he withdrew from the country he promised to withdraw from, and
escalated in the country where he said the U.S. should be fighting. Trump didn't actually campaign on ending any wars, but he did
talk about "bombing the hell" out of ISIS, and after he was elected he escalated the war on ISIS. His anti-Iranian obsession was out
in the open from the start if anyone cared to pay attention to it. In short, what candidates commit to doing during a campaign does
matter and it usually gives you a good idea of what a candidate will do once elected.
If Warren and some of the other Democratic candidates are committing to ending U.S. wars, we shouldn't assume that they won't
follow through on those commitments because previous presidents proved to be the hawks that they admitted to being all along.
Presidential candidates often tell us exactly what they mean to do, but we have to be paying attention to everything they say and
not just one catchphrase that they said a few times. If voters want a more peaceful foreign policy, they should vote for candidates
that actually campaign against ongoing wars instead of rewarding the ones that promise and then deliver escalation. But just voting
for the candidates that promise an end to wars is not enough if Americans want Congress to start doing its job by reining in the
executive. If we don't want presidents to run amok on war powers, there have to be political consequences for the ones that have
done that and there needs to be steady pressure on Congress to take back their role in matters of war. Voters should select
genuinely antiwar candidates, but then they also have to hold those candidates accountable once they're in office.
Trump doesn't have a thing to fear he's been a huge asset to the security state, whose
Russiagate theatrics provided mainstream media news with just enough bullshit to distract the
public, so that Trump could never be aggressively attacked from the Left. For the last three
years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia.
Meanwhile, this enabled Trump to successfully pass a slew of reactionary legislation and
fasttrack numerous lifetime appointments to the federal court without barely a whimper from
the phony Dems. In fact, the Democrats unanimously voted for Trump's military budget. The
same idiot they called unhinged was given the power to start WWIII.
No matter how much liberals complain–the wealthy are happy with the status quo and
the right-wing Evangelicals are as pleased as punch. However, there's quite a large number of
disaffected Trump voters looking at Tulsi, but could eventually come Bernie's way.
Especially, if Tulsi endorses Bernie. This discontented bunch includes the working-poor, the
indebted young, and all the folks who are not doing economically well under Trump's fabulous
stock market. It especially includes the military families who were promised an end to the
miserable foreign interventions. Bernie, has some appeal to these folks. His platform
certainly resonates with all those who can barely pay their health insurance
premiums, and whose salary is NOT nearly considered a living wage. But Bernie could win
hands-down and steal Trump's base, if he only had the courage to UNAPOLOGETICALLY speak out
against US imperialism and connect all the dots explaining how the security state plundered
the treasury for decades f–king over the working-class.
Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn filed a supplemental motion to withdraw his
guilty plea Wednesday citing failure by his previous counsel to advise him of the firm's
'conflict of interest in his case' regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act form it filed
on his behalf, and by doing so "betrayed Mr. Flynn," stated Sidney Powell, in a defense motion
to the court.
Flynn's case is now in its final phase and his sentencing date, which was scheduled for Jan.
28, in a D.C. federal court before Judge Emmet Sullivan was changed to Feb. 27. The change came
after Powell filed the motion to withdraw his plea just days after the prosecutors made a major
reversal asking for up to six months jail time. The best case scenario for Flynn, is that Judge
Sullivan allows him to withdraw his guilty plea, the sentencing date is thrown-out and then his
case would more than likely would head to trial.
Powell alleged in a motion in December, 2019 that Flynn was strong-armed by the prosecution
into pleading guilty to one count of lying to FBI investigators regarding his conversation with
former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Others, close to Flynn, have corroborated the
accounts suggesting prosecutors threatened to drag Flynn's son into the investigation, who also
worked with his father at Flynn Intel Group, a security company established by Flynn.
In the recent motion Flynn denounced his admission of guilt in a declaration,
"I am innocent of this crime, and I request to withdraw my guilty plea. After I signed the
plea, the attorneys returned to the room and confirmed that the [special counsel's office]
would no longer be pursuing my son."
He denied that he lied to the FBI during the White House meeting with then FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka. The meeting was set up by now fired FBI
Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was also fired for lying to
Inspector General Michael Horowitz's investigators. Strzok was fired by the FBI for his actions
during the Russia investigation.
Flynn stated:
"When FBI agents came to the White House on January 24, 2017, I did not lie to them. I
believed I was honest with them to the best of my recollection at the time. I still don't
remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador Kislyak nor do I remember
if we discussed the details of a UN vote on Israel."
Powell Targets Flynn's Former Legal Team
Powell noted in Wednesday's motion that Flynn's former defense team at Covington &
Burling, a well known Washington D.C. law firm, failed to inform Flynn that their lawyers had
made "some initial errors or statements that were misunderstood in the FARA registration
process and filings." She also reaffirmed her position in the motion that government
prosecutors are continuing to withhold exculpatory information that would benefit Flynn.
A spokesperson with Flynn's former law firm Covington & Burling, stated in an email to
SaraACarter.com that "Under the bar rules, we are limited in our ability to respond publicly
even to allegations of this nature, absent the client's consent or a court order."
In Powell's motion, she stated that Covington and Burling was well aware that it had a
'conflict of interest' in representing Flynn after November 1, 2017. She stated in the motion
it was on that day, when Special Counsel prosecutors had notified Covington that "it recognized
Covington's conflict of interest from the FARA registration." Moreover, the government had
asked Covington lawyers to discuss the discrepancy and conflict with Flynn, Powell stated in
the motion.
"Mr. Flynn's former counsel at Covington made some initial errors or statements that were
misunderstood in the FARA registration process and filings, which the SCO amplified, thereby
creating an 'underlying work' conflict of interest between the firm and its client," stated
Powell in the motion.
"Government counsel specified Mr. Flynn's liability for 'false statements' in the FARA
registration, and he told Covington to discuss it with Mr. Flynn," states the motion.
"This etched the conflict in stone. Covington betrayed Mr. Flynn."
Powell included in her motion an email from Flynn's former law firm Covington & Burling
between his former attorney's Steven Anthony and Robert Kelner. The email was regarding the
Special Counsel's then-charges against Paul Manafort, who had been a short term campaign
manager for Trump. Manafort and his partner Rick Gates, were then faced with 'multiple criminal
violations, including FARA violations."
Internal Email From the motion:
In the internal email sent to Kelner, Anthony addresses his concerns after the Manafort
order was unsealed.
I just had a flash of a thought that we should consider, among many many factors with
regard to Bob Kelley, the possibility that the SCO has decided it does not have, [with regard
to] Flynn, the same level of showing of crime fraud exception as it had [with regard to]
Manafort. And that the SCO currently feels stymied in pursuing a Flynn-lied-to-his-lawyers
theory of a FARA violation. So, we should consider the conceivable risk that a disclosure of
the Kelley declaration might break through a wall that the SCO currently considers
impenetrable.
In February, 2017, then Department of Justice official David Laufman had called Flynn's
lawyers to push them to file a FARA, the motion states. In fact, it was a day after Flynn was
fired as the National Security Advisor for Trump. Laufman made the call to the Covington and
Burling office "to pressure them to file the FARA forms immediately," according to the
motion.
Laufman's push for Flynn's FARA seemed peculiar considering, Flynn's company 'Flynn Intel
Group' had filed a Lobbying Registration Act in September, 2016. Former partner to Flynn Bijan
Rafiekian, had been advised at the time by then lawyer Robert Kelly that there was no need for
the firm to file a FARA because it was not dealing directly with a foreign country or foreign
government official, as stated during his trial. In Rafiekian's trial Kelly testified that he
advised the Flynn Intel Group that by law they only needed to file a Lobbying Disclosure Act
and suggested they didn't need to file a FARA when dealing with a foreign company. In this
instance it was Innova BV, a firm based in Holland and owned by the Turkish businessman, Ekim
Alptekin.
Flynn's former Partner's Case Overturned, Powell Cites Case In Motion
In September, 2019, however, in a stunning move Judge Anthony Trenga with the Eastern
District of Virginia Rafiekian's conviction was overturned. Trenga stated in his lengthy
acquittal decision that government prosecutors did not make their case and the "jury was not
adequately instructed as to the role of Michael Flynn in light of the government's in-court
judicial admission that Flynn was not a member of the alleged conspiracy and the lack of
evidence sufficient to establish his participation in any conspiracy "
An important side note, Laufman continually posts anti-Trump tweets and is frequently on CNN
and MSNBC targeting the administration and its policies.
These despicable remarks reflect contempt for democracy and government accountability, and
constitute further evidence of the President's unfitness to lead our great nation. Republican
Members of Congress, stand up and fulfill your oaths. https://t.co/a8BwWkLTkv
Powell said prosecutors reversed course on their decision to not push for jail time for
Flynn in early January because she said, her client "refused to lie for the prosecution" in the
Rafiekian case.
do yourselves a favor and read her brief...Covington and the FBI are EVIL
BASTARDS......god help any of us who find ourselves in the govt crosshairs..I don't give a
rat's *** how much you despise Trump...these bastards in DC would cut your heads off if they
could profit from it.
Worse than that in this case. He had a deal that if he plead guilty they wouldn't go after
his son and they wouldn't recommend prison time for him. He did what they asked. Then they
recommended prison time in the end anyway.
How that isn't legal malpractice, I'm sure I don't know.
He may as well try suing the Queen of England. Federal prosecutors and federal law
enforcement agents have almost complete immunity from civil causes of action arising from the
performance of their duties, even if they acted maliciously, lied, etc. It's good to be the
King (or Queen, or a federal prosecutor). People generally have no idea how badly the deck is
stacked against them if they end up in the cross hairs of these people.
"... the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive, truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not. ..."
"... (The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political lies are heavily partisan.) ..."
"... The great then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012, "Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. ..."
"... Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government ( Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from? ..."
"... This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel switched instead to pure global conquest -- ber -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism has come to mean ber-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika. ..."
All of the lies are still being propounded by the U.S. regime and remain fully enforced by suppression of the truth about these
matters.
That's being done in all news-media except a few of the non -mainstream ones.
So: this is about an actual Western samizdat - the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive,
truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not.
(The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will
be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically
evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party
acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such
important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political
lies are heavily partisan.)
The U.S.-and-allied regimes' billionaires-owned-and-controlled 'news'-media
condemned Assange for this interview, because it enabled whomever still had an open mind, amongst the Western public, to hear from
one of those billionares' destruction-targets (Nasrallah), and for Assange's doing this on the TV-news network of the main country
that America's billionaires are especially trying to conquer, which is (and since
26 July 1945 has consistently been ) Russia.
The great
then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012,
"Attacks on RT
and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who
actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. Greenwald wrote:
Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to
work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments
(BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch
and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with
long-standing ties to right-wing governments
(Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government (
Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to
one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic
integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from?
But from 'temporary' house-arrest there, Assange was allowed asylum by Ecuador's progressive President Rafael Correa on
20 June 2012 , to stay in London's Ecuadoran Embassy, so as not to be seized
by the UK regime to be sent to prison and probable death-without-trial in the U.S. To Correa's shock, it turned out that Correa's
successor, Vice President Lenin Moreno, was actually a U.S. agent, who promptly forced Assange out of the Embassy, into Belmarsh
prison, to die there or else become extradited to die in a U.S. prison, also without trial.
And, for what, then, is Assange being imprisoned, and perhaps murdered? He divulged government secrets that should never even
have been secrets! He raised the blanket of lies, which covers over these actually dictatorial clandestine international operations.
He exposed these evil imperialistic operations, which are hidden behind (and under) that blanket of imperialists' lies. For this,
he is being martyred -- a martyr for democracy, where there is no actual democracy (but only those lies).
Here is an example:
On December 29th, I headlined
"Further Proof: U.S.,
UK, & France Committed War-Crime on 14 April 2018" and reported highlights of the latest Wikileaks document-dumps regarding a
U.S.-UK-French operation to cover-up (via their control over the OPCW) their having committed an international war-crime when they
had fired 105 missiles against Syria on 14 April 2018, which was done allegedly to punish Syria for having perpetrated a gas-attack
in Douma seven days before -- except that there hadn't been any such gas-attack, but the OPCW simply lied and said that there might
have been one, and that the Syrian Government might have done it! That's playing the public for suckers.
Back on 3 November 2019, Fox News bannered
"Fox News Poll: Bipartisan majorities want some U.S. troops to stay in Syria" and reported that when citing ISIS as America's
enemy that must be defeated, 69% of U.S. respondents wanted U.S. troops to stay in Syria. But when did ISIS ever constitute a threat
to U.S. national security? And under what international law is any U.S. soldier, who is inside Syria, anything other than an invader
there? The answer, to both of these questions, is obviously "never" and "none." But if you are an investor in Lockheed Martin, don't
you want Americans to be suckers about both ? And, so, they are . People such as Julian Assange don't want the public anywhere to
be lied-to. Anyone who is in the propaganda-business -- serving companies such as Lockheed Martin -- wants the public to be suckers.
This is the way the free market actually works. It works by lying, and in such a country the Government serves the people who
have the money, and not the people who don't. The people who don't have the money are supposed to be lied-to. And, so, they are.
But this is not democracy.
Democracy, in fact, is impossible if the public are predominantly deceived.
If the public are predominantly deceived, then the people who do the deceiving will be the dictators there. And if a country has
dictators, then it's no democracy. In a totally free market, only the people with the most money will have any freedom at all; everyone
else will be merely their suckers, who are fooled by the professionals at doing that -- lying.
The super-rich enforce their smears, and their other lies, by hiring people to do this.
When Barack Obama said that "The United States is and
remains the one indispensable nation" - so that each other nation is "dispensable" - he was merely exemplifying the view that
only the most powerful is indispensable, and that therefore everyone else is dispensable. Of course, this is the way that he, and
Donald Trump, both have governed in the U.S. And
Americans overwhelmingly endorse
this viewpoint . They're fooled by both parties, because both parties serve only their respective billionaires -- and billionaires
are above the law; they are the law, in America and its allied regimes. That's the way it is.
This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel
switched instead to pure global conquest -- ber -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism
has come to mean ber-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika.
And as far as whistleblowers -- such as Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and other champions of honesty
and of democracy -- are concerned: Americans agree with the billionaires, who detest and destroy such whistleblowers. Champions of
democracy are shunned here, where PR reigns and real journalism is almost non-existent.
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
"Turkey: The goal of American peace is to destroy and plunder Palestine."
"Turkish Foreign Ministry:
The fake US plan for peace in the Middle East was born 'dead'.
We will not allow actions to legitimize Israeli occupation and oppression."
Yet another cord in the knot tying Turkey to the West is severed. Word is the Turkish convoy
has turned around and will not be constructing another OP near Saraqib.
"Denouncing Trump Plan as 'Unacceptable,' Sanders Declares It Is Time to 'End the Israeli
Occupation:'
"'Trump's so-called 'peace deal,' warned the White House hopeful, 'will only perpetuate the
conflict, and undermine the security interests of Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians.'"
But isn't that exactly what the plan's supposed to do?
"Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba Statement on Peace Plan:
"The United Arab Emirates appreciates continued US efforts to reach a Palestine-Israel
peace agreement. This plan is a serious initiative that addresses many issues raised over
the years. (1/3)"
From what I've read, Egypt also favors the plan, although I've yet to read anything
official from Egypt's government. But Hezbollah's correct, IMO.
"The only way to guarantee a lasting solution is to reach an agreement between all
concerned parties. The UAE believes that Palestinians and Israelis can achieve lasting
peace and genuine coexistence with the support of the international community. (2/3)"
"The plan announced today offers an important starting point for a return to
negotiations within a US-led international framework. (3/3)"
"This deal would not have taken place without the collusion and treason of a number of
Arab regimes, both secret and public. The peoples of our nation will never forgive those
rulers who forsook resistance to maintain their fragile thrones."
"Trump greenlights Netanyahu to annex at least 1/3 of the West Bank.
"Never forget that Oman, Bahrain and the UAE were present in that room [where the
speech was made]."
I'm very surprised at Oman. This indicates to me both the Iranian and Russian
collective security proposals are now dead and the situation will now escalate
further.
But isn't that exactly what the plan's supposed to do?
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 28 2020 21:12 utc | 33
"In the remaining weeks before the March 2 Israeli elections, and the few months left
until elections in the United States, Trump's peace plan will primarily serve the goal
for which it was designed: election propaganda for Israel's right-wing."
+Bonus prize = Stay out of jail card for Netanyahu if he remains Prime Minister.
"In the near term, the 80-page plan is most likely to stir up Israeli and American
politics. Mr. Trump is sure to cite the plan's pro-Israel slant on the 2020 campaign
trail to win support from conservative Jewish Americans in Florida and other key states,
along with the Evangelical Christians who are some of his strongest backers and support
Israeli expansion in the Holy Land."
Let's not forget the far right Zionist money men AIPAC members who lavish millions on
trump and GOP campaigns. ie Sheldon Adelson was seated in the front row when trump and
netanyahu made their announcement. I would say these are the things it's intended to
do.
Via RT.com Jan. 27, ' Iran slams Trump's 'delusional' Middle East peace plan, calls on US to
accept Tehran's proposal instead'
Instead of a delusional "Deal of the Century" -- which will be D.O.A. -- self-described
"champions of democracy" would do better to accept Iran's democratic solution proposed by
Ayatollah @khamenei_ir :A referendum whereby
ALL Palestinians -- Muslim, Jew or Christian -- decide their future .
"In anticipation of a strongly pro-Israeli plan, Palestinian leaders in Ramallah and Gaza
have also condemned the upcoming deal and called for a "day of rage" on Tuesday. They
urged Palestinians to boycott American goods, and remove all US symbols remaining in the West
Bank."
'Remarks by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu of the State of Israel Upon
Arrival',
January 27, 2020 , whitehouse.gov (a stomach-churning read, but not as much as the joint
presser in the Rose Garden above)
The jerusalem post has some very partial transcripts:
'Deal of Century establishes Palestinian state, Jewish control of Jerusalem; "I have to do a
lot for the Palestinians or it just wouldn't be fair.",
Jan 28, 202O
"US President Donald Trump unveiled his "Deal of the Century" together with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House on Tuesday.
The peace plan, which Trump said was already supported by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
and his main rival Blue and White head Benny Gantz, would give Israel full control of the
settlements and its undivided capital in Jerusalem.
"If they are genuinely prepared to make peace with the Jewish state," Netanyahu said,
"Israel will be there. Israel will be prepared to negotiate peace right away."
Trump said that the United States will recognize Israeli sovereignty over any land that "my
vision provides to to be part of the State of Israel" and will require the Palestinians to
recognize Israel as the Jewish state and to agree to solve the refugee problem outside of
Israel.
The plan also establishes a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem .
As part of the plan, Trump will reveal a map delineating Israeli and Palestinian state
borders. He said the map will make clear the "territorial sacrifices that Israel is willing to
make for peace."
Trump said the plan will "more than double Palestinian territory No Palestinians will be
uprooted from their homes."
Moreover, he said that although Israel will maintain control of Jerusalem, the status quo
will remain on the Temple Mount and Israel will work with Jordan to ensure that all Muslims who
want to pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque will be able to do so.
The president said that if the Palestinians choose to accept the plan, some $50 billion will
be infused into this new Palestinian state.
"There are many countries that want to partake in this," he said. "The Palestinian poverty
rate will be cut in half and their GDP will double and triple." He then called for "peace and
prosperity for the Palestinian people."
But Trump noted that the transition to the two-state solution will present "no incremental
security risk to the State of Israel whatsoever.
But Trump noted that the transition to the two-state solution will present "no incremental
security risk to the State of Israel whatsoever.
"Peace requires compromise, but we will never require Israel to compromise on it security,"
he continued.
Netanyahu in his speech said that he has agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on
the basis of Trump's peace plan. The prime minister noted several key reasons, but namely that
rather than "pay lip service to Israel's security," the president "recognizes that Israel must
have sovereignty in places that enable Israel to defend itself by itself.
"For too long, the heart of Israel has been outrageously branded as illegally occupied
territory," Netanyahu continued . "Today, Mr. President, you are puncturing this big lie. You
are recognizing Israel's sovereignty over all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria –
large and small alike."
However, Israel agreed that it will maintain the status quo in all areas that the peace plan
does not designate as Jewish for four years to allow for an opportunity for negotiation. At the
same time, as per the plan, Israel will immediately apply sovereignty over the Jordan Valley
and other areas that the plan does recognize as Israeli .
'The 'Deal of the Century': What are its key points?', jpost.com,
Jan. 28, 2020
Borders: Trump's plan features a map of what Israel's new borders will be should it enact
the plan fully. Israel retains 20% of the West Bank, and will lose a small amount of land in
the Negev, near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Palestinians will have a pathway to a state on 80%
of the West Bank. Israel will maintain control of all borders. This is the first time a US
president has provided a detailed map of this kind.
Jerusalem: The Palestinians will have a capital in Jerusalem based on northern and eastern
neighborhoods that are outside the Israeli security fence – Kfar Aqab, Abu Dis and half
of Shuafat.
Settlements: Israel would retain the Jordan Valley and all Israeli settlements in the West
Bank, in the broadest definition possible, meaning not the municipal borders of each
settlement, but their security perimeters. This also includes 15 isolated
settlements , which will be enclaves within an eventual Palestinian state, unable to expand
for four years. The IDF will have access to the isolated settlements . In order for the
settlement part of the plan to go into effect, Israel will have to take action to apply
sovereignty to the settlements.
Security: Israel will be in control of security from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean
Sea. The IDF will not have to leave the West Bank. No change to Israel's approach to Judea and
Samaria would be needed.
Palestinian State: The plan does not include immediate recognition of a Palestinian state;
rather, it expects a willingness on Israel's part to create a pathway towards Palestinian
statehood based on specific territory, which is 80% of Judea and Samaria, including areas A and
B and half of Area C. The state will only come into existence in four years if the Palestinians
accept the plan, if the Palestinian Authority stops paying terrorists and inciting terror, and
Hamas and Islamic Jihad put down its weapons . In addition, the American plan calls on the
Palestinians to give up corruption, respect human rights, freedom of religion and a free press,
so that they don't have a failed state. If those conditions are met, the US will recognize a
Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan to assist it.
Refugees: A limited number of Palestinian refugees and their descendants will be allowed
into the Palestinian state. None will enter Israel ."
On the other hand, from mondoweiss.net: ' The 'Deal of the Century' is Apartheid, Sheena
Anne Arackal January 28, 2020
(some outtakes)
"With great fanfare, President Trump finally unveiled his long-anticipated Middle East peace
proposal. The proposal was labeled 'The Deal of the Century' because it was supposed to offer
an even-handed and just solution to one of the world's most intractable conflicts. Instead it
does something very different. The 'Deal of the Century' resurrects and restores grand
apartheid, a racist political system that should have been left in the dustbins of history.
Under President Trump's newly unveiled peace plan, the Palestinians will be granted limited
autonomy within a Palestinian homeland that consists of multiple non-contiguous enclaves
scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza. The government of Israel will retain security
control over the Palestinian enclaves and will continue to control Palestinian borders,
airspace, aquifers, maritime waters, and electromagnetic spectrum . Israel will be allowed to
annex the Jordan Valley and Jewish communities in the West Bank. The Palestinians will be
allowed to select the leaders of their new homeland but will have no political rights in Israel
, the state that actually rules over them."
'Trump unveils peace plan, promising more land and control for Israel', Yumna Patel,
January 28, 2020 , mondowiess.net (a few snippets)
"The room was filled with familiar faces -- Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, Jason
Greenblatt, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Sara Netanyahu, and US Ambassador to Israel David
Friedman, Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer -- and dozens of Israel's supporters, who
clapped and cheered throughout the announcement.
..
"After the press conference, reports surfaced saying that Netanyahu would be announcing
Israel's full annexation of the settlements in the West Bank on Sunday, and that Ambassador
Friedman expressed that Israel was "free to annex settlements in the West Bank at any time
"
While Trump boasted that his plan would promise a contiguous Palestinian state, doubled in
size from its current form, the "conceptual map" released by his administration shows a
fragmented and dwindling territory, connected by a series of proposed bridges and tunnels."
..
"We are asking the Palestinians to meet the challenges of peaceful coexistence," Trump
said.
"This includes adopting basic laws enshrining human rights, protecting against political and
financial corruption ending incitement of hatred against Israel, and ending financial
compensation to terrorists," he said, referring to pensions paid by the Palestinian Authority
to the families of prisoners and martyrs.
In his speech, Netanyahu demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish State ,
and that Israel will maintain military control of the entire Jordan Valley to establish a
permanent eastern border in the area."
..
"Throughout his speech, Trump repeatedly praised Israel for "wanting peace badly," and praised
Netanyahu for "willing to endorse the plan as the basis for direct negotiations."
He boasted about everything he has done for Israel, listing off the recognition of Jerusalem
as its capital, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and recognizing Israel's sovereignty over
the occupied Golan Heights."
"Over the next 10 years, 1 million great new Palestinian jobs will be created," he said,
adding that the poverty rate will be cut in half, and the Palestinian GDP will "double and
triple."
"Our vision will end the cycle of Palestinian dependency on charity and financial aid. They
will do fine by themselves. They are a very capable people ," he said."
What none of the above coverage had included was that in the video Bibi had high-fived Trump
for ridding the Middle East of the greatest terrorist in the world (or close to that, meaning
the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani. Bibi'd also laughed and said 'It takes someone
[like Trump] who knows real estate'.
The White House is pleased to share President @realDonaldTrump 's Vision for
a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. https://t.co/7o3jPHpcLv
The
Palestinian leadership has entirely rejected what is known of the Trump plan for Israel and
Palestine, and warned that they see it as destroying the Oslo Peace accords. The Trump
administration did not consult the Palestinians in drawing up the plan, which gives away East
Jerusalem and 30% of the Palestinian West Bank to Israel. The Palestinians may as well,
Palestine foreign minister Saeb Erekat said, just withdraw from the 1995 Interim Agreement on
Oslo.
Trump appears to have decided to unveil the Israel-Palestine plan on Tuesday to take the
pressure off from his Senate impeachment trial and to shore up his support from the Jewish and
evangelical communities. A majority of Americans in polls say they want Trump impeached and
removed from office.
Trump's plan may also bolster beleaguered Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu , who
has been indicted for corruption and is fighting for his political life as Israel's third
election in a year approaches. Rushing the details of an important policy like Israel and
Palestine for the sake of politics, however, could backfire big time.
Erekat also warned that the plan virtually assures that Israel will ultimately have to
absorb the Palestinians, and give them the vote inside Israel. Mr. Erekat may, however, be
overly optimistic, since it is much more likely that the Palestinians will be kept in a Warsaw
Ghetto type of situation and simply denied a meaningful vote entirely.
Al-Quds al-`Arabi reports that Donald Trump attempted to call Palestine president Mahmoud
Abbas during the past few days and that Mr. Abbas refused to take the call.
The plan, according to details leaked to the Israeli press, will propose a Palestinian
statelet on 70% of the West Bank, to be established in four years. The hope is apparently that
Mahmoud Abbas will no longer be president of Palestine in four years, and his successor will be
more pliable.
This so-called state, however, will be demilitarized and will lack control over borders and
airspace, and will be denied the authority to make treaties with other states. In other words,
it will be a Bantustan
of the sort the racist, Apartheid South African government created to denaturalize its
Black African citizens.
Netanyahu has pledged that there will be no Palestinian state as long as he is prime
minister.
Palestinians are under Israeli military rule and are being deprived of basic human rights,
including the right to have citizenship in a state. They do not have passports but only
laissez-passer certificates that are rejected for travel purposes by most states. Israeli
squatters continually steal their land and property and water, and Palestinians have no
recourse, being without a state to protect them.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
An unexpected bit of good news (if true) from the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight
PS752 crash in Tehran: one of the passengers killed on the flight was a businesswoman who ran
two companies involved in running illegal arms and parts for military drones to Libya.
Well, well; and the Ukrainian government backed her claims that there was no military cargo
aboard the company plane that was blown up in Misrata. Makes you wonder how much
jiggerypokery on the part of the Ukrainian government the USA is prepared to absorb,
considering it was allegedly Solemani's plans to 'hurt Americans' that caused the USA to
whack him. But here is a business associate of the Ukrainian government transferring military
technology to tribal warlords in Libya.
Oh, I forgot – the USA needs to fight Russia in Ukraine so that it doesn't have to
fight Russia in New York. So I guess that means they get a free pass.
You have to wonder though, Malakhova was one of two Ukrainian passengers (I think) on a jet
that was otherwise composed of diaspora Iranians. The plane was flying to Kiev and then
presumably going straight to Toronto, to judge from the number of Iranian-background
passengers with Canadian passports. What business did Malakhova have that she had been in
Tehran to catch a UIA flight to go to Kiev? She must have had a reason to be there, if not to
go sightseeing.
Lo and behold! Able to answer my own query about the reason for Malakhova's presence in
Tehran within a matter of minutes! She wasn't in Tehran just to admire the touristy sights.
Air taxis would be very convenient for ferrying small quantities of goods on short trips
within Iran or from Iran to somewhere else not far from the Iranian border – like
Afghanistan on one side, Azerbaijan on another side or Kurdish-held northern Iraq and Turkey
on yet another side.
But never in his wildest dreams did Colonel Shapiro imagine that his own contribution to
history and that of the entire Red Army in ending the Nazi genocide of the Jewish and Russian
peoples would itself be cast into the black hole of denial.
For Colonel Shapiro, who died in 2005 at the age of 92, has become a non-person himself:
Because he was the Red Army officer who commandeered the liberation of Auschwitz the greatest
and most frightful death camp of all.
Shapiro had not planned to become a soldier. The son of a Jewish family in Konstantinograd
in the Poltava region of Russia, he joined the Red Army in 1935. He saw action throughout World
War II and was repeatedly promoted and decorated for gallantry. In the great 1943 showdown
battle between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht around Kursk, he was seriously injured and had to
spend time in hospital.
When Colonel Shapiro received his orders from Major General Petr Zubov's 322nd Division of
the First Ukrainian Front, commanded by legendary Soviet Marshal Ivan Konev to ready his elite
1085th 'Tarnopol' Rifle Regiment for immediate action on January 25, 1945 he knew his force was
being tapped to liberate a Nazi death camp, but neither he nor any of his men dreamed what lay
ahead.
The war was still raging in full fury in the east and the Nazis fought with demented
fanaticism to try and prevent the Red Army troops from exposing their most hellish secrets.
On the way to the camp, Shapiro's forces ran into a minefield. A doctor and five nurses were
killed. As British historian Michael K. Jones wrote in his acclaimed 2011 book "Total War: From
Stalingrad to Berlin" "The following morning the regiment encountered strong enemy opposition
and even had to fend off a counter-attack."
Lieutenant Ivan Martynushkin, a junior officer told Jones in an interview more than 60 years
later: "As we approached Auschwitz we had to fight for every settlement, every house." Yet as
the 1085 the1085th's combat journal laconically recorded, "No one wanted to turn back."
It was early morning of January 27, after much heavy fighting that the 1085th advanced into
Auschwitz itself in the face of ferocious Nazi artillery fire. By 11 am, Shapiro's men had
crossed the Sola River and he gave the order "Break into Auschwitz."
The fighting continued to be fierce. Dozens of Red Army troops died. Shapiro and his men
entered the camp. The Nazis had evacuated most of the surviving prisoners and sent them on a
death march towards the German border. However, the camp still held at least 1,200 people as
well as another 5,800 at Birkenau, including 611 children.
"The gates were padlocked. Snow was falling and there was a smell of burning in the air.
Inside, were rows of barracks but not a person could be seen," Jones wrote. The Red Army men
shot the locks off the doors with their submachine guns. For the next 60 years, Shapiro vividly
recalled what they found inside. Decades later, he said in an interview: "I had seen many
innocent people killed. I had seen hanged people. I had seen burned people. But I was still
unprepared for Auschwitz The stench was overpowering. It was a women's barracks, and there were
frozen pools of blood, and dead bodies lay on the floor."
Outside one barracks, a sign said 'kinder.' However, Shapiro recalled "There were only two
children alive; all the others had been killed in gas chambers, or were in the 'hospital' where
the Nazis performed medical experiments on them. When we went in, the children were screaming,
'We are not Jews!' They were in fact Jewish children, and mistaking us for German soldiers
evidently thought we were going to take them to the gas chambers. We stared at them aghast This
was the hardest sight of all."
Shapiro recalled that the Russian Red Cross rapidly entered the camp and started cooking
chicken soup and vegetable soup for the starving survivors.
Another senior Red Army officer of Jewish origins, Colonel Georgi Elisavetsky became its
very first commandant after its liberation. His testimony is preserved in the excellent Russian
Holocaust Center in Moscow and was also cited by Jones.
The response of Marshal Konev's forces to the humanitarian catastrophe they had uncovered
was exemplary. Elisavetsky testified, "We knew immediate action had to be taken to try and It
is impossible to describe how our doctors, nurses, officers and soldiers worked – without
sleep or food – to try and help those unfortunates, how they fought for every life."
Red Army Military Hospital Number 2962 run by Dr. Maria Zhilinskaya, Jones noted,
"Nevertheless managed to save 2,819 inmates."
After the war, Shapiro never lost his faith in and love for the Soviet Union. Following its
disintegration, he moved with his family to the United States and settled on Long Island. He
wrote several books on the subject and on his own experiences before his death on October 8,
2005.
For Colonel Shapiro, the idea that he, his Red Army comrades and the medical staff who
fought and died to liberate Auschwitz and who worked so hard to save it's pitifully few
survivors should be casually equated with the Nazis mass-killers would have been ludicrous and
contemptible. President Vladimir Putin recognizes this too, he is commemorating the anniversary
this year in Israel.
The true story of the Liberation of Auschwitz needs to be told and retold. It needs to be
rammed down the throats of Russia-hating bigots and warmongers everywhere.
Apologies, my figures are vastly under exaggerated. Closer to 17 million Soviet citizens died
in the second world war, along with 20 million Chinese ..yet we hear nothing.
Depending on whose figures you go on, anywhere between 25 million and 28 million Russians
were killed in the Second World War.
To paraphrase Galloway, if it weren't for the Red Army we'd all be speaking German now;
and all proper historians will agree with that.
Barely ever mentioned is that the Red Army liberated Auschwitz, and most of the other
death camps. Also, about 40% of the jews killed during the Nazi era were Soviet jews.
If you're not familiar with all this stuff do a search for 'Nazi Einsatzgruppen' for
starters.
I'm just one of many people who are absolutely disgusted by the way the Holocaust has been
totally hijacked by the modern day Nazis in America and Israel.
Francis Lee ,
"17 million Soviet citizens died in the Great Patriotic War." I take it you mean civilians?
10 million Soviet soldiers also died in WW2. All in all some 50 million died in WW2. Mostly
Russians, but also including other significant groups, Jews certainly, along with Roma
people, homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, and political groups like the Communists (including
German Communists) Polish nationalists and so forth.
Back in 1980 I visited the infamous concentration camp, Buchenwald, just outside of the
famous city of Weimar in the old DDR. On its gates was the motto 'Jeden das Seinem' literally
translated as 'each to what he deserves.' Looking at the cemetary all the above groups could
and included Soviet POWs as well British and Canadian paratroops for some reason. There was
also a little shrine to Ernst Thälmann leader of the German communists – the KPD
– at the spot where he was murdered in 1944.
Additionally, given the size and scope of the ethnic cleansing, Nazi and local Fascist
groups were recruited in Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine in a grotesque sort of mass murder
outsourcing. And they carried out their role with considerable alacrity, sometimes even
shocking the German Waffen SS Units and Einsatzgruppen (death Squads).
Just thought I'd put the record straight.
paul ,
I think you'll find the figures are a lot higher, L.
There is an estimate of 27 million dead in Russia, about 1 in 7 of a population of nearly 200
million in 1941. That includes all the deaths from starvation and disease. So there were
about 650,000 battle deaths around Leningrad and another 900,000 who starved to death. This
is quite plausible, though for many years a figure of "over 20 million" was given. Attempts
to come up with a more accurate casualty toll produced figures of 23, 25, 27 million. But
maybe nobody will ever give a wholly accurate figure.
There was an estimate of 10 million dead in the Congo Basin during the first 20 years of
Belgian rule, 1890 – 1910, half the population of Central Africa. That is quite
plausible, though the Belgian overlords of the period probably didn't value African lives
highly enough to bother counting them. A similar figure has been given for the present day
resource wars in DRC.
But African lives and Asian lives don't count for much anyway. Nobody ever bothered counting
the dead in Iraq, maybe 2 million, but who knows? Who cares? Certainly nobody in this
country, with half a million children under 5 dying from sanctions, 1991 – 2003. Just
gooks and blacks and sand niggers, who aren't all that important in our "Rules Based
Order."
40,000 dead in Venezuela so far? How many in DPRK, Iran, Syria? Who knows? Who cares?
The real global holocaust was in the New World, with over 100 million native American
victims.
By contrast, the much touted "holocaust" of the 1940s appears a highly dubious affair that
doesn't bear much scrutiny. The post war global Jewish population was only slightly lower
than the pre war one.
A brass plaque referring to "4 million dead Jews" at Auschwitz was quietly removed and
replaced with another one giving a figure of "1.4 million." What happened to the 2.5 million
missing Jews has never been explained.
During the 1960s-70s, there were frequent references to "3,500,000 Jews gassed at Auschwitz."
Over the years, there were steady downwards revisions to 2.5 million, 2 million, and the
current "over a million, 1.1 million, mainly Jews," perhaps to quietly acknowledge the
presence of so many non Jews there. It has been speculated that over the next few years there
will be further downward revisions to "900,000", or "700-900,000."
Post war "reparations" to Israel extorted from Germany specified a figure of £6,600 (in
1950s money) per alleged dead victim. So there was an obvious incentive to inflate the
figures as much as possible.
It is quite possible that the true figure is in the region of several hundred thousand, if
you include Jews killed fighting in the Russian and allied forces, in aerial bombing, and
deaths from wartime conditions. Maybe even as high as 1 million.
"6 million" seems to be something of a favourite Talmudic figure that has been banded about
from time immemorial. Though the same source gives a figure of 42 billion (with a b) Jews
"holocausted" by the Romans.
Though of course just speculating on these events you could end up in jail for 5 years all
over Europe. And probably over here soon as well, if Tony Blair, the Board of Deputies, and
the Jewish oligarch Kantor have their way. Makes you wonder what they've got to hide.
Right on topic:
Poland's Kaczyński is demanding reparations from Russia, both for WWII and even going
back to WWI. Saying they missed out on Versailles reparations, but it's never too late to
demand.
Recall that in 2018 Poland calculated Germany still owed them 850 billion Euros in unpaid
reparations. And figure Russia owes them twice as much.
Some history: In 1953 Poland received a check from Germany, and then the two countries
agreed that was it. The Germans say that an agreement from 1990 made everything moot, and
there can be no futher reparations.
Meanwhile, the Russian Duma says that if Poland demands more $$$ from Russia, then Russia
will present a bill for all the $$$ the Soviet Union plowed into rebuilding Poland after the
war.
The Russians also say that Poland has opened a Pandora's box that could lead to its
(Poland's) shrinking of boundaries. Since their current boundaries were determined by the
victors at Potsdam and Yalta. If the Poles continue to tear down the whole world order as
determined by Nuremberg, then they must be prepared to pay the price of negating all those
territorities they gained from Germany.
At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, it was determined that Poland would receive its share
of reparations from the share allotted to the USSR from the Eastern sector of Germany. In
1954, the 3 countries, the USSR, Poland, and East Germany all agreed mutually to end the
reparations. Everybody knows that the USSR picked up the lion's share of the tab to restore
all the Eastern bloc countries; and by joining the Warsaw Pact, East Germany had atoned for
the sins of Hitler.
But now all of that has been blown to bits, and it's anybody's game. Poland just needs to
learn a valuable lesson, namely: Be careful what you wish for!
Since their current boundaries were determined by the victors at Potsdam and Yalta. If the
Poles continue to tear down the whole world order as determined by Nuremberg
Which is what they did after Versailles, 1919: they did not accept the boundaries as set
at the WWI victors' conference, which took place during an armistice; the war only officially
ended when the Versailles treaties had been signed by the WWI victors in 1919 and up that
time, the Royal Navy continued to blockade the German Empire, which blockade caused many
thousands of unnecessary deaths of German citizens, especially children, because the place
had been near starving since 1916. And remember, these were "good Germans" that I am writing
about, not Nazi lunatics, just ordinary Fritzes. The Central Powers diplomats were not
allowed to take part in the conference, hence the Germans called the decisions made at
Versailles a Diktat .
Hardly had the ink been dry at Versailles when the Poles decided to ignore the boundaries
as fixed at the conference and launched the Polish Soviet-War so as to start rebuilding their
Polack "Commonwealth" again. And The Poles did not accept the boundaries of the created at
Versailles state of Lithuania: they claimed that Vilnius was a Polish city, by virtue of its
population. One could also have argued that it really was a Jewish city. I believe that at
the time, Vilnius had the biggest Jewish population of any city in Europe. (Where did they
go, I wonder? Likewise the Jews of Latvia and Estonia -- they must have all emigrated to the
Lower East Side!)
Interesting that! The Polish annexation of Vilnius and its environs, as well as Czech
territory in the 7-day War, the Polish–Czechoslovak War
1919 , could be likened to the Russian annexation of the Crimea in more recent times. But
remember kiddies: Poland -- good; Russia -- bad!!!
It seems to me that the propaganda effort is aimed at atomizing history in to small chunks
with only the 'right bits' being highlighted, rather than holistically (Khalkin Gol/Jp). WWII
is all about ME! ME! ME!
The Polish government must have known that the guarantees from GB & Fr were
meaningless as much as the latter did, but were hoping for a hail mary pass, not to mention
everyone throwing their last cards on to the deck to say "Well we didn't start it" in the
newspapers.
As for the invasion of the SU, I guess we'll never know if Hitler's tantrum and demand of
immediate invasion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for telling him to bugger off delayed the
ultimate invasion by just enough to push the odds of failure to 51/49. Even if they had
managed to start earlier, what of spring mud and roads unsuitable for heavy equipment?
Yes, we can now say in hindsight that the British and French "guarantees" made to Poland were
laughable.
Actually, I think many at the time also thought they were laughable, but said nothing.
Just how the hell could the French and British provide military help to Poland if it was
attacked?
How were the Frogs going to march from behind their Maginot Line to Poland -- or were they
thinking of flying there?
Hardly!
Logistically impossible then.
Oh, I know! They could have gone there by sea!!!
Cherbourg -- along the Channel -- North Sea -- around Danish Jutland -- into the Baltic
Sea -- a short cruise by the German Pomerania coast -- disembark at Gdansk (Danzig).
Piece of piss!
Titter ye not!
The British Royal Navy did, in fact, consider entering the Baltic so as to help the brave
Poles, but thought better of it.
And guess who dreamed up that idea?
Why, that same military genius that dreamed up the WWI Gallipoli campaign and WWII allied
attack against the "Soft Underbelly of Europe", aka the Italian Campaign 1943-1945; that
self-same military chump who sent HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse to the Far East without
air cover, those two capital ships earning, as a result of his decision, the unenviable
distinction of being the first capital ships in history to have been sunk solely by air
power.
The fact remains, though, that on September 1st 1939, Great Britain and France were
officially Poland's allies: they had given Poland certain guarantees. When Nazi Germany
invaded Poland, thereby breaking its ten-year pact of non-aggression, which pact the Poles
still considered to be extant on September 1st 1939, it took 3 days for Poland's allies to do
what they were supposed to do and declare war on Germany.
What did Poland's Western allies do next?
Sweet FA!
Why? Because they were afraid of the USSR?
I think not.
Yes, the RAF dropped leaflets over Germany and then, 9 days later, on Sept 12, the allied
Franco-British command met in Abbeville, France, and decided that Poland had already been
defeated, so there was no point in them doing anything more.
Pity they didn't bother to inform their Polish allies of this fact, because the Polish
army continued to fight the Nazis for another 24 days.
By the time the so-called September Campaign was over, 6th October 1939, many war crimes
had already been committed on Polish soldiers and civilians alike. From the outset this was a
war of Poland's total annihilation.
Poles, no matter what they liked to think, were in Nazi eyes, Slav Untermenschen ,
and the Polish so-called intelligentsia (according to Marxist theory, not a true social class
but, nevertheless, always 10% of the population) was to be be exterminated, and the rest made
to serve as helots.
[To go slightly off topic, as regards Poles thinking that they are a cut above yer average
Slav, I had a Polish lady friend once, who really disliked being called a Slav. She was a
cracker, by the way, and really smart. I should add, that for many years I had a few Polish
workmates, coal miners all, and they were all good blokes: hard workers and hard drinkers --
ME]
When for over a month practically the entire German army was engaged in Poland, the larger
and generally better equipped French army could have overrun Germany in matter of days, with
or without British assistance. That was just one, perhaps the last opportunity the West had
of avoiding WWII.
Earlier they could have played out Hitler's ridiculous demands regarding the Sudetenland
quite differently and brought his political career to an abrupt end.
Poles could have put up a better defense against Germany if they had actually fortified their
Western border. In reality, they left their Western border fairly open, in the dreamy hope
that Hitler would be their friend; and instead spent all their $$$ fortifying their border
against the USSR. Either way, it didn't take all that much to bowl them over.
"Actually, I think many at the time also thought they were laughable, but said nothing."
Liddell-Hart says the guarantee was given against the advice of the Chiefs of Staff.
"Just how the hell could the French and British provide military help to Poland if it was
attacked?"
This was the position of the Chiefs of Staff.
Chamberlain intended it to only be a political deterrent, to persuade Adolf to go along
with his idea of " Germany and England as two pillars of European peace and buttresses
against Communism" Neville continued to cling to this idea until Adolf betrayed him by
sending Herr Ribbentrop to Moscow.
However, he had not given up on that idea, he just wouldn't deal with Adolf any more. A
new German government, without Adolf, would have breathed new life into Anglo-German
relations. In mid-October 1939 John Colville, while a young staffer at 10 Downing Street,
noted in his diary the position of Chamberlain's Principle Private Secretary (Chief of Staff
for Americans) Sir Arthur Rucker:
"Arthur Rucker says he thinks that Communism is now the great danger, greater even than
Nazi Germany. All the independent states of Europe are anti-Russian (nothing new there,-rkka)
but Communism is a plague that does not stop at national boundaries, and with the advance of
the Soviet into Poland the states of Eastern Europe will find their powers of resistance to
Communism very much weakened. It is thus vital that we should play our hand very carefully
with Russia, and not destroy the possibility of uniting, if necessary, with a new German
government against the common danger."
This was six weeks into the war. I think this explains how not one milligram of British
high explosives detonated on German territory between 3 September 1939 and 10 May 1940.
So Neville Chamberlain, while he declared war, refused actually waging it in any way that
would prevent Anglo-German agreement if Adolf had been removed.
Totally makes sense, and explains the "phoniness" of the Phony War. It was just a bluff. The
English hoped for a "regime change" in Germany that would leave the Nazi system intact but
just remove Hitler, who was sort of a wild-card in the deck.
Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki: "Attempts to paint Poland as a perpetrator,
rather than a victim, can't be tolerated".
"And although the Red Army subsequently did liberate Auschwitz, the concentration
camp could have been liberated six months earlier. In the summer of 1944, the Soviet Army
stood at positions 200 miles from Auschwitz, but the offensive stopped, giving the Germans
time to retreat and continue organising deportations up until January 1945. Saving Jews was
never a priority for Stalin and the Red Army." -- Morawiecki in
Politico
The two women pictured above, each holding a toddler, are dirty, filthy subhuman Orcs, by
the way.
Well, besides Germany, the main fault lies with Poland for the fact that Auschwitz
generally appeared as a death camp.
Because Poland itself hated Jews too and even took it to the official level, as the
words of Poland's ambassador to Nazi Germany prove. Poland is guilty because it until the
last minute flirted with Nazi Germany, hoping to hit the USSR along with it. Poland is to
blame for failing to provide decent resistance to Hitler. In addition to Poland, the blame
lies certainly with France and Great Britain, which, as allies of Poland and promising to
save it in the event of Hitler's attack, simply spat on it and did not come to its rescue.
They did not come with a military force that could destroy the Third Reich. Instead of real
fighting, a simulation was made, surely hoping that after Poland fell, Hitler's next goal
would be the USSR. But the calculation was a little off, and Hitler's next victim was France
and the British expeditionary force in Dunkirk .
Soviet soldiers paid with their blood for the world to live. And they liberated
Auschwitz exactly when they were able to, having passed before this along a path that no one
in the world can possibly pass. Ordinary men – Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusian,
Georgians, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs – all nationalities of the Soviet Union in one structure,
did as much as the rest of the world did. And now they are openly spat on in their memory,
and those whose graves are scattered all over Europe are mocking. And many still don't have
graves.
And Soviet women too, I should like to add.
And as regards the unknown whereabouts of many of the fallen, my elder daughter every
Victory Day holiday proudly yet sadly joins the march of the "Immortal Regiment", carrying a
placard that I made, which has a photograph of her great Uncle Stepan, who, whilst serving in
the Red Army, fell in 1942 fighting the invader. He left home and never came back and nobody
knows where his remains lie -- out there, somewhere to the West, in Belorussia, maybe, or the
Ukraine or nearer to his home, which was Moskva.
Of course, home grown filth here, the kreakly and liberasts say the
"Immortal Regiment" marches are fake and its participants receive handouts off the Evil One
to attend.
From Spiegel , which, in case you have forgotten, is a German
publication:
Die Rote Armee war es, die die Vernichtungslager befreite und die meisten eigenen Opfer zu
beklagen hatte, das ist wichtig zu betonen, weil in Russland der Eindruck entstanden ist,
dies werde allmählich vergessen.
It was the Red Army that liberated the extermination camps and had to suffer and mourn
the most losses [during WWII]: this is important to emphasize, because in Russia the
impression has been created that this is gradually being forgotten.
[My stress -- ME}
And at the fore of those who are conducting this forgetfullness are Polish historical
revisionists!
See:
Zwei KZ-Befreier erinnern sich
"Dieser Geruch, dieser fürchterliche Geruch"
Der US-Soldat Don Greenbaum und Rotarmist Iwan Stepanowitsch Martynuschkin beschreiben den
Moment, als sie vor 75 Jahren dem Grauen ins Gesicht sahen.
Von Susanne Beyer , Christian Esch und René Pfister
25.01.2020, 19:02 Uhr
Two concentration camp liberators remember "That smell, that horrible smell"
US soldier Don Greenbaum and Red Army soldier Ivan Stepanovich Martynushkin describe the
moment when they faced horror 75 years ago.
By Susanne Beyer , Christian Esch and René Pfister
25.01.2020, 19:02
There is an RT article today that features that self-same Ivan Martynushkin, one of the Red
Army liberators of Auschwitz, who was interviewed by Spiegel (see above):
Another b.s. article trying to glorify jewish bolshevik red terror.
and:
murdered 15 million Christian Russians in their reign of terror and 4 million
Ukrainians. WW2 was used by Rothschilde to decimated European Christians mostly and American
whites. really wake up and look at the big picture
ad nauseam
No doubt posted by citizens of the Exceptional Nation.
Ugh! The RT comment forum can often be a cesspool of ultra-righties and Jew-haters. If one
were blindfolded, one might think they were reading Unz and not RT.
The RT editors bring it on themselves, and I suspect that some of them are ideological
fascists themselves. For example, whenever they decide to do a piece on American culture,
they always hire some nauseating semi-racist ALT-Rightie, like the 4chan types, or whatever.
And the tone is just plain nasty sometimes. And those are the articles , not even the
comments, which are worse!
Additionally, the site of Auschwitz itself – Auschwitz.org – reflects that the
Red Army did not even know of the exact location or existence of Auschwitz-Birkenau until the
liberation of Krakow. The Red Army therefore marched on Auschwitz as soon as it could.
"The Red Army obtained detailed information about Auschwitz only after the liberation
of Cracow, and was therefore unable to reach the gates of Auschwitz before January 27,
1945."
The ancestors of the people who liberated Auschwitz are today spat upon and reviled, and
their monuments torn down by self-important bubbleheads on the orders of know-nothing
bureaucrats – while the ancestors of the people who staffed the camps and murdered
hundreds of thousands by the most repugnant methods imaginable are among the most
highly-regarded and respectable of Europe's citizens.
Yes, I saw that little drop of poison in there, too – it's comical sometimes how
westerners are convinced they live in free countries, the whole time their governments are
hoovering up their private information in a way that would make any true totalitarian
ideologue proud. I saw a discussion this morning on the requirement now that smartphones and
other such devices sold in Russia now must have Russian cultural and moral software
installed. You don't have to use it, goes the government line, but it must be available as an
option.
I need hardly say the western commenters had a field day with that, speculating that it is
tracing software used to identify and pinpoint the homos in Russia. This evolved to
speculation of what a smartphone would be like if built in Russia – hospital green in
colour, twice as big and heavy as western smartphones and with less than half the features,
that sort of thing. Yandex is poised to launch its own smartphone (social media giants such
as Facebook have tried to get into the market, but had to drop out on disappointing
reception), and it sounded pretty techie. But of course westerners know better. Russia
doesn't make anything, and if it did, it would be crudely carved from wood.
I just started re-reading Richard Preston's "The Cobra Event", which I never forgot
although I must have read it 20 years ago; I highly recommend it, it's a ripping story with
lots of real bio-warfare history in it. Anyway, on second reading and after my global
attitudes have realigned, I'm noticing how the Russians and the Iraqis are the dissembling
tricksters, ever trying to fool the honest Americans who are victims of their own trusting
natures, having grown up free. I'm exaggerating a little for effect, but it really is a lot
like that. I just never picked up on it before. In passages which purport to be historical
fact, the author recounts how the US military found and destroyed Iraq's nuclear program in
the first Gulf War. Which they never did.
It bears repeating that all the major death camps like the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp complex
were located in very remote parts of Poland, often as in the case of Auschwitz itself at the
end of a railway line. That way, there would be few external witnesses to what was going on
inside the camps, and information about them could be controlled by the Nazi authorities.
No doubt if the Soviets had reached Auschwitz six months earlier, that would then be used
by the likes of Morawiecki to damn them as invaders for liberating the inmates while the
Nazis were still working them to death in the factories there or killing them at the Birkenau
camp site.
I can believe that some, maybe even most Germans, didn't really know what was going on. Since
the Hitlerites took some pains to conceal what they were doing. A lot of ordinary krauts
probably thought the Jews and other undesirables were just being banished to other countries.
Not that most of them would have even given a sh*t even if they knew what was really going
on.
And even if they cared, there wasn't much they could do about it anyhow. That's why a
dictatorship is a dictatorship.
I'm sure there were rumors (railway people for starters) that no-one wanted to believe and
were pushed further away when compared with dealing with daily life. I'm also sure all the
allies knew it. Stalin had formidable intelligence services and the UK flew photo recon
flights which would have picked up these isolated end-of line concentration/death camps.
Those photos would have been analysed primarily to see if it had bearing on war materiel
(could it be a secret underground factory for weapons for example) and when they realized it
was probably something else, "Sir, these pictures are rather odd," it would have been kicked
upstairs and compartmentalized – "If you come across stuff like this again, just bring
it straight to me."
We forget that strict secrecy was taken very seriously and many said nothing about what
they did, let alone saw. I would guess those photo-interpreters too.
This evidence and more is still secret (like the Hess files as mentioned earlier).
FWIW Speer reported that he had been in von Papen's office the day after and saw some blood
in a corner that hadn't been mopped up yet. He reports that he made the conscious decision to
not look at it and to try and forget it. I think a lot of people carefully didn't look in
certain places.
I read one of Speer's books last century some time. Now thinking back about it and having had
a quick internet look up, I do seem to recall that he claimed he was enthralled at his
architechtural plans of building a Third Reich to last for a thousand years, huge boulevards,
buildings etc. and didn't let himself think further which he could have without much effort.
So much of history is 'who knew what, when?' And most of it will always remain a secret, as
might just about anything which cannot be proven. Poland's embrace of the Nazis, however, is
a matter of record and can be proven.
Yes, there were Russians among the German military formations which did not consist of
Germans, just as there were Ukrainian and Polish battalions. But there were plenty of
documentary references to Hitler's loathing of the Russians. Had Hitler outlived Stalin, I'm
pretty sure he would not have thrown a state funeral in Berlin for Stalin as he did for
Pilsudsky, nor leave behind documentary references to Germany's gratitude for such a loyal
ally. The sad fact remains that most people cannot be bothered with history, and much prefer
to adopt narratives which speak glowingly of the heroism of their own alongside the general
falling-short of everyone else – who doesn't like to think they are descended from
wholesome goodness rather than villainy? Political forces which constantly seek greater
wealth and influence for themselves and their own kind are well aware of the pitfalls of
honest introspection and repentance, and seek to forestall their emergence with bracing
bromides about heroism and benevolent values in their own military forces.
JERUSALEM, Nov. 24 -- Information received here of methods by which the Germans in
Poland are carrying out the slaughter of Jews includes accounts of trainloads of adults and
children taken to great crematoriums at Oswiencim, near Cracow.
2/ special cable also dated 25 November 1942 "HIMMLER PROGRAM KILLS POLISH JEWS; Slaughter
of 250,000 in Plan to Wipe Out Half in Country This Year Is Reported REGIME IN LONDON ACTS
Officials of Poland Publish Data -- Dr. Wise Gets Check Here by State Department"
LONDON, Nov. 24 -- Old persons, children, infants and cripples among the Jewish
population of Poland are being shot, killed by various other methods or forced to undergo
hardships that inevitably cause death as a means of carrying out an order by Heinrich
Himmler, Nazi Gestapo chief, that half the remaining Polish Jews must be exterminated by the
end of this year, according to a report issued today by the Polish Government in
London.
To get access to the full reports in the archives you have to subscribe to the
NYT.
re the statement above about Albert Speer, whose memoirs written after his release from
Spandau Gaol, Berlin, I read many, many years ago, which memoirs have long since been
criticized as being "selective":
he [Speer] made the conscious decision to not look at it and to try and forget
it.
Yes, the German Intelligentsia, of which Speer was a typical member, practised "Inner
Emigration" [ Innere Emigration auf Deutsch ]: " a controversial concept of
German writers who were opposed to Nazism, yet chose to remain in Germany after the Nazis
seized power in 1933. "
They knew what was happening, or at least had serious reservations and suspicions about
Nazi policies, but chose to look the other way.
And that quotation above from Wiki as regards the Nazis seizing power really pisses me off
no end! It implies that the Germans suddenly woke up one morning, only to find that they had
an Austrian arsehole as Chancellor.
Hitler was at first legally appointed as Chancellor by President Hindenburg and many voted
for the Nazi Party, albeit that at the time of Hitler's chancellorship, it seemed that the
Nazi party was rapidly losing its popularity.
After the Nazis had got within the citadel, so to speak, and following Hindenburg's death,
Hitler then passed the enabling acts and became Chancellor/President with dictatorial
powers.
Hitler became Chancellor because of the violence that his party had organized, which
violence on the streets was equally matched by that of the Communist Party. Germany was in
danger of falling into a state of civil war.
The election in 1932 resulted in the "anti-democratic" parties (the Nazis and the
Communists) getting more than 50% of the seats, meaning that it was impossible to create a
"democratic" majority government.
After one minority government had failed, another election had much the same result, and
the conservative president Hindenburg finally, on the 30th of January 1933, accepted a
government that was a coalition of the Nazi party and the Nationalist Party.
It was decided to hold a new election at the beginning of March 1933. Six days before that
election the Reichstag building was set on fire.
Nobody knows for sure who did it, but in any case the fire was seized upon as an
opportunity by the Nazis, who blamed the Communists and proposed an emergency decree that
basically suspended all rights, such as habeas corpus , giving the new government
temporary dictatorial powers.
As soon as the act was passed, most leading communists were arrested and the social
democrat leadership went into exile (in Switzerland, as far as I recall), crippling them as
well.
Despite all these decidedly undemocratic and openly violent goings on, the Nazis still
only got 43% of the vote, making another coalition necessary.
At that point Hitler created the so called "Enabling Act", which in practice made Germany
a complete dictatorship.
When voting for this act was to be carried out, the Nazis arranged to have loads of SA
thugs present as an intimidating gesture inside and outside the chamber (usual Nazi tactic)
to make sure the act was passed.
Like most democracies in Europe, the German parliamentary system then as now does not use
a first-past-the-post system of voting. It is, therefore, not at all uncommon for no one
party in such a system of proportional representation, as the Germans have, to have an
outright majority, so somebody becoming head of the government with barely a third of the
vote (as Hitler did) is quite feasible.
Hitler made use of this fact. At the end of the last free elections held in the Weimar
Republic, the Nazis and the Communists did so well that there was basically no way of forming
a government without one of them. Not a great choice there, as both parties were against the
very idea of the Weimar Republic. But the Nazis were deemed the lesser of the two evils, and
there's the rub!
Hitler's price for being part of any coalition government was to be named Chancellor. That
was deemed a relatively powerless position, so they, the movers and shakers, which included
the top military, agreed. But then the Austrian layabout managed to scare President
Hindenburg, who, by the way, detested the "Bohemian corporal" Hitler, into essentially
declaring Martial Law, thereby disempowering the Reichstag. After that, it was all systems go
for Hitler and chums.
So one could say that Hitler did initially achieve office democratically -- and
"democracy" comes in many flavours -- though he never had the electoral support of a
majority.
Today is the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Warsaw from the fascists. From the
German fascists, I mean: their own have remained there and are still alive. And on this
significant date, a fireworks salute of 3,000 fireworks (I shall write down the number: THREE
THOUSAND) will be let off over Moscow. And the Ministry of Defence has today declassified
documents on the liberation of Warsaw from the Germans.
I just don't get it!
First of all, I don't understand why the documents on the liberation of Warsaw should
have been kept secret. What could have been kept secret?!
Secondly, I don't understand why we are celebrating "Warsaw's liberation", if the Poles
themselves call this day "the change of occupation regimes". We have to celebrate the
"VICTORY of the Red Army over German troops at Warsaw". Because, I repeat, we defeated only
German fascists, and the Polish ones are still alive and well, as it turns out.
And I absolutely do not understand why we should arrange fireworks about the liberation
of that city, which itself is not happy about this liberation, destroying monuments to the
liberators and covering them with abusive words. Because under the Nazis they had
concentration camps in Poland, and that meant a lot of needed jobs for Poles and Ukrainians.
Ivan came, and he got rid of the concentration camps and deprived Poles and Ukrainians of
their favorite jobs The Poles got grief, and we are, like, happy.
It's not nice, comrades. On the contrary – we should express condolences to the
Poles on the liberation of Warsaw from the Nazis by the Red Army. And say to them "Forgive
us, Poles, for our having to deprive you of your government and all that was nice and
convenient for you so that we could get to Berlin. WE WON'T DO IT ANYMORE! Never again. And
don't even ask us to do it."
That's what they'll understand and appreciate. For the time being
Today we should congratulate our veterans, but no way Poland.
"Because Poland itself hated Jews too and even took it to the official level, as the words
of Poland's ambassador to Nazi Germany prove. Poland is guilty because it until the last
minute flirted with Nazi Germany, hoping to hit the USSR along with it. Poland is to blame
for failing to provide decent resistance to Hitler."
Hear hear! The Truth really hurts, don't it, Poland?
How had the Polish army deteriorated before the World War? The Poles had been preparing
for war against the USSR, but they had made a terrible mistake.
In the 1930s, while all the armies of Europe were moving ahead with the times, the
Polish army was becoming out of date. At the end of the 1920s, both in tanks and artillery,
Poland would still have been a serious opponent if there had been a war against the
USSR.
In the next decade, however, the USSR and Germany made serious progress, while Poland
was stuck in the past. An almost effortless defeat could already be guaranteed for the Polish
army. The reason for this was, as always, a lack of money, resources, as well as the hope for
support from their allies, France and Great Britain.
But the Polish army had simply not become focused on waging war against Germany, but
against the USSR. This explains the prohibitive number of cavalry divisions for World War II.
Another problem was the ethnic composition of the army, which included the Germans in the
west, and Ukrainians and Belarussians in the east.
Alexei Isayev together with historian Yegor Yakovlev – more than 1 hour.
[VIDEO]
Video discussion in Russian.
Historians Alexei Isayev and Yegor Yakovlev discuss the fate of Poland at the beginning
of World War II. What were the chances for the Polish army after the Wehrmacht invasion? What
did the military allies of Warsaw plan and behave like? Why is the claim that the Soviet
Union hit the Poles in the back wrong? All this in a conversation between the founder of
"Digital History" and one of the most authoritative experts on the history of World War II
and the Great Patriotic War.
Virtually all of modern history of the period is a dual campaign to invest the efforts of the
western allies with nobility, and the efforts of the Soviet Union with shame and infamy.
Heil, mein Führer! Awfully glad to meet you, old chap! -- Neville
Chamberlainshakes hands with Adolf Hitler in Bad Godesberg, on 22 September 1938 during the
Sudeten crisis.
One month later:
Polish Army entering enter Český Těšín (Czech)/Czeski Cieszyn
(Polish)/Tschechisch-Teschen (German).
"Amid the general euphoria in Poland – the acquisition of Teschen was a very popular
development – no one paid attention to the bitter comment of the Czechoslovak general
who handed the region over to the incoming Poles. He predicted that it would not be long
before the Poles would themselves be handing Teschen over to the Germans " -- Watt, Richard
M. (1998): "Bitter Glory. Poland and its fate 1918–1939", New York: Hippocrene Books,
p. 511. ISBN 0-7818-0673-9.
Historically, the largest specified ethnic group inhabiting this area were Poles. Under
Austrian rule, Cieszyn Silesia was initially divided into three (Bielitz, Friedek and
Teschen), and later into four districts (plus Freistadt). One of them, Frýdek, had a
mostly Czech population, the other three were mostly inhabited by Poles. During the 19th
century the number of ethnic Germans grew. After declining at the end of the 19th century, at
the beginning of the 20th century and later from 1920 to 1938, the Czech population grew
significantly (mainly as a result of immigration and the assimilation of locals) and Poles
became a minority, which they are to this day. Another significant ethnic group were the
Jews, but almost the entire Jewish population was murdered during World War II by Nazi
Germany.
Simply marvelous research ME. The Vatican was and is still in the forefront of
anti-Russian/anti-SU/anti-Slav Orthodox in Europe. It goes back to the crusades. Of course,
Croatia is the gold-standard for Catholic Slavs hating Orthodox Slavs.
Your research helped highlight this fundamentally important force in the war against the
Orthodox Slavs. Thank you.
Meanwhile, the Persians prove once again that they are a wise and ancient and
intelligent race of people. Who are much smarter than nematodes.
For example: They refused to hand over to the Ukrainian government the "black box" of the
Boeing that they themselves (the Persians) admitted to shooting down by accident.
Admitting that they can sometimes be dumb and make a dumb mistake, but that doesn't mean that
they are complete morons.
"The black box will remain in Iran and will be deciphered on Iranian territory," the
Iranian government announced.
Thus proving that they are smarter than worms learning to run a maze.
In scientific experiments, the worms needed hundreds of tries before they learned where were
the obstacles in the maze, and what nefarious tricks they should avoid.
After only one example (=MH17), the Persians learned the key lesson: Never trust Ukrainian
Nazis with your black box!
Your wife is a genius! I heard that she married you for your natty wardrobe, your choice of
vintage wines, your posh British accent, and also for your money.
I possess none of those above things that you assume she married me for!
She once confessed that before we wed, she saw me buy a taco at Lenin Library metro
station, which edible I immediately and voraciously consumed in lightning quick time, unaware
that I was being observed.
Am guessing that the flight crew would have used Russian amongst themselves and English with
ATC in Tehran so the Iranians need at least interpreters knowledgeable in both languages who
also understand the terminology used by airline flight crews.
Speaking of Poland – and we were, the whole post is about Poland – that truculent
nation has announced it will not renew its gas contract with Gazprom under any circumstances.
It has a cunning plan: it will replace Russian imports (63% of its annual consumption in
2017) with American LNG (37%) and supply from Norway (43%) by 2022!! Its own production is
forecast to decline from 26% in 2017 to 20% in 2022.
This is a recipe for catastrophe, and only a government of ideological eejits would try
it. We have become so accustomed to lying from Poland lately that its announcement that it
can buy American LNG cheaper than pipeline gas from Russia will come as no surprise –
the Poles' American brothers are going to transport it all the way across the sea for them
and then sell it to them at a loss to themselves.
Of course the USA is touting this as a major victory, because it wants to get a toehold in
Europe for gas that it really needs to sell. But if it sells at a loss, the relationship is
not going to last long. Perhaps it hopes to sell at a break-even price until it has
established a reputation as a reliable partner, and then incrementally increase its prices
until it reaches a happy place. But it is not going to happen. In truth, there is lots of
room in the European market for US LNG without inconveniencing Gazprom overmuch, but the
major determining factor is the US can't supply gas in any significant amounts and still make
money, not if it is looking to present an alternative to Russian gas. Because as I have
pointed out before, Russia's production costs are in rubles while its sales are in Euros. No
matter how low the market price goes, Russia can still make money.
But Poland must be encouraged to do it. Take the plunge, Poland, and get off the Gazprom
tit!! Moreover, no matter what attempts at rapprochement may be made in the future, Moscow
must not make a new gas deal with Poland. Fuck the Poles! It will not be very long before
they are begging Europe to help them with their energy situation, and if Europe wants to buy
Russian gas at market prices and sell it to Poland cheap, that is their affair. But Norway's
gas supplies are in permanent decline, and the USA cannot supply Poland at the price Poland
wants to pay and make money.
According to Oilprice.com, Norway's gas production was forecast at 2014/15 to decline by
more than 40% by 2025. To the best of my knowledge no major new Norwegian discoveries have
been made since that time.
This is typical Polish stubbornness – it will plunge ahead, and the situation will
magically rectify itself to Poland's satisfaction. Except it won't, and once again Poland
will cut off its nose to spite its face.
If natural gas is decarbonized, the result in hydrogen gas and carbon in some form (most
likely CO2). Hydrogen gas would have little potential to replace natural gas for many
reasons. Or does decarbonizing mean something else?
The report says that clean hydrogen can be produced from natural gas using existing
technology, at a self-powered 12-gigawatt production facility with carbon capture
technology.
Splitting methane into hydrogen and carbon takes energy so the process can not be
"self-powered" unless the carbon is oxidized to CO2. The first link did mention sequestering
the carbon (likely in the form of CO2) which in itself an energy intensive and expensive
process.
Using hydrogen for space heating is simply dangerous and crazy expensive – invisible
flame, pipe failures from hydrogen embrittlement, large leakage losses, etc.
I suppose an entirely new gas distribution system with entirely new heating systems could
be developed but the ROI would liely be crazy bad. The more likely heating future in northern
England involves lots of sweaters and hats. This story is a variation of the wunderwaffen
shtick. Just an opinion.
I would need convincing that 'biomethane' is a 'green' gas. LNG is mostly methane, and when
it is burnt as a fuel it is almost completely consumed. When it is spilled into the sea, it
boils away. But its release unburnt causes tremendous greenhouse-gas damage, methane is
probably the worst. Use of it as a ship's fuel is demonstrably much cleaner than the previous
standby, marine diesel. It is the gas which escapes during extraction and at LNG terminals
during regasification that make it overall just as much a pollutant. If escape of natural gas
unburnt during those operations could be substantially tightened up, it'd be a winner.
I am suspicious of the process of 'greening by labeling', as we saw with 'clean coal'.
I'm pretty confident Poland cannot claim transit fees for gas which is delivered from Europe
to Poland as a customer. And that is what they seem to be hoping will happen – that
when they drop Gazprom, Europe and the Americans will come to the rescue with cheap gas,
cheaper than they were getting it from the Russians. Of course the real intent may not be to
drop Russian gas at all, merely to take a hard line so the filthy Russians will offer Poland
a can't-say-no deal. But Poland will be oh, so sorry if it goes through with it, especially
if the door is firmly closed to ever resuming supply from Russia, because while Washington
plainly regards these peelings-away of various countries from Russia as strategic triumphs,
it equally plainly expects Europe to fund them. At some point Europe will tire of being
saddled with poor Eastern-European ticks sucking its finances, and the charity will stop with
a bump. Europe already has little cash to spare, and interest in subsidizing Ukraine is
already well on the wane – Europe does not need to begin subsidizing Poland with cheap
gas as well. If Europe has to buy Russian gas at market prices through Germany and then
backhand it at a discount to Poland and Ukraine, I predict complaints will not be long in
coming. If instead Poland and Ukraine have to pay market prices which are higher than they
were paying for pipeline gas direct from Russia, well, that's called 'stupidity tax'.
Anyway, you can count on strong support from Washington for any policy which shifts away
from hydrocarbons; the United States is not a major exporter or consumer of hydrocarbons.
Brussels's last mega tranch of ~EUR104b finishes this year, then Poland can only claim the
usual. Looking up further info for the decarbonization links I posted above, I came across
views that say much too much is being spent on gas infrastructure and is essentially a
waste.
The thing is, Bru likes such projects because they show that they are doing
something and makes it look good for PR brownie points. Who doesn't like a reverse-flow
gas interconnector or two in the neighborhood? And of course, once it is built no-one wants
to take it away even if it isn't used much.
Personally, I like pipelines, especially if you can travel through them like James Bond in
The Living Daylights. It's like a personal (and sexy) version of Elong Must's Hyperloop poop!
Maybe even Russias Great White Hope (aka A. Navalny) can use it in case he needs to
make a quick get away in future from mobs of ripped off hamsters and kreakles
From a link at the bottom, ~EUR373 billion for 2021-2027 Cohesion Funds for the whole of
the EU.
I was watching something (ARTE?) or read something that pointed out that Poland had taken
practically no advantage of the Vitsula to shift heavy goods/reduce carbon emissions etc.
etc. despite the significant impact it could have despite its long periods of low water:
Ummm Mark
You gotta keep up all that stuff about the IMPOSSIBILITY of USA
LNG being capable of displacing
Gazprom in the EU market; that was proved flat out on this blog like two years ago
Well, it could not displace it, but there is certainly room in the European market for the
little bit of gas the USA could supply by sea. For anyone who wanted to pay more. Because
molecules of freedom ain't free.
I have just come across a translation into Russian of Lucas's article in the Times that
appeared a couple of weeks ago and which rants on and on about how evil the M-R Pact was and
how evil the Russians are for hypocritically allying themselves with Hitler and for aiding
and abetting the Nazis until June 22 1941 etc., etc. , and how the wicked Putin is twisting
history and arguing the Stalin line with a view to rebuilding Stalinism and an evil
totalitarian, Stalinist Russian Empire and they're gonna take over the world, I tell yer!
They really are!!!!! They're EVIL!!! EVIL BEYOND BELIEF!!!! .
In fact there are specific refutations of any indication that it was shot down by the Taliban
forces. That, of course, does not mean it wasn't and might only mean it suits their purposes
for now to deny it – but it is thus far not 'apparent'.
Various reports suggest 83 were on board and all were killed. The Taliban suggests high
ranking CIA officials were on board. Since they have access to the crash site as evidenced by
video, such claims are plausible.
Meanwhile the US want to replace the Afghan Air Force's easy to maintain and operate Mi-17s
with its CH-47 Chinooks which will be destined to become hangar queens once the corrupt
authorites figure out how expensive they will be to maintain or the US pulls its support:
Spare parts and maintenance business profit potential can exceed by several times the profit
on the original sale. Yes, the Afghan government will be enslaved by those purchases.
Regarding the major air disaster in Afghanistan (83 US military personnel killed?), the
Yahoo story was about 16th in ranking on Yahoo behind various impeachment stories, a better
mousetrap and the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash.
If the plane were brought down by the Taliban, what would Trump do? As a guess, he would
say it was a mechanical failure and ooze praise over the victims.
It is a Boeing product, though, and there's an obvious interest in shunting money to
Boeing. And it's a perfectly valid point that any dependence on an American product is a
vulnerability that casts an American shadow over one's political decision-making. The 'wrong'
decision could mean the termination of your spare-parts chain and the withdrawal of technical
support.
They could just flog them off to India or anyone else who want the parts or airframes. I
don't doubt that they are very reliable and robust, but Russian Mils are renoun for easy
maintenance with a can of oil and wire even by lowly and not very educated maintainers.
Ironically, and we've mentioned this before, the US previously funded buys of Russian
helicopters until it became politically incorrect and even then India (which has a large
support base) conveniently picked up the slack and has even provided extra airframes. I don't
see India providing that level of support for CH-47s if at all. Local corruption is just as a
big threat.
US Air Force Chief of Staff General David Goldfein has confirmed that the country has
lost one of its Bombardier E-11A communications network aircraft in Afghanistan. He didn't
elaborate on the cause of the crash and said no information on casualties was available at
the time.
I was listening to al-Beeb s'Allah this morning. A lady presenter led her interview with an
Auschwitz survivor by revealing that it was liberated by the Soviet Army!* Well, as
everyone knows, details look after themselves so no need to mention them when broad
brushstrokes will do , or as the British don't say "If you look after the pounds, the
pennies will look after themselves!"
* The Soviet Army was the main land-based branch of the Soviet Armed Forces between
February 1946 and December 1991
The Ukraine is in solidarity with Poland that the Soviet Union is guilty of the
outbreak of World War II and the Holocaust.
This was stated on January 27th by the Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky during a
briefing after a meeting with his Polish colleague Andrzej Duda during a visit to
Warsaw.
Yes, now that they've got their gas deal. But they deeply, deeply admire the United States,
whose national mantra is 'never apologize for anything, or you'll never stop'. And it plainly
does not offend the Ukrainian soul – or the Polish soul, comes to that – to have
been responsible for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, as both Poles and Ukrainians
happily participated in pogroms of their Jewish citizens. No; if they could get Russia, as
the inheritor of the Soviet Union, to admit to having started the Second World War, then the
matter of reparations would arise, and the flow into the Ukrainian and Polish treasuries of
some of that $557 Billion in reserves. All of it, if they had their way.
Zelensky pins the blame for the Holocaust on the USSR
After Zelensky's failed trip to Israel, during which he decided not to go to the
Holocaust forum, where leaders from more than 40 countries had gathered, some social network
wit predicted: "Now he can safely go to Poland, where there won't be any Putin, and tell them
that Auschwitz was liberated by the Ukrainians."
And Vladimir Zelensky really went to visit Andrzej Duda on the 75th anniversary of the
liberation of that concentration camp. And he didn't let Internet forecasters down. In his
speech, he spoke in all seriousness, about a Ukrainian tank commander who rammed the gates of
Auschwitz, the soldiers of the 100th Lviv Division under the command of a Poltava resident,
the soldiers of the First Ukrainian Front The words "Red Army" or "Soviet troops" were not
heard once. And, not knowing history, it could be assumed that a certain abstract Ukrainian
Army had freed the world from fascism. Moreover, not even once did Duda utter such words
thanking soldiers of the Ukrainian Front for the liberation.
[NOTE: "FRONT" as in "Ukrainian Front" is Russian and Polish terminology for what in
British and US English would be called the "Ukraine Army Group". The "Ukrainian Front"
started off as the "Voronezh Front" and it was from that front line in the RSFSR, between
Moskva to the north and Stalingrad to the south and on which the city of Voronezh stands,
where the Nazi central thrust into the Russian heartland was halted at the Voronezh River.
From this halt-line, that army group named the Voronezh Front began rolling back the
Wehrmacht to Berlin. As the Voronezh Front approached the UkSSR, its name was changed to the
"Ukrainian Front". The army group was NOT a Ukrainian army! -- ME]
The President of Poland, in turn, proposed that this year mark the 100th anniversary of
the Battle of Warsaw. And Zelensky gladly accepted this proposal, although it looked a tad
dumb. According to the Riga Peace Treaty, after the Soviet-Polish war, Poland took a piece of
Western Ukraine as far as Zhytomyr, and fought against the Bolsheviks and with an undisguised
anti-Semitic undertone, neither sparing its own Jews nor those of the Ukraine.
Yet according to Zelensky, amongst those who died later in the Holocaust, every fourth
Jew was a Ukrainian. Towards the close of the show, the president of "Independent Ukraine"
had an unhealthy and discouraging thought.
"Poland and the Polish people were the first to feel the collusion of totalitarian
regimes. This led to the outbreak of World War II and allowed the deadly Holocaust flywheel
to start spinning", said the grandson of the commander of a rifle company in the 174th
regiment of the 57th Guards Rifle Division. It was as if he was pinning the blame for the
extermination of Jews on both Nazi Germany and the USSR. It seems that an epistolary saboteur
had got into Zelensky's speechwriter camp. But it is now clear why the president of the
Ukraine fled the forum in Israel. Nobody would have understood him there.
All the masks are slipping. As many have said, the Nazi heart is beating strongly throughout
Europe. The end of WW II brought a high level management shakeup but the stakeholders remain
the same. It would be easy to imagine Iron Curtain 2.0 on the way.
In Poland, the President of the Ukraine presented with his colleague Andrzej Duda an
alternative vision of the history of World War II
Stalin and Hitler concluded an "illegitimate pact," from which "Poland and the Polish
people were the first to suffer". The Second World War immediately began, which "allowed the
Nazis to launch the deadly flywheel of the Holocaust".
Clear logical and temporary inconsistencies in this "historical reconstruction" are
striking, but who pays attention to such trifles? The main thing is another: to indicate the
indestructible unity of Poland and the Ukraine in countering the pronounced "Russian
aggression".
What urgently needs to be done? First of all, according to Zelensky, do not be silent.
And who is silent? Europe and the world. They stupidly ignore the "real course of history",
show "indifference and inaction." And only the the Ukrainian and Polish presidents, holding
hands and "lowering the degree in bilateral relations," have joined forces in bringing the
world the true truth about 1939. Here is an alternative version of the Holocaust forum in
Israel. Duda did not go there. Zelensky flew in, but handed in the tickets to "surviving
victims of the tragedy". I didn't want to listen to "Putin's version of World War
II".
In Poland, an "alternative political platform" was organized for the presentation of
the concept of the "conspiracy of totalitarian regimes" (Germany and the USSR), from which
the "Polish and Ukrainian nations" suffered. Duda and Zelensky called on "all states of the
world to say resolutely no to totalitarian ideologies, aggression, repression, any
manifestations of hatred and intolerance". This, dear friends, is a serious bid for
alternative leadership in the global world.
The former director of the Alzheimer's Institute of National Remembrance, the deputy of
the European Solidarity faction, Vyatrovich, should weep [with joy] : his "ideological
reconstruction of history" from the time of Peter Alekseevich [first Russian Emperor Petr
I -- ME} has turned out to be in demand. Moreover, it has been the recipient of creative
development. A new centre of "historical justice" has emerged on the basis of Poland and the
the Ukraine, which will "dictate its will" to those very Jews, who have no idea how
everything really happened and who exactly had "spun the Holocaust flywheel".
It's clear that this "construct" was whipped up by American strategists in the
framework of "expanding opposition to the growing influence of the Kremlin". Since millions
of Ukrainians have become active participants in the "programme for the economic revival of
Poland", it is time to organize a "geopolitical alliance" from them. That's how they are
constantly because of the Volyn massacre, the monuments of the OUN-UPA and other "historical
misunderstandings". The process has gone too far, and therefore it is necessary to combine
them in a single anti-Russian project.
First, there was a "community of history," which was closely implicated in a "joint
struggle against the Bolsheviks." Isn't that pretty? Polish President Andrzej Duda suggested
Zelensky "jointly honour the memory of Polish and Ukrainian soldiers who, in 1920, fought
shoulder to shoulder against Bolshevism"; Petliura and Pilsudski as symbols of the new
historical unity of the Ukraine and Poland.
Naturally, Zelensky gratefully accepted Duda's proposal. You can even say that he was
fired up with the idea. He called the "Battle of Warsaw, the centenary of which we will
celebrate in August, a unifying page in our history". Apparently, these guys are not shy at
all. They play as if from a script "A common anti-Bolshevik history", "a common enemy in the
Second World War" and, finally, a common strategic goal of our time – "to stop the
growing influence of the Russian Federation".
I have no illusions about the long-term effectiveness of this alternative historical
coalition. But the fact that the policy of Petro Poroshenko is being continued by the new
president of the Ukraine is, as they say, obvious. True, Zelensky does not call himself the
leader of the "world anti-Putin coalition." He lacks the hysteria of his predecessor and the
knowledge of the local language. Volodya still speaks Ukrainian with difficulty. Therefore,
the palm in this case, it seems, goes to Poland. However, Zelensky is a talented comedian and
therefore will show his best "qualities" already in May, when the celebration of the 75th
anniversary of the Great Victory will be held in Moscow
Groveling seems to be his natural style – remember his obsequious waffling to Trump
during his phone call, telling him he was one thousand percent correct or some such flannel?
He seems to have zero dignity, but instead to just leap all over everyone like a puppy.
Following Kaczynski', Tyagnibok has demanded from the Russian Federation "reparations"
for the Second World War
28.01.20 AF-News
Above: an arsehole, metaphorically speaking.
Keiv should follow the example of Warsaw and demand from Moscow compensation for World
War II.
This was written in the Telegram-channel by Oleg Tyagnibok, leader of the nationalist
party "All-Ukrainian Union 'Freedom'"
Tyagnibok reminded that the leader of the ruling Polish party "PiS" Jaroslaw Kaczynski
had demanded from Russia "reparations" for World War II.
Tyagnibok is outraged that against a backdrop of similar claims made against Russia by
the Baltic States Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the Ukrainian authorities "do not even
mumble about mention such a thing".
Tyagnibok is an open, out-of-the-closet Nazi.
Since when does the losing side of a war demand reparations of the winners?
Only on Bizarro Planet, I reckon.
As I've often said on here before, I've met weirdos such as he, and long before the shit hit
the Maidan fan.
Having found out that I am British, they always started slagging off Russians in my
presence, because they clearly thought I must be a tosser like certain of my fellow
countrymen, e.g. Harding, Lucas, Walker-of-the Dill, and Higgins etc., etc.
Almost from day one after having first met these Svidomite freaks, I realized that their
fundamental problem lies in the fact that they and ther team (Team Adolf) were well and truly
defeated by what they consider to be subhumans, which results in what they have in
replacement for brains short-circuiting.
Seriously, it will be just talk and will go nowhere. Because success would establish
precedent. And then how long would it be before it occurred, say, to Iraq that it could and
should sue the United States for reparations for a war the protagonist admits it fabricated
the justifications for initiating?
Or any of the other countries America leveled, wrecked or damaged in pursuit of corporate
interests? Open and shut case, m'Lud; Paul Wolfowits said on the record that weapons of mess
destruction was just a handy hook that everyone could hang their hats on; no such weapons
were ever found in Iraq, despite occasional assurances from the Jackass American President Of
The Moment that they were finding so much WMD, you wouldn't even believe it.
Dear God; I could win that case, and I'd work cheaper than a lawyer – did you hear
me, Mr. Iraqi Ambassador?
Tyagnibok would say anything to see his name in print, but he is a nobody in Ukraine. If
the Presidential Comedian takes it into his head to actually pursue such a claim, he will
open such a bag of snakes that he will wish he had stuck to making people laugh for a living.
Which, in a way, I guess he has.
That's a very good point about the naming conventions for these army groups. Since ancient
times, these army groups have been named (sometimes informally) after the next geographical
goal that has been assigned to them.
In the same way that military commanders are named after their most outstanding recent
victory, e.g., Alexander Nevsky (after his victory on the Neva River), etc.
Hence, the "Ukraine Army Group" had nothing to do with Ukrainians per se, it was just their
next target for victory, e.g., the Ukraine. The victors probably included ethnic Ukrainians,
along with Russians and many other USSR peoples. Zelensky HAS to know this! Or is he just a
complete low-IQ and low-informational idiot? (Possible, I suppose.)
He also stated that the parties "managed to reduce the degree of emotions relative to the
common past". Thus, the Ukrainian side lifted the moratorium on search operations.
That tells me that the Polish side achieved a main objective: heretore the Ukies were
forbidding them to dig and poke around for Polish skeletons, victims of the Banderite
pogroms.
So, now the Poles can resume their digging. Good for them! Let the Poles dig up as many
graves as they can, even those liars won't claim the Russians did it, everybody knows it was
Bandera what dunnit.
Maybe the whole of the Wehrmacht was just Russians disguised in field grey, looking to pin
the rap on the Germans. Maybe Hitler was secretly a Russian agent! Go big, or go home.
The question as to whether or not the German population at large was aware of the
unfolding
systematic mass murder of millions is ill posed. The only reasonable query is how could they
NOT have known.
Fundamental characteristics of human nature dictate that there was simply no way that the
German population could have remained oblivious to the fate of millions of their suddenly
disappeared fellow Germans,with whom they had lived with as neighbors for centuries.
All of the people -civilian and military-who actually carried out the murders had friends,
families, colleagues etc. to whom they surely divulged the enormity of depravity in which
they had participated. Who in turn relayed the accounts to others ,who then in turn and so
on.
That's human nature 101.
Yes, the question is how Joe Schmidt could claim not to have known. They knew of and were
proud of the atrocities toward Russians committed by their army as evidenced by letters from
the front.
We are dealing with civilizational values here and those tend to persist a very looong
time. The Vatican is a repository of those values regenerated in successive generations,
Russia and China should. act accordingly.
I like to think that the US is not as tainted but, that is only a hope.
As I mentioned earlier, the death camps where Soviet PoWs, Jewish people, homosexuals, Roma /
Sinti, people with inborn mental and physical disabilities and others – even people
condemned for helping Jews – were killed were located in remote parts of Poland, at the
ends of railway lines, so that entry into and exit out of these camps could be controlled by
Nazi German authorities. That meant to a large extent information about these camps was also
controlled by the Nazi government.
One big problem in knowing how much ordinary people in Germany knew what was happening is
figuring out how much they were allowed to know about anything at all within Germany, and
then working out how much they could know about things going on in neighbouring countries
where the languages are very different. Especially as in Germany the government was secretive
about its policies towards minority groups and deliberately used euphemistic language to
describe policies that its own politicians and civil servants knew were murderous; the
language effectively becomes a secret jargon to communicate ideas in public that to ordinary
people would have been baffling.
Guards and others working at these camps were often either local people (Polish or
Galician or other) or were recruited from the prisoners themselves. The people who disposed
of the remains of those killed in gas chambers were camp prisoners themselves known as
Sonderkommandos. Jewish Sonderkommandos were employed at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The people who died in these camps came from all over central, eastern and southeastern
Europe. About 45,000 Jews from the Jewish community in Thessaloniki (northern Greece) were
killed in Auschwitz-Birkenau. From May 1944, two months after Germany occupied Hungary, up to
January 1945, over half a million Jews from Hungary were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
In addition the Nazis took advantage of local longstanding conflicts and prejudices
between different groups to enlist collaborators (in western Ukraine, the Baltic states, the
Balkans and other parts of eastern Europe) to their side in the areas they conquered. There
are diaspora populations of ethnic groups from these areas in the Americas and Australia that
still see nothing wrong in their collaboration with Nazis in killing or rounding up people
they either despised or resented.
"There are diaspora populations of ethnic groups from these areas in the Americas and
Australia that still see nothing wrong in their collaboration with Nazis in killing or
rounding up people they either despised or resented."
Very very true. At the same time, these diaspora descendants know that their ancient
resentments and hatreds, and particularly the heinous crimes committed by their grandparents,
would not necessarily elicit sympathy or understanding among the mainstream populations.
Which is why they have learned to be duplicitous and wear a mask as they were growing up.
The cunning and the duplicity are passed down from one generation to the other, it's like a
secret society, what these people say to each other in secret is very different from what
they say in public.
I think I told the story once, how a Ukrainian pal of mine (this was a few years back)
walked me into a Ukrainian National Home building in New York City, a place I would never
dare to enter on my own. The old Banderites were friendly and didn't actually care that I
spoke Russian. The coffee tables were stacked with photo albums glorifying Nazi and Banderite
graves, and suchlike. And I got, like, a tiny glimpse. of what these completely unregenerate
Nazis were like when in their home base and thinking they were just among friends.
Witness the Canadian Foreign Minister for the Ukraine, who, I believe, speaks Ukrainian at
home so as not to forget "The Old country" and that it not be forgotten by her progeny. Yet
some of her forebears on her paternal side are British -- Scots, if I am not mistaken --
which fact she makes use of when presenting her alter ego, publically expressing her pride in
her grandfather's contribution in overthrowing Nazism. She does not mean her grandpa Chomiak.
Freeland's paternal grandfather (above) served in the air force during WWII. Her paternal
grandmother was from Glasgow.
Michael Chomiak Freeland's grandfather] was a lawyer and journalist before the
Second World War, but "they knew the Soviets would invade western Ukraine (and) fled and,
like a lot of Ukrainians, ended up after the war in a displaced persons camp in Germany where
my mother was born."
Along the way Michael and Alexandra had six children, the last two born in Canada. They
lived in poverty after they arrived; he couldn't practise or go to law school and eventually
worked for years as a lab assistant.
"(Their experience) had a very big effect on me," Freeland says. "They had heated
political discussions They were also committed to the idea, like most in the (Ukrainian)
diaspora, that Ukraine would one day be independent and that the community had a
responsibility to the country they had been forced to flee to keep that flame alive."
Yes, Chomiak knew the Soviets would invade whilst chasing the USSR invading Nazis back to
where they had come from in 1941 via Galicia, which the Poles had annexed in 1920 after
having launched and won a war of aggression against the Ukraine and Belorussia and the
proto-USSR, which seized by Poland territories the USSR re-occupied on September 17, 1939,
after the Nazis had defeated Poland in that same month and the Polish state had ceased to
exist.
As controversy has intensified in Canada over Freeland's coverup for Chomiak [her
maternal grandfather] , she arranged in the parliament lobby for a reporter to ask the
question Freeland's staff had planted: "Recently, there has been a series of articles about
you and your maternal grandparents making accusations that he was a Nazi collaborator in
pro-Russian websites. I'd like to get your view on do you see this as a disinformation
campaign by the Russians to try to smear you and discredit you? Which they have to have a
tendency to have done." In answer Freeland avoided the Chomiak evidence. Instead, she blamed
Russian efforts "to destabilize" the US and Canadian political systems. "I am confident",
Freeland declared on March 6, "in our country's democracy, and I am confident that we can
stand up to and see through those efforts." For the full story,
click .
On March 9 Freeland was
reportedin the Washington Post as saying: "Russia should stop calling my grandfather
a Nazi".
In Warsaw, a file on Chomiak has been
discoveredat the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN is the Polish acronym), which
is part of the state's Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation.
There are four items in the file, which have been photographed, and are published here for
the first time. The IPN has tagged the Chomiak file No. Kr 010/5606.
THE IPN FILE NOTE FOR THE CHOMIAK FILE IN WARSAW
The three original documents in the file comprise Chomiak's identity card of 1941,
issued by the German authorities; and two later documents in Polish, indicating a Polish
intelligence and police search for Chomiak.
CHOMIAK'S GERMAN IDENTITY CARD OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1941
The document shows that Chomiak, then 36 years old, was in Vienna at the time the
German authorities issued his identification. He was no longer a reporter or journalist, but
titled Hauptschriftleiter – Editor in Chief. The card also confirms that although a
Ukrainian by nationality, and a native of Lemberg (the German name for Lvov), Chomiak had
been living and working for some time in Cracow, then occupied Poland. Cracow was the
administrative capital of the Generalgouvernment, whose governor-general was a German, Hans
Frank. Gassner, whom Chomiak's own papers identify as his boss, was Frank's spokesman and
head of press operations for the Galician region .
When exactly Chomiak arrived in Cracow, and how long he spent in training in Vienna
aren't revealed in the Polish file. The ID card suggests that Chomiak was in Vienna between
July and September of 1941, before he was ordered back to Cracow, reporting there to Gassner.
"This document destroys the narrative of the Chomiak apologists that he was just an
administrative functionary and didn't write much," comments Stanislas Balcerac from Warsaw.
"The card is very important evidence. Editor in Chief Chomiak was no mere small fish, caught
in the tidal wave of the war. The Germans placed high value on him. Three months after the
invasion [of the USSR] he was sent from Vienna to Cracow. With the title of Editor in Chief,
I believe he was trained in Vienna; perhaps Vienna is the hidden part of his war record, with
Cracow used initially as a cover for him during the first years of the German occupation of
Poland, 1939-41."
The papers Chomiak left behind at his death in Canada do not reveal what he was doing
with the Germans in the 2-year interval. Polish sources suspect Chomiak arrived in Cracow
soon after Frank became governor, offering himself as an agent of influence to inform the
Germans on what fellow Ukrainians and anti-Russian nationalists then active in and around
Lviv were thinking and planning. His work as a journalist was a cover for espionage on behalf
of the Germans, Polish sources suspect.
There is no corroboration for this in the Polish files discovered to date. Two other
documents in the IPN dossier, dating well after the German defeat and the end of the war,
indicate that whatever Chomiak had been doing for the Germans became a fresh issue of
interest to the Polish authorities in the mid-1960s.
WARSAW POLICE FILES ON CHOMIAK, APRIL 1966-MARCH 1980
Later, the Polish ambassador to Canada praised Freeland as a true friend of Poland, saying
that the Polish investigation into her grandfather's doings in Krakow were the result of a
mistaken identity.
The tales also appear to be founded in demonstrable fact. The truth of Chomiak's stint
at a Nazi-controlled newspaper in occupied Krakow has been known to Freeland for more than 20
years. Her uncle, historian John-Paul Himka, wrote about Chomiak in a 1996 journal article.
Freeland helped edit the article.
There's no evidence Chomiak wrote any of the anti-Jewish diatribes that flowed like
sewage through the pages of the newspaper, Krakivski Visti. His state of mind at the time
cannot be known to us. After the war he told his family he had worked with the anti-Nazi
resistance, helping its members get false papers. Perhaps it's true. Perhaps it's one of the
stories people tell themselves later, as they try to live with the things they did to stay
alive in hell.
What we know is that if Chomiak was still alive at the end of the war, it's because he
took pains to stay on the right side of the murderers who had occupied Ukraine and Poland for
the war's duration. Everyone did. Everyone had to. You might be a resister for three hours a
day after collaborating the other 21. Those who didn't manage to escape to the West, as
Chomiak and his family did, stayed behind and spent generations staying on the right side of
the new occupiers, the Stalinist murderers who took over from the Nazis.
Chrystia Freeland is in the business of helping societies -- ours, Ukraine's, the
world's -- stay on the side of sanity. It makes her a target. The fact that her family
existed in the damned 20th century gives her opponents ammunition. None of this takes away
the legitimacy of her important work.
I see. Excuses galore for poor Chomiak, who only did what he had to do to stay alive and
protect his precious family – coming from the same people who insist the USSR signed
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as a means of forging a partnership with Nazi Germany which would
enable thievery on a grand scale and plunge the world into conflagration. Lots of slack for
Chomiak (hey, that rhymes), but for Stalin, not so much. It is simply not possible to see him
as a leader who had gone 'round the table looking for alliances against Germany, and been
given the cold shoulder, and who made a non-aggression pact with Hitler after all his
potential allies had already done so.
I'm certainly not a Stalin fan in any way, but the selectivity employed here is striking.
Also, Freeland's present Ukrainian-nationalist sentiments must be seen in context; she was
raised to loathe the Russians and to make excuses for the Nazis, and her justifications are
written by those cut from the same cloth.
I suppose according to Paul Wells people who refused to collaborate with the Nazis –
because they considered working with them a betrayal of their own values and those of their
own people – and who ended up dying ghastly deaths are fools to be ignored and whose
deeds are not worth remembering. Presumably if Wells found himself in a similar situation as
Mihaylo Chomiak, he wouldn't even think to hesitate in collaborating with a criminal regime.
At least he, like Chomiak before him, gets to choose: other people would be denied even that
opportunity.
Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee have formerly requested that Attorney General William Barr declassify four footnotes
in Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the FBI's FISA abuse
investigation. The letter states that the classified footnotes contradict information in
Horowitz's report that appears to have misled the public.
U.S. Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the classified letter
Tuesday evening and questioned the contradiction between the footnotes and what was made public
by Horowitz's team regarding the bureau's Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
However, the Senator's did not disclose what section of the December FISA report contradicts
the footnotes in their findings.
The Senator's state in their letter to Barr that certain sections of Horowitz's report on
the FBI are misleading the public.
Part of the classified letter, which was obtained by SaraACarter.com states:
"We have reviewed the findings of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with regard to
the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we are deeply concerned about certain
information that remains classified ," the letter states.
"Specifically, we are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report
are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information
redacted in four footnotes.
This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements
in a section of the report , but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate
evaluation of the entire investigation.
The American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes
and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the
Crossfire Hurricane investigation. "
Johnson and Grassley's office noted that "for maximum public transparency, the senators
wrote a separate unclassified cover letter to describe their request."
Full text of the unclassified letter to Barr below:
I wonder what kind of back room deals are going on right now that got the establishment
working so hard to make sure the people are distracted from?
The impeachment is a giant nothing burger considering democrats lack the votes and any
reasonable person knows that Barr was destined to return a giant nothing burger from the
beginning so there must be something important the establishment wants to keep hidden by
keeping these nothing burgers alive and in our faces.
Didn't NeoCon puppet Trump order Barr to declass the Russia hoax docs?? Then deep
state/CIA Barr and dirty corrupt DOJ turned everything around on Trump, and said Barr was
ordered to determine IF anything needed to be declassified, which means, it will NEVER
HAPPEN!!!
Trump had leverage over the domestic/global swamp when he held the thread of
declassification over their heads, but once he ordered Barr to do it, and Barr turned it
around on him, he lost all of his leverage/power. More here on leverage and
declassification:
.Horowitz discredited himself in an earlier report and Congress testimony when he said
"there was no bias in the FBI's efforts to surveil Trump"
He's a Democrat. Wanna know why some businesses fail? They let 'qualified' but sabotaging
people stay around.
Governments can fail too. Looks like Horowitz has proven once again he's not neutral. I
actually emailed the White House, I believe after he testifyied in that hearing, to get rid
of him. Barr is likewise useless in terms of protecting the government and citizens from the
deep state.
The US government is for the US government. The system protects the system! It does not
matter who it looks like is running it because the system is running the system and the
system is covering for everyone in the system that needs to be protected to protect the
system.
Terrorism to Turkey means the PKK/YPG Kurds in Syria which also fight Turkish forces
within Turkey and Iraq. In east Syria the Kurds are cooperating with U.S. troops who occupy
the Syrian oil resources. Turkey wants Syria to at least disarm the Kurds. The Kurds though
use their U.S. relations to demand autonomy and to prevent any agreement with the Syrian
government.
Neither Ankara nor Damascus seem yet ready to make peace. But both countries have economic
problems and will have to come to some solution. There are still ten thousand of Jihadis in
Idleb governorate that need to be cleaned out. Neither country wants to keep these people.
The export of these Jihadis to Libya which Turkey initiated points to a rather unconventional
solution to that problem.
The U.S. has still
not given up its efforts to overthrow the Syrian government through further economic
sanctions. It also
pressures Iraq to keep its troops in the country.
After the U.S. murder of the Iranian general Soleimani and the Iraqi PMU leader
al-Muhandis its position in Iraq is
under severe threat . If the U.S. were forced to leave Iraq it would also have to remove
its hold on Syria's oil. To prevent that the U.S. has reactivated its old plan to
split Iraq into three statelets :
At the height of the war in Iraq Joe Biden publicly
supported it. The original plan failed when in 2006 Hizbullah defeated Israel's attack on
Lebanon and when the Iraqi resistance overwhelmed the U.S. occupation forces.
It is doubtful that the plan can be achieved as long as the government in Baghdad is
supported by a majorities of Shia. Baghdad as well as Tehran will throw everything they have
against the plan.
After the U.S. murder of Soleimani Iran fired well aimed ballistic missiles against U.S.
forces at the Ain al Assad airbase west of Ramadi in Anbar province and against the airport
of Erbil in the Kurdish region. This because those are exactly the bases the U.S. wants to
keep control of. The missiles demonstrated that the U.S. would have to fight a whole new war
to implement and protect its plan.
From the perspective of the
resistance the new plan is just another U.S. attempt to rule the region after its many
previous attempts have failed.
Posted by b on January 28, 2020 at 16:28 UTC |
Permalink
Nine months ago, a group of Iraqi politicians and businessmen from Anbar, Salah al-Din and
Nineveh provinces were invited to the private residence of the Saudi ambassador to Jordan
in Amman.
Their host was the Saudi minister for Gulf affairs, Thamer bin Sabhan al-Sabhan, Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman's point man for the region.
It is not known whether Mohammed al-Halbousi, the speaker of parliament with ties to
both Iran and Saudi Arabia, attended the secret Amman conference, but it is said that he
was informed of the details.
On the agenda was a plan to push for a Sunni autonomous region, akin to Iraqi
Kurdistan.
The plan is not new. But now an idea which has long been toyed with by the US, as it
battles to keep Iraq within its sphere of influence, has found a new lease of life as Saudi
Arabia and Iran compete for influence and dominance.
Anbar comprises 31 percent of the Iraqi state's landmass. It has significant untapped
oil, gas and mineral reserves. It borders Syria.
If US troops were indeed to be forced by the next Iraqi government to quit the country,
they would have to leave the oil fields of northern Syria as well because it is from Anbar
that this operation is supplied. Anbar has four US military bases.
The western province is largely desert, with a population of just over two million. As
an autonomous region, it would need a workforce. This, the meeting was told, could come
from Palestinian refugees and thus neatly fit into Donald Trump's so-called "Deal of the
Century" plans to rid Israel of its Palestinian refugee problem.
Anbar is almost wholly Sunni, but Salah al-Din and Nineveh aren't. If the idea worked in
Anbar, other Sunni-dominated provinces would be next.
At least three large meetings have
already been held over the plan, the last one in the United Arab Emirates. The timing
indicates that the plan was initiated when John Bolton as Trump's national security
advisor.
Canada also has troops in the Kurdish/Erbil region. One wonders if/when Iraq will demand
they go as well, since they are part of the US-led coalition and reflect US/Israeli
geostrategic objectives there
It seems to me that in the Idlib pocket we are seeing an emerging Russian form of
offensive/deterrence military strategy when up against proxies backed by the overwhelming
force of empire.
By using proxies the empire forfeits much of its military mass advantage.
The repeated strike and ceasefire combined with continual negotiation approach negates the
hybrid/media warfare of the empire which requires a period of time to mobilize public
opinion. The empire cannot maintain more than three foci for that dis-information campaign
due to the social engineered response it has manufactured
By constantly maneuvering, especially in coordinating with friends like Xi, opportunities
of attack open up
Choosing moments of maximum empire distraction is also part of the process
This is a far cry from the classic mass formation attack strategy that most present
warfare strategists endlessly debate.
Let the empire wear out it's own heart through an abuse of the hybrid/media warfare til
it's own people vomit up the diet of fear
"... Trump was adamant that Palestinians would be forced to accept his plan in the end. "We have the support of the prime minister, we have the support of the other parties, and we think we will ultimately have the support of the Palestinians, but we're going to see," he said on Monday. ..."
"... Trump has largely outsourced the creation of the plan to his adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The initial idea was to publish it after the April 2019 election in Israel, but the uncertainty hanging over the Knesset over the past year has delayed the announcement. ..."
The announcement comes after Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his
main political rival Benjamin 'Benny' Gantz. The Palestinian authorities have repeatedly
objected to the plan, as its details were trickling out, and mass protests are expected in the
Palestinian territories as Israel tightens security measures. US President Donald
Trump has unveiled his long-anticipated Middle East plan – effectively his
administration's vision for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Trump said that under his plan Jerusalem will remain Israel's 'undivided' capital.
Israel's West Bank settlements would be recognised by the United States.
However, Israel would freeze the construction of new settlements on Palestinian territories
for four years while Palestinian statehood is negotiated. Trump said that the US will open an
embassy to Palestine in East Jerusalem.
The US president said that his Palestine-Israel map would "more than double" the Palestinian
territory.
"I want this deal to be a great deal for the Palestinians, it has to be. Today's agreement is
a historic opportunity for the Palestinians to finally achieve an independent state of their
own," Trump said. "These maps will more than double Palestinian territory and provide a
Palestinian capital in Eastern Jerusalem where America will proudly open its embassy."
He added that the US and Israel would create a committee to implement the proposed peace
plan.
"My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that
resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel's security," Trump said during a press
conference.
On Monday, Donald Trump held separate meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and
opposition leader Benny Gantz. Neither of the two managed to achieve a decisive victory in
general elections in April or September last year, and a third vote is scheduled for March to
break the impasse.
Benny Gantz, the leader of the centre-right Blue and White alliance, praised Trump's plan
following Monday's meeting in Washington and promised to put it into practice if he wins the
March election. Netanyahu has not commented publicly on it yet.
There has been some speculation in the media that Trump wants Netanyahu and Gantz to work
together toward implementing the plan.
No Palestinians at the table
Trump had not met with any Palestinian representatives prior to the announcement;
Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had reportedly turned down several
offers to discuss the proposal.
Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza have called for mass protests against the
peace plan, prompting the Israeli military to reinforce troops in the Jordan Valley.
President Abbas reportedly greenlighted a "Day of Rage" over
the Trump plan on Wednesday, paving the way for violent clashes between protesters and Israeli
forces. He is currently holding an emergency meeting of the executive bodies of the Palestine
Liberation Organisation and the Fatah party.
Palestinians have also floated the possibility of quitting the Oslo accords, which created
the Palestinian Authority and regulate its relations with the state of Israel.
The Oslo accords, signed in the 1990s, officially created the Palestinian Authority as a
structure tasked with exercising self-governance over the territories of the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip.
A long path behind
Trump was adamant that Palestinians would be forced to accept his plan in the end. "We have
the support of the prime minister, we have the support of the other parties, and we think we
will ultimately have the support of the Palestinians, but we're going to see," he said on
Monday.
Trump has largely outsourced the creation of the plan to his adviser and son-in-law Jared
Kushner. The initial idea was to publish it after the April 2019 election in Israel, but the
uncertainty hanging over the Knesset over the past year has delayed the announcement.
Jared Kushner unveiled the economic portion of the plan this past summer at a conference in
Bahrain, but failed to shore up support from Palestinians and faced widespread condemnation
instead.
Israelis and Palestinians have been embroiled in a conflict ever since the State of Israel
came into existence. Previous American administrations, in line with the United Nations's
approach, had long favoured an arrangement that envisaged an independent Palestinian state in
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem.
The Trump administration reversed that policy and made a series of decidedly pro-Israel
moves in the past three years. Those included moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
and recognising the Golan
Heights (which it annexed illegally from Syria) and Israeli settlements in the West Bank
(illegal under international law) as parts of Israel.
Unless the operatives on the US spy plane were carrying ID the Taliban can find, we'll never
know who they really were. As if we could trust that either. (remember Colonel Flagg from
MASH? New fake/cover ID every time he showed up) And funny how those "soldiers" with brain
damage from the Iranian missile strikes have disappeared of the MSM news cycle... And the
"American" interpreter's death that triggered the Soleimani assassination was a dual US/Iraqi
citizen... doesn't the US often offer citizenship to useful locals in return for betraying
their home country? Sometimes treason doesn't pay.
One of the main Taliban Twitter accounts, @Zabehulah_M33 , has posted the following tweets
(machine translated):
US invasion plane crashes in Ghazni, killing scores of officers
Following a raid today in Sadukhel district of Dehik district of Ghazni province, a US
special aircraft carrier was flying over an intelligence mission in the area.
The aircraft was destroyed with all its crew and crew, including the major US
intelligence officers (CIA).
It is noteworthy that recently, in the provinces of Helmand, Balkh and some other parts
of the country, large numbers of enemy aircraft and helicopters have fallen and fallen.
# Important News:
A Ghazni helicopter crashed in the area near Sharana, the capital of Paktika province, this
evening after the Ghazni incident.
The helicopter crew and the soldiers were all destroyed.
So Taliban has not taken responsibility for the E-11A crash (although many news
outlets are reporting it, including Russian ones). Meanwhile, yet another helicopter crashed
after the E-11A crash, so it's two crashes in one day.
If the $1.6 trillion cost of the US military being in Afghanistan is correct, then the loss
of 4 helicopters and even the E11 won't significantly increase US overall spend there. $1.6
trillion over 18 years is a tad under $250 million per day
When a colonial war goes wrong, one salient question was: who sold guns to the savages?
Among more recent examples, who explained technologically inept Iraqis how to make
IEDs?
In the case of smaller weapons, the usual suspect is responsible. NYT By C. J. Chivers
Aug. 24, 2016
... In all, Overton found, the Pentagon provided more than 1.45 million firearms to
various security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, including more than 978,000 assault rifles,
266,000 pistols and almost 112,000 machine guns. These transfers formed a collage of firearms
of mixed vintage and type: Kalashnikov assault rifles left over from the Cold War; recently
manufactured NATO-standard M16s and M4s from American factories; machine guns of Russian and
Western lineage; and sniper rifles, shotguns and pistols of varied provenance and caliber,
including a large order of Glock semiautomatic pistols, a type of weapon also regularly
offered for sale online in Iraq.
----
That said, one needs something more sophisticated against helicopters and planes. I
suspect that even if Iran were inclined to provide them to Taliban, it would not give them
their own products, and, for sure, they cannot purchase Western missiles on regular markets.
However, as valiant freedom fighters in Syria are provided with such weapons while being
woefully underpaid...
"... How did they do it? Reading the reports and contemporary press (1924), plus the "Western" governments plots now with the Germans also part of the gang, everyone predicted the Soviets' experiment – who could not run a chicken raffle, let alone a huge country – would collapse by itself and the Russian wealthy emigres in Paris were preparing their return home on the back of the Great Powers armies under the command of Gen. Hoffmann. ..."
"... How did they do it? Perhaps the answer is revealed if we ask: what is different now? And the answer is that the Russian people were building a new country from the ruins of the old for themselves. In the process they were building Socialism. For the many detractors of the USSR here, that is the greatest sin. In their view, people should work as slaves for their masters: the capitalist class, coincidentally mostly Jewish, to rub salt into the wound. ..."
@FB What I find most surprising (and revolting) is the virulent rancour of many
commenters towards the Revolutionary and WWII Russians for (and I can't see any other
plausible explanation) having deposed Tsarism and Nazism respectively and, subsequently,
constructing a successful competitor to the economic orthodoxy of Capitalism.
All that done
from scratch within a short span of time on their own by their own efforts, a feat unequal in
human history.
How they did it? After all, Russia had long been the butt of jokes by other Europeans
about its backwardness, "Asiatic" crudeness and atavistic religiosity and when news of the
Japanese victory over the Russians in 1905 reached Europe they expressed openly their
schadenfreude and glee for Russia's distress in hard times, especially for "dishonouring"
European arms for being defeated by an Asiatic nation. Not only that, by 1917 Russia was
literally on its knees, the people starving, the soldiers at the front neglected, the
countryside devastated, the German armies outside Petrograd and the Kerensky government
making plans to leave the capital. Then the foreign invasions at Murmansk, Archangel, Baku,
Manchuria and Vladivostok by Entente powers, Finland, Poland, US and Japan all ganged up in
support of the Whites in the civil war that further devastated the countryside to the point
that it ceased to function as a country without money and the economy ran on "war Communism"
(the state had to provided all the basic needs to everyone). Famine ensued.
From that disaster that Russia was, gradually emerged a nation licking its wounds and
grieving its ten million plus dead (perhaps then the greatest calamity visiting a nation
ever) by putting its back to the wall and rebuilding itself, on their own and facing the
hostility of all the Great Powers through sanctions and blockades.
How did they do it? Reading the reports and contemporary press (1924), plus the "Western"
governments plots now with the Germans also part of the gang, everyone predicted the Soviets'
experiment – who could not run a chicken raffle, let alone a huge country – would
collapse by itself and the Russian wealthy emigres in Paris were preparing their return home
on the back of the Great Powers armies under the command of Gen. Hoffmann.
How did they do it? Perhaps the answer is revealed if we ask: what is different now? And
the answer is that the Russian people were building a new country from the ruins of the old
for themselves. In the process they were building Socialism. For the many detractors of the
USSR here, that is the greatest sin. In their view, people should work as slaves for their
masters: the capitalist class, coincidentally mostly Jewish, to rub salt into the wound.
"... Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship with a weak partner government like this? ..."
"... The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up making the Ukrainian government's argument for them ..."
"... To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy. It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do. ..."
"... These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the problem. ..."
"... Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S. security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course, our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security. ..."
ormer ambassador William Taylor wrote an op-ed on Ukraine in
an attempt to answer Pompeo's question about whether Americans care about Ukraine. It is not
very persuasive. For one thing, he starts off by exaggerating the importance of the conflict
between Russia and Ukraine to make it seem as if the U.S. has a major stake in the outcome:
Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against
Russian attack. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. The relationship between the United States
and Ukraine is key to our national security, and Americans should care about Ukraine.
Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the
West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in
this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with
Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to
our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to
our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if
that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about
our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship
with a weak partner government like this?
The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up
making the Ukrainian government's argument for them. The danger of exaggerating U.S. interests
and conflating them with Ukraine's is that we fool ourselves into thinking that we are acting
out of necessity and in our own defense when we are really choosing to take sides in a conflict
that does not affect our security. This is the kind of thinking that encourages people to spout
nonsense about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If we view
Ukraine as "the front line" of a larger struggle, that will also make it more difficult to
resolve the conflict. When a local conflict is turned into a proxy fight between great powers,
the local people will be the ones made to suffer to serve the ambitions of the patrons. Once
the U.S. insists that its own security is bound up with the outcome of this conflict, there is
an incentive to be considered the "winner," but the reality is that Ukraine will always matter
less to the U.S. than it does to Russia.
If this relationship were so important to U.S. security, how is it that the U.S. managed to
get along just fine for decades after the end of the Cold War when that relationship was not
particularly strong? As recently as the Obama administration, our government did not consider
Ukraine to be important enough to supply with weapons. Ukraine was viewed correctly as
being of
peripheral interest to the U.S., and nothing has changed in the years since then to make it
more important.
Taylor keeps repeating that "Ukraine is the front line" in a larger conflict between Russia
and the West, but that becomes true only if Western governments choose to treat it as one. He
concludes his op-ed with a series of ideological assertions:
To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major
powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy.
It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do.
These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers
awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a
particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric
like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject
illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the
problem.
Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but
the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the
U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of
arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S.
security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course,
our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that
the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security.
Off topic: the SAA has cut the M5 highway north of Maraat al-Numan and is blockading it. This
will cut off Erdogan's resupply of his pet headchoppers. Will this be the beginning of the
end for HTS and the TIP? Long way to go, but this is a good start.
Sooner or later Trump is going to have to let go of his blockade of the Baghdad-Damascus
highway at al-Tanf.
The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of
enormous moment.
Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and
with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded.
Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's elderly
Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the
presidency in the 2021 elections.
The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was
incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq's Baghdad international
airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations
originally suggested by the American government.
Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so
high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so
later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with
coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same
topic. Later that same week, America's national newspaper of record allocated more than
one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.
But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the
incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration
had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "a terrorist organization," drawing widespread
criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of
classifying a major branch of Iran's armed forces as "terrorists." Gen. Soleimani was a top
commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal figleaf for his assassination in
broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.
But consider that Congress has been considering
legislation declaring Russia an official state sponsor of terrorism , and Stephen Cohen,
the eminent Russia scholar, has argued that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has
been so massively demonized by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For
years, numerous agitated pundits have denounced
Putin as "the new Hitler," and some prominent figures have even called for his
overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking a public
campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could quickly annihilate
the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that the current danger of
global nuclear war may exceed that which we faced during the days of the 1962 Cuban Missile
Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss such concerns?
Even if we focus solely upon Gen. Solemaini's killing and entirely disregard its dangerous
implications, there seem few modern precedents for the official public assassination of a
top-ranking political figure by the forces of another major country. In groping for past
examples, the only ones that come to mind occurred almost three generations ago during World
War II, when Czech agents assisted by the Allies assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in
1941 and the US military later shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in
1943. But these events occurred in the heat of a brutal global war, and the Allied leadership
hardly portrayed them as official government assassinations. Historian David Irving reveals
that when one of Adolf Hitler's aides suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate Soviet
leaders in that same conflict, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade such practices as obvious
violations of the laws of war.
The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of
Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the
Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever
directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World
War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have
been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the
leadership of another.
A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for
most of a generation, but I don't recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during
that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick
the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military
means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of
Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as
high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.
The bloody Wars of Religion of previous centuries did see their share of assassination
schemes. For example, I think that Philip II of Spain supposedly encouraged various plots to
assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England on grounds that she was a murderous heretic, and their
repeated failure helped persuade him to launch the ill-fated Spanish Armada; but being a pious
Catholic, he probably would have balked at using the ruse of peace-negotiations to lure
Elizabeth to her doom. In any event, that was more than four centuries ago, so America has now
placed itself in rather uncharted waters.
Different peoples possess different political traditions, and this may play a major role in
influencing the behavior of the countries they establish. Bolivia and Paraguay were created in
the early 18th century as shards from the decaying Spanish Empire, and according to Wikipedia
they have experienced nearly three dozen successful coups in their history, the bulk of these
prior to 1950, while Mexico has had a half-dozen. By contrast, the U.S. and Canada were founded
as Anglo-Saxon settler colonies, and neither history records even a failed attempt.
During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding
Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged by the British
as rebels. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin's blade, nor
that King George III ever considered such an underhanded means of attack. During the first
century and more of our nation's history, nearly all our presidents and other top political
leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were
exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln's death being one of the very few that come to
mind.
At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination
plots against Cuba's Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered
hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such
enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents --
Gerald R.
Ford , Jimmy
Carter , and Ronald Reagan -- issued successive
Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US
government.
Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere
window-dressing, a
March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M.
Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to
publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two
decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:
One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct
assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.
Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid
prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the
9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but
Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.
We don't call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are "targeted killings," most often
performed by drone strike, and they have become America's go-to weapon in the war on
terror.
The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his
successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, had raised his
own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become
"a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure."
Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a very disturbing
trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its use
to only the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile
"terrorists" hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same such killings to the many
hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming
the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy
of death.
Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book
The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq
and was enormously
influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that
he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would
loosely describe as "Left Neocon."
But while reviewing a history of Israel's own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its
national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might be following along that
same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top Iranian leader
demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.
The book being reviewed was Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter
Ronen Bergman, a weighty study of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, together
with its sister agencies. The author devoted six years of research to the project, which was
based upon a thousand personal interviews and access to some official documents previously
unavailable. As suggested by the title, his primary focus was Israel's long history of
assassinations, and across his 750 pages and thousand-odd source references he recounts the
details of an enormous number of such incidents.
That sort of topic is obviously fraught with controversy, but Bergman's volume carries
glowing cover-blurbs from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors on espionage matters, and the official
cooperation he received is indicated by similar endorsements from both a former Mossad chief
and Ehud Barak, a past Prime Minister of Israel who himself had once led assassination squads.
Over the last couple of decades, former CIA officer Robert Baer has become one of our most
prominent authors in this same field, and he praises the book as "hands down" the best he has
ever read on intelligence, Israel, or the Middle East. The reviews across our elite media were
equally laudatory.
Although I had seen some discussions of the book when it appeared, I only got around to
reading it a few months ago. And while I was deeply impressed by the thorough and meticulous
journalism, I found the pages rather grim and depressing reading, with their endless accounts
of Israeli agents killing their real or perceived enemies, with the operations sometimes
involving kidnappings and brutal torture, or resulting in considerable loss of life to innocent
bystanders. Although the overwhelming majority of the attacks described took place in the
various countries of the Middle East or the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank
and Gaza, others ranged across the world, including Europe. The narrative history began in the
1920s, decades before the actual creation of the Jewish Israel or its Mossad organization, and
ranged up to the present day.
The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the
knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the
last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other country. I might even go
farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn't be surprised if the body-count exceeded
the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid
revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in
newspaper stories might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman's extremely long
book.
Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and
there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will
add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These
factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.
Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of
dreams:
1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more
intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia
fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he
will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality
and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi
government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.
2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding"
Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at
their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially
Russians to their front and on their flanks.
3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is
known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and
will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of
helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in
economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are
untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has
already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be
another intifada.
Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn
Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl
Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani
happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up
the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria
or Iraq.
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie
is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves
Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this.
And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please
point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he
has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and
ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on
trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only
money mattered.
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if
things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a
monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as,
also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on
European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not
paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on
finance that has served him well in business.
The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money
can't buy, to the detriment of America.
Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy
both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are
sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be
contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way
out.
Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with
Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality
clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I
can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.
My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle
Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China
has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of
Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.
If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and
an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a
higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both
futile and dangerous.
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the
MENA. That's all anyone remembers.
Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell
the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the
Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 -
15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to
Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the
President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.
Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to
fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his
economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and
successful.
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with
a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.
In case you have missed this. Here is an excellent interview of Elijah Magnier on a broad
range of issues related to Iran, Iraq and US policy. This link was previously posted by
another commenter but I am reposting it because it is so informative. I apologize for not I
remembering the name of the original poster was.
U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths sounded relieved in a briefing to the Security
Council this week,
noting that even after the American airstrike that killed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, "the immediate crisis seems to be over Yemen
has been kept safe."
Griffiths may have spoken too soon.
Yemen has been an increasingly important and tragic theater in the confrontation between
Iran, the United States, and their respective clients in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates at the head of an intervening coalition on one side and the Houthis
backed by Iran on the other. What will happen in Yemen following the killing of Soleimani and
the escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran? And how can Yemen's civil war be
insulated from the regional fallout?
News
emerged late last week that the United States also targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, a senior
Quds commander, in Yemen. Had the strike succeeded, the Houthis or other Iranian-aligned forces
in Yemen would almost certainly have had to respond, threatening an unruly escalation spiral.
Instead, the operation was unsuccessful, and Iran's measured reaction was limited to Iraq.
Nevertheless, the airstrike is unlikely to have put Houthi leadership in a conciliatory
mood.
Ismaeil Ghaani, who served as Soleimani's deputy for decades, was quickly named Soleimani's
replacement as head of the Quds Force. Following decades of leadership of the Quds Force,
Ghaani is unlikely to deviate from Iran's approach of using proxies to push
against opponents in the retaliation for Soleimani's killing.
At the same time, there is reason to hope that Yemen can avoid Iranian-backed escalation.
But avoiding another round of escalation in Yemen's civil war will
require the active participation of the United States and regional actors.
Yemen's Fragile Status Quo
One year after representatives of the Houthis and of Yemen's internationally-recognized
government agreed to a limited ceasefire as part of the Stockholm Agreement, little concrete progress to implement the
agreement has been made: Hodeidah, the port area at the center of the agreement, is still the
most dangerous place in the country for civilians. Likewise, the Riyadh Agreement, which
sought to
patch a split between the official government and southern separatists supported by the
United Arab Emirates, is
faltering and
in danger of total collapse.
Nevertheless, just a few weeks ago there were
reasons to be cautiously optimistic that, after years of failed negotiations, the Saudi-led
coalition's intervention in Yemen may have been winding down. Soleimani's assassination
threatens to undo this fragile and halting progress. While Iraq remains the most likely arena
for Iranian retaliation against the United States and its partners, Iranian officials also see
their relationship with the Houthis as a mechanism for dialing pressure on its opponents up or
down while maintaining plausible deniability for any particular attack. Yemen may therefore be
a site of Iranian escalation in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, the Houthis expressed
support for Iran and
promised to respond "promptly and swiftly" to the airstrike. Whatever its form, public
retaliation risks upsetting the nascent negotiations over Yemen's forgotten war.
What Will Happen Now in Yemen?
Iran is well aware that it would be badly overmatched in a conventional conflict, and is
therefore
likely to avoid all-out war with the United States. Rather, Iran's leadership is likely to
retaliate via the asymmetric resources that Tehran -- in an effort led by Soleimani and the
Quds Force -- has successfully cultivated in the region.
The Houthis have assumed greater importance in Tehran's regional strategy in recent years.
Their geographic proximity to Saudi Arabia (and decades-long history of antagonistic
relations) provides Iran with a convenient way to antagonize a long-time rival on its
southern
border and to retaliate horizontally for attacks on its partners in Syria. The relationship
confers what Austin Carson calls escalation control
: By maintaining plausible deniability, Tehran can signal its displeasure at American policies
while giving opponents a face-saving way to avoid further reprisals, thereby dampening the risk
of further escalation. Indeed, the recent strike on Saudi Aramco facilities claimed by the
Houthis (but
likely perpetrated by Iran) is indicative of this dynamic. The attack allowed Tehran to
push back against the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign while affording both
sides an off-ramp.
There are a few reasons to expect that Tehran could turn to Yemen as it formulates its
response to Soleimani's assassination. While Iran's leadership signaled that its retaliation
would end after the missile strikes on bases in Iraq, analysts note that
Iran is likely to return to its "
forward defense " strategy of working through proxies to push back against what its
leadership sees as American aggression in the region.
Ramping up Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would allow Iran to
signal its displeasure with Washington while attempting to avoid escalation that could lead to
a conventional war. This would be consistent with the forward defense strategy and Tehran's
past behavior in the region. Additionally, by coalescing domestic support, the American strike
may empower
hardliners in the Iranian regime who favor regional escalation.
And although the Houthis certainly receive significant support from Iran in the form of
material support, as well as advice and training from Hizballah operatives on the ground, they
are not as strategically close to Iran as other proxies like Hizballah are thought to be. As a
recent
New America report notes, "there is little evidence of firm Iranian command and control.
Iran's reported provision of missiles and drones shapes the conflict, but its roots are local
and would not disappear were Iran to fully abandon the Houthis." Even
U.S. officials have sought to draw a distinction between Iranian and Houthi leadership in
recent months.
Yet there are cautious signs that Houthi leadership could be willing to play along by
following Iran's lead in this instance: Just a few days before the assassination of Soleimani,
Houthi officials cautioned that targets within Saudi and Emirati territory remain on their
list of potential military targets, suggesting a willingness to escalate. And, after the
strike, Houthi leadership called for reprisals
against the United States.
But the region's reaction to the Aramco attack -- which saw the Emiratis pursuing quiet
talks with Iran and Saudi Arabia negotiating with the Houthis -- also provides reason to hope
that regional actors may work together to head off Iranian escalation in Yemen.
First, the Houthis' relative autonomy from Iranian command-and-control gives them some
leeway to resist pressure to escalate, although the failed U.S. strike in Yemen may affect this
calculus. Confronted with the choice of either retaliating on Tehran's behalf, at the risk of
inciting Saudi re-entry into the war, or resisting the external pressure, thereby preserving
the odds of a favorable settlement, the Houthi leadership may decide to bet on the latter.
Second, while Saudi commentators delighted in the blow to their regional opponent, the
Kingdom has publicly cautioned against
escalation and
reportedly urged the Trump administration to exercise restraint. This signals that the Arab
Gulf states may continue in the more cautiously de-escalatory approach that they have taken on
Yemen over the past several months, as the United Arab
Emirates and
Sudan began to withdraw troops from Yemen, Saudi Arabia
negotiated with the Houthis, and the tempo of Saudi airstrikes declined precipitously.
As much as they vehemently oppose Iranian influence in the region, both Saudi and Emirati
leadership want to avoid a direct confrontation with Iran, especially after the Trump
administration's erratic policies have made it clear that they may not get American backing in
such a confrontation. In other words, the factors that contributed to the intervening
coalition's de-escalatory tendencies a few months ago are still relevant, even after the
escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran.
The United States is well-positioned to reinforce de-escalatory dynamics in Yemen and
support the nascent peace process there. The recent de-escalation in Yemen has shown that
pressure works: Although both the Obama and Trump administrations initially supported the
Saudi-led intervention, Congressional threats to leverage
arms sales and invoke the War Powers Act to
end American material support for the intervention in 2019 subdued Abu Dhabi and Riyadh and
opened a new juncture in the conflict. The U.S. military
ended its provision of aerial refueling to the Saudi-led coalition following the murder of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi in late 2018, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly
pressured Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to negotiate a political settlement to the
war in the lead-up to the Stockholm Agreement. While some of this de-escalatory behavior is
attributable to a gradual acknowledgement that this war cannot be won, much can be attributed
to U.S. pressure as well. Washington therefore can -- and should -- continue to pressure its
regional partners to reach a negotiated agreement. The recent House vote
invoking the War Powers Act with regards to Iran -- and supportive
statements from a cross-party range of senators -- indicates that Congress is willing to
maintain pressure on the administration to avoid escalation in the region, even in the midst of
ongoing presidential impeachment proceedings.
Players in the region will also continue to play a critical role in Yemen in the weeks and
months ahead. Saudi and Emirati leaders are tired of the resource and reputational drain of a
war that appears increasingly unwinnable, leading to their willingness to draw down the
coalition's intervention. With international support, regional actors like Oman and even the
Gulf Cooperation Council can
act as mediators and guarantors to deter potential spoilers and help implement any
agreement.
Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said's untimely death this past weekend is another potentially
complicating factor here. Under Qaboos, Oman has played an important behind-the-scenes role in
the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, and brokered negotiations between the Saudi
Arabia and the Houthis beginning this past fall. Qaboos cut a unique figure in the
region, acting as a mediator who had both the stature and credibility to broker agreements
between warring parties in the region. His death and the drama around succession
created some doubt about whether anyone would be able to take his place. Yet the new sultan
Haitham bin Tariq, who was quickly sworn in, has pledged to continue Qaboos' diplomatic path.
Leaders from across the region traveled to Muscat to
pay their condolences to the new sultan, cementing the peaceful transition. This continuity is
a hopeful sign that Oman can continue to play a productive role as regional mediator.
Finally, policymakers shouldn't forget about Yemeni actors themselves. While most western
analysis of the conflict in Yemen focuses on the third-party intervention, this perspective
neglects the indigenous dynamics that led to the outbreak of the civil war in the first place.
The focus on external intervention is not without good reason, since regional actors
dramatically exacerbated the conflict and prevented an earlier resolution. Yet the civil war in
Yemen began over
local issues around governance and resource-sharing, and it will not end without solving
these underlying issues, thus undercutting potential
spoilers .
Additionally, years of fighting has created a patchwork of
splintered militia groups and local governance institutions that will prove very difficult to
knit back together into a coherent, functioning polity. A resumption of local fighting could
act as an invitation for external actors to intervene again, leading to a resumption of
conflict. It is therefore essential for mediation efforts to take these local issues into
account.
Over the past century, Yemen has often been a site for actors in the region to play out
their own conflicts. A relapse in fighting in Yemen could provide future grounds for
intervention and will act as a driver of regional instability. By contrast, ending the war in
Yemen will eliminate a critical source of Iranian leverage in the Gulf.
Dr. Alexandra Stark is asenior researcherat New
America. She was previously a research fellow at the Middle East Initiative, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard University and a USIP-Minerva Peace and Security
Scholar.
"... But U.S. adversaries were watching closely. As advanced technologies inexorably became cheaper and more widely available, the U.S. monopoly on these capabilities started to erode. By 2016, for example, eight countries other than the United States had conducted armed drone attacks , including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria. By 2019, Russia and two other countries joined this exclusive club. And at least one non-state actor has already used an armed drone for a targeted killing. According to one estimate, 27 other countries currently possess armed drones while dozens of states and non-state actors have unarmed drones . These capabilities can now be used against specific individuals even in the absence of large intelligence networks, thanks to the constant streams of personal information flowing from personal phones , fitness trackers , and other devices. ..."
The fiery explosions from the recent U.S. drone attack that killed
Iranian general Qassem Soleimani have sent shock waves reverberating across the Middle East.
Those same shocks should now be rippling through the American national security establishment
too. The strike against the man widely considered the second-most powerful leader of a
long-standing U.S. adversary was unprecedented, and its ultimate effects remain unknown. But
regardless of what happens next, one thing is certain: The United States has now made it even
more likely that American military and civilian leaders will be targeted by future U.S. foes.
As a result, the United States will have to dramatically improve the ways in which it protects
those leaders and rethink how it commands its forces on the battlefield.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has been able to target and kill specific
individuals almost anywhere around the world, by matching an increasingly advanced array of
precision weapons with a strikingly effective intelligence system. It has employed this
capability
frequently , especially across the greater Middle East ,
as it has sought to eliminate senior leaders of the Taliban insurgency or highly placed
terrorists directing jihadist cells. And it has been able to pursue this decapitation strategy
with impunity, because it has held a monopoly on this bespoke use of force. Not even the most
powerful states could attempt the types of complex targeted strikes that the U.S. military and
CIA conducted so routinely.
But U.S. adversaries were watching closely. As advanced technologies inexorably became
cheaper and more widely available, the U.S. monopoly on these capabilities started to erode. By
2016, for example, eight countries other than the United States had
conducted armed drone attacks , including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria. By 2019, Russia and
two other countries joined this exclusive club. And at least one
non-state actor has already used an armed drone for a targeted killing. According to one
estimate, 27 other countries currently possess
armed drones while dozens of states and non-state actors have unarmed
drones . These capabilities can now be used against specific individuals even in the
absence of large intelligence networks, thanks to the constant streams of personal information
flowing from personal
phones , fitness
trackers , and other devices.
The Soleimani strike has given potential U.S. adversaries every reason to accelerate their
efforts to develop similar capabilities. Moreover, these same adversaries can now justify their
own future targeted killings by invoking this U.S. precedent. Sooner or later -- and probably
sooner -- senior U.S. civilian and military leaders will become vulnerable to the same types of
decapitation strikes that the United States has inflicted on others. Enemies will almost
certainly attempt to target and kill U.S. officials during any future major war, and such
attacks will likely become a part of future irregular conflicts as well. Though such strikes
would dangerously escalate any conflict, committed adversaries of the United States may still
find that the advantages outweigh the costs, especially if they can plausibly deny
responsibility or if the strength of their resolve makes them willing to accept any resulting
consequences.
In the face of this growing threat, what does the United States need to do in order to
protect its key military and civilian leaders from a potential decapitation strike? Here are
some potential first steps.
Improve personal protection for senior leaders. The president and the vice president are
well protected against a myriad of threats by the Secret Service, but levels of protection
quickly diminish for those who work beneath them. A number of senior officials, including
cabinet officials and the chiefs of the military services, have their own security details,
but those focus primarily on providing traditional physical security. They typically offer
little if any protection against newly emerging threats such as a targeted missile attack or
swarming suicide drones. Most senior military and civilian leaders have no security at all,
and they and their family members (like most other Americans) are constantly emitting
electronic signals that give away their location. Improving their protection will require
rethinking nearly every aspect of their daily lives, especially their extensive
vulnerabilities when traveling. For example, the obtrusive motorcades and conspicuous convoys
of black SUVs currently favored by many senior U.S. officials may need to be replaced with
lower visibility alternatives, to include employing decoys that travel along multiple routes
in high risk situations.
Harden key meeting locations, headquarters, and transition points. U.S. adversaries will
be particularly interested in targeting locations where numbers of senior military and
civilian leaders gather. Many such locations today in the United States and overseas are not
sufficiently hardened against attack. The locations of most offices and meeting spaces are
either publicly available or easily found, and few are protected from any sort of aerial
attack. (At a minimum, senior officials should stop having their photos taken in front of
their offices where the room number is
clearly visible .) And even hardened command centers usually have key vulnerabilities at
entrances and exits, and at exposed transition points between different modes of
transportation (such as airfield aprons). Ironically, current U.S. military security measures
can unintentionally make leaders more vulnerable in other ways. Shortly after the
Soleimani strike, for example, many U.S. military bases imposed
stricter security measures at their entry points, including extensive identification
checks and reducing the number of open gates. These reflexive measures caused
long traffic backups that spilled
onto local roads and highways -- which made everyone entering the bases far more
vulnerable as they sat in these traffic jams. Any senior leader stuck in those lines would
have become a remarkably easy target with no clear avenues of escape.
Exercise wartime succession in the U.S. military chain of command. Combatant commanders
and other senior military officers often use high-level wargames to validate key war plans
and operational concepts. Yet most exercises and simulations deliberately avoid removing
senior commanders from the battlefield, which reinforces the flawed notion that they will
always be in charge. This problem also extends to the tactical level, where commanders of
brigades, divisions, and corps are rarely assessed as casualties. Exercises at all levels
need to regularly include scenarios where one or more senior commanders are killed or
incapacitated, to test succession plans and to ensure that subordinates gain valuable
leadership experience.
Further decentralize battlefield command and control. The military chain of command
necessarily relies upon centralized control, with commanders directing the actions of their
subordinates. The U.S. military does decentralize some authority through concepts like
mission command , which
empower subordinates to make independent decisions about the best ways to achieve the
commander's overall intent. Yet as we've
written
extensively elsewhere , the military's growing culture of compliance and risk aversion
already undermines this critical principle, and modern command and control systems make it
far
too easy for senior commanders to intervene in routine tactical operations. In an
environment where senior commanders can be individually targeted and killed, truly
decentralized authority becomes absolutely vital -- and even efforts to
reinvigorate mission command may no longer be sufficient. One recent article, for
example, called for an entirely new,
bottom-up approach to command and control that would build resilience and speed by
reducing the reliance on a small number of increasingly vulnerable senior leaders.
The U.S. government needs to acknowledge that its senior leaders are becoming more
vulnerable to targeted attacks, and that the Soleimani attack will only accelerate the
determination of U.S. adversaries to be able to conduct similar attacks themselves. Yet threats
like this are too easily discounted or ignored until it is too late. The
U.S. government must recognize the grave dangers of this threat before it occurs. It needs to
protect its senior officials more effectively, and ensure that the military chain of command
will continue to function effectively after one or more commanders are killed by a targeted
strike.
Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, U.S. Army (ret.) and Dr. Nora Bensahel are visiting professors
of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and senior
fellows at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. They are also contributing editors
at War on the Rocks , where their column appears monthly.Sign up for Barno and Bensahel's Strategic Outpost
newsletterto track their articles as well as their public events.
Editor's Note: Due to an internal error, we published the near-final version of this
article rather than the final version. While the differences between the two drafts are minor,
we apologize for the error and have fixed our mistake. The final version of this article is now
published below.
In this episode of Horns of a Dilemma, John Gans, director of communications and research at
Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, gives a talk at the University of Texas at
Austin to discusses his book, White House
Warriors: How the National Security Council Transformed the American Way of War . In
this talk, Gans focuses on the career and the accomplishments of a single NSC staffer, who
ultimately perished during his duties in Bosnia. He uses the story of Nelson Drew as a way to
illustrate both the power and the process that exists within the NSC. This talk took place at
the University of Texas at Austin and was sponsored by the Clements Center.
In this issue's correspondence section, Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long offer up an
alternative way to code nuclear crises in response to Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald's article in the February
2019 issue of TNSR. Bell and Macdonald, in turn, offer a response to Green and Long's critique.
In their article in the February 2019 issue of the
Texas National Security Review
, Mark S. Bell and
Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal.
1
We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk
and signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics
within nuclear crises implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional
statistical analysis. If crises are not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects
have a murkier meaning.
2
We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results.
Nevertheless, the article also highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent
findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics: Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of
resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors
and is basically impossible to code
ex ante
. The two variables identified as critical by Bell and
Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the controllability of escalation --
are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises are prone to
ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's
pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence
between fact and theory.
3
To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution
is to employ the best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide
best practices for coding the nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of
the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that, following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make
interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the history that underlies their coding of the nuclear
balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the United States had no military incentives
to use nuclear weapons first in 1962.
Below, we analyze their interpretation of the Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to
establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of both sides and the perceptions of key U.S.
policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis for their conceptual
framework, offering a friendly amendment.
What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part
of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives
for deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and
Soviet strategic forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the
Soviet warheads were located, and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully
target the Soviet arsenal."
4
Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the
military balance. This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a
concept of operations of a first strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The
available evidence on operational capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to
eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize
briefly below.
Any concept of operations for a U.S. first strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even
primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an
attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Harry
Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber force rather than
with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so U.S.
nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber
attack could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a
successful surprise attack.
5
Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton
warheads, could also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike."
6
Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear
operations. In terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet
nuclear warheads were, it had detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This
intelligence came from a host of sources, including satellite reconnaissance and human sources. U.S.
intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear forces.
7
As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that
there were only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on. As for the Soviet bombers,
they were in a very low state of alert."
8
Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no
longer true a year later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew
Marshall, who had access to the closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the
Soviet nuclear force, particularly its bombers, as "sitting ducks."
9
James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years,
because of nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high."
10
The authors of the comprehensive
History of the Strategic Arms Competition
, drawing on a variety of
highly classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:
[T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A
well-timed U.S. first strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM
[submarine-launched ballistic missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the
survival of most of the Soviet Union's own intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the
distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could have denied the Soviet Union the ability to
inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States.
11
The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they
would have had to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as
1959, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated
submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine
warfare capabilities.
12
The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were
detected and some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their
description of an attack on a Soviet submarine during the crisis.
13
How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive
meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis. First, Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that nuclear superiority did
not play an important role in the Cuba crisis.
14
Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated
Operational Plan (SIOP) -- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that
Soviet retaliation should be expected under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike.
15
Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis.
16
But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy
administration alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were
all highly motivated political actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear
policy debates on which they had taken highly public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a
footnote.
17
The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and
Macdonald acknowledge,
18
these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea
of American nuclear superiority.
19
The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's
interpretation, of American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution
that "Under any circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the
Soviet long-range nuclear force would strike the United States."
20
But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage
limitation" capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political
meaning is a perfectly disarming strike.
21
Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer
some unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront
absolutely massive destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated."
22
Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum
to McNamara commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 196468. This memorandum,
sent shortly after the crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate
Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike
capability is both feasible and desirable, although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment
and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet capability."
23
In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike
capability in 1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future.
As for Kennedy's personal views, it is important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban
crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in opposite directions.
24
One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the
Soviets over the future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built
Western policy during the Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that
nuclear weapons would ultimately be used, and probably on a massive scale.
25
As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first
with nuclear weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S.
could not afford to wait to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical
point is to be able to use nuclear weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962,
expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near future, he stressed the importance of operational military
planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of making decisions that might lead to nuclear war."
As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is sufficient to hold our present
positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground does not match what
the communists can bring to bear."
26
But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet
nuclear forces meant that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy
thought it important to bring the Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still
possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he
argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all, "the military balance was more favorable to us than it
would be later on."
27
Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air
Command during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these
complexities [about the precise state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course
the President had not reacted with any such comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt
that way."
28
Broader Implications
Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct, requires some friendly
amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis.
Our discussion of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis
underscores that Bell and Macdonald's first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first
in a crisis"
29
-- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and
political bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during
1962, the United States was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is
thrown into especially bold relief once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was
basically the climax of the superpower confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and
planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the
fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over discussions within the Executive
Committee of the National Security Council.
30
According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk
category for deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if
only against military targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone
seriously awry on the battlefield. In short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort
looking for military first-strike incentives, which add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue
that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more
common than generally credited.
So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have
different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their framework. We suggest that there are three
types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those
with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political
risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C).
Type A crises essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and
are relatively low risk.
31
Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in
response to some enemy transgression."
32
Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position
at stake. Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and
Macdonald's argument that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis,
since any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the
lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large
and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially, larger conventional and nuclear operations.
Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model.
33
These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled
escalation in addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but
signaling is easier and can be much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for
uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply many more things a state can do at much lower levels of
actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For instance, alerting nuclear forces will often
not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional collapse), since there is no way
things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain of events where
states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces
inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given
military move will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous.
Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "firestorm" model.
34
These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as
political and non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear
balance: either could give states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and
the finest-grained of any type of crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the
time in which states can bargain may be short.
35
In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by
delineating different types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate
the importance of American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems
highlight some conceptual issues with their framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us
relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and
other scholars, will continue to build on these findings.
Brendan R. Green,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Austin Long,
Arlington, Virginia
In Response to a Critique
Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald
We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment of our work and for
engaging with our argument so constructively.
36
Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we
stated in our article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of
nuclear crises, and we are delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to
continue to think in more detail about the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their
arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of interesting and important arguments and
suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our argument.
In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's
suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile
Crisis and their proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises.
Our Argument
In our article, we offer a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises.
37
While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is
disagreement on what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one
another in consequential ways. In particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for
nuclear first use and the extent to which escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to
fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables generate four possible "ideal type" models of
nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives and high controllability),
"brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability" crises (low
first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low
controllability).
Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important questions,
such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis?
What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined
with low crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all
four models in terms of likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except
under the direst circumstances or for the highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of
nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk
of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use are low and crisis controllability is also low
-- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis controllability is also high -- the
staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite different processes. For
the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for nuclear first use
mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of
uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability
combined with high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that
escalation would more likely occur through a careful, deliberate process.
First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis
First, Green and Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban
Missile Crisis. In short, they argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike
first during the crisis and that these were understood and appreciated by American leaders.
38
While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was
briefer than we would have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over
the Soviet Union during the crisis.
39
The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we
(more or less) agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear
first use, and whether it was perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different
interpretations of how much weight to assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the
retrospective assessment of key participants does have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in
our article) the biases of such assessments in this case. Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place
less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to the crisis than on those he made during
the crisis itself,
40
which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when
the stakes were at their highest.
41
We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about
whether his report had much of an effect on operational planning.
42
And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in
support of their argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear
forces -- thus highlighting the dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force
planning in the aftermath of the crisis.
We would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not
obviously translate into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard
interpretations of this case, including among scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for
example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in
American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
43
Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's
assessment that only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis.
44
Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof)
associated with nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual
one: where to draw the threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to
limit retaliatory damage) should be deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer
incentives for first use. This is a topic about which there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement.
"Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and Long's broader argument that "nuclear
crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree.
45
But Green and Long seem to view
any
ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful,
since they argue that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and
potentially more), even in the aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military
incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this,
though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position: We do not, in fact, think that the
relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike."
Part of our motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it
increases the utility of the typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial
number of empirical cases exist on either side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more
satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a
crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example -- would both be classified on
the same side of the threshold.
46
Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as
exhibiting strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that
rarely shows rain because the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is
nothing fundamentally incorrect about making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach
to shedding light on the empirical variation we observe in the historical record.
An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises
Second, Green and Long offer an alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises.
Green and Long argue that there are three types of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for
selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation
(Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first
strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental objections to their typology.
47
After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for
different purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for
their typology, and we would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its
merits. Their initial discussion of the different types of signals that states can send within different types
of crises is especially productive and goes beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of
signaling that we included in our article. We offer two critiques that might be helpful as they (and others)
continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and build upon them.
First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for
example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify
using our two variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing
two of our quadrants (stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B
crises are similar to our brinkmanship crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so,
their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but
merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the conceptual space we identify. The key
question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether there is important
variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions
between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are
relatively controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled
escalation," they have very different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises
and higher in staircase crises. The factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily
the conventional military balance due to the very low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine
success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may matter. As a result, we think that collapsing
these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move.
Second, to the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily
helpful in shedding light on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating
incentives for first use into "political bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing
proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits. Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to
increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they acknowledge the difficulties of coding the
nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide incentives for first use into
two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts. Moreover, given
Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present,"
their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are
not
a
source of interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it
is worth noting that it also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that
their three types of crises all exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then
political incentives for nuclear first use simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political
incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out by definition. This analytic move renders portions of
their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the conventional balance cannot "ever determine the
outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that there are always political incentives
to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's
unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically
problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and
then discover that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk
discovering later that such crises have, in fact, taken place.
In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely grateful for their
insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work on
these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear
crises differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics.
Mark S. Bell,
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Julia Macdonald,
Denver, Colorado
Endnotes
1
Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises,"
Texas National Security
Review
2, no. 2 (February 2019): 4064,
http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944
.
2
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 42, 63.
3
For an excellent treatment of this problem in the international relations context, see Robert Jervis,
Perception and Misperception in International Politics
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1976), 15472.
4
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
5
See Memorandum for General Maxwell Taylor from Carl Kaysen, "Strategic Air Planning and Berlin," Sept.
5, 1961, from National Archives, Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf
.
7
Austin Long and Brendan Rittenhouse Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike: Intelligence,
Counterforce, and Nuclear Strategy,"
Journal of Strategic Studies
38, no. 12 (2015): 4446,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.958150
.
9
Quoted in Long and Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike," 46.
10
James R. Schlesinger, "Some Notes on Deterrence in Western Europe," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation, June 30, 1962), 8.
11
Ernest R. May, John D. Steinbruner, and Thomas M. Wolfe,
History of the Strategic Arms
Competition 19451972
, v.1 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), 475.
12
Quoted in Scott Sagan, "SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy,"
International Security
12, no. 1 (Summer 1987): 34,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538916
.
13
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 56. See also, May, Steinbruner, and Wolfe,
History of the Strategic Arms Competition
, 475; and Owen Cot,
The Third Battle: Innovation in
the US Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines
(Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003),
42.
14
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55, 59.
15
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
16
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
24
For example, consider his remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that "My guess is, well,
everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons," before strongly implying
massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use. See ExComm Meeting, Oct. 29, 1962, in Ernest R.
May and Philip Zelikow, eds.,
The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.
25
For excellent accounts of Kennedy's Berlin policy and his views on nuclear superiority, which we draw
upon heavily, see Marc Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement,
1945-1963
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), chap. 8; Francis J. Gavin,
Nuclear
Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012),
chaps. 23.
26
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 292, 293, 294, 295.
28
Legere memorandum for the record of the White House daily staff meeting, Dec. 10, 1962, National
Defense University, Taylor Papers, Chairman's Staff Group December 1962-January 1963; quoted in
FRUS
1961-1963
, Vol. 8, 436.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d118
.
29
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 43.
30
See, e.g., Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 353, n. 3.
31
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 4749.
32
Thomas C. Schelling,
Arms and Influence
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.
33
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49.
34
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 4950.
36
This work was supported by U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) award FA7000-19-2-0008. The opinions,
findings, views, conclusions or recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be
interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied,
of USAFA, DTRA or the U.S. Government.
38
One minor correction to Green and Long's argument: The Cuban Missile Crisis is not the "sole
empirical example" in our article of a crisis characterized by a lack of incentives for first use. In the
article we also argue that the 2017 Doklam Crisis between India and China lacked strong incentives for first
use, and we suspect there are plenty more crises of this sort in the historical record. Bell and Macdonald,
"How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 6061.
39
Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
40
The quote from the crisis that Green and Long cite does not really support their argument. Green and
Long state: "consider [Kennedy's] remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that 'My guess is, well,
everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons,' before strongly implying
massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use." In fact, consider the full quote: "My guess
is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons. The decision to
use any kind of a nuclear weapon, even the tactical ones, presents such a risk of it getting out of control
so quickly." Kennedy then trails off but "appears to agree" with an unidentified participant who states,
"But Cuba's so small compared to the world." This suggests that Kennedy was expressing deep skepticism of
any sort of nuclear use remaining limited, as well as doubts about the merits of taking such risks over
Cuba, rather than making any sort of clear comparison between the merits of tactical use and massive
pre-emption as Green and Long suggest. Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds.,
The Kennedy Tapes: Inside
the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.
41
For a recent analysis of Kennedy's behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis that concludes that he
was deeply skeptical of the benefits of nuclear superiority during the crisis, see James Cameron,
The
Double Game: The Demise of America's First Missile Defense System and the Rise of Strategic Arms Limitation
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 2937.
42
For example, see Francis Gavin's assessment that "little was done with" Kaysen's plan, a claim which
echoes Marc Trachtenberg's earlier assessment that "it is hard to tell, however, what effect [Kaysen's
analysis] had, and in particular whether, by the end of the year, the Air Force was prepared in operational
terms to launch an attack of this sort." Francis J. Gavin,
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in
America's Atomic Age
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 38; Marc Trachtenberg,
History
and Strategy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 225.
43
Marc Trachtenberg, "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,"
International
Security
10, no. 1 (Summer 1985), 162,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538793
.
44
Thomas C. Schelling,
Arms and Influence
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.
45
Indeed, at the risk of adding even more complexity, the relevant threshold likely varies with the
stakes of the crisis: Leaders are likely to view lesser damage limitation capabilities as politically
relevant when the stakes are higher than they are when the stakes involved are lower.
46
For discussion of the North Korean case, see Bell and Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence," and Bell and
Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 6162.
Azita Raji
Former ambassador to Sweden, Azita Raji, proposes a way forward for a renewed and sustainable American
foreign policy. This would require a re-examination of America's interests, institutional reforms, and a
revival of American ideals. To wit: reflection,
Top
Hello
From Texas!
In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises"
Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long
In their article in the February 2019 issue of the
Texas National
Security Review
, Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal.
[1]
We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and
signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises
implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are
not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning.
[2]
We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results. Nevertheless, the article also
highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics:
Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important
variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code
ex ante
. The two
variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the
controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises
are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's
pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact
and theory.
[3]
To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the
best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the
nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that,
following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the
history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the
United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962. Below, we analyze their interpretation of the
Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of
both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis
for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment.
What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides
in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part
of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for
deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic
forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located,
and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal."
[4]
Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance.
This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first
strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational
capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear
forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below. Any concept of operations for a U.S. first
strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and
Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber
force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so
U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack
could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise
attack.
[5]
Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could
also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike."
[6]
Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In
terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had
detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources,
including satellite reconnaissance and human sources. U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear
forces.
[7]
As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were
only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on. As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low
state of alert."
[8]
Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year
later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the
closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its
bombers, as "sitting ducks."
[9]
James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of
nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high."
[10]
The authors of the comprehensive
History of the Strategic Arms Competition
, drawing on a variety of highly
classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:
[T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first
strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic
missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own
intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could
have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States.
[11]
The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had
to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in
general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
[12]
The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and
some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a
Soviet submarine during the crisis.
[13]
How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their
argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that
nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis.
[14]
Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)
-- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected
under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike.
[15]
Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis.
[16]
But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration
alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political
actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly
public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote.
[17]
The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald
acknowledge,
[18]
these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American
nuclear superiority.
[19]
The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of
American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any
circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear
force would strike the United States."
[20]
But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation"
capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly
disarming strike.
[21]
Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some
unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive
destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated."
[22]
Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara
commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 196468. This memorandum, sent shortly after the
crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the
memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable,
although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet
capability."
[23]
In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in
1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future. As for Kennedy's personal views, it is
important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in
opposite directions.
[24]
One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the
future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the
Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used,
and probably on a massive scale.
[25]
As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear
weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait
to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear
weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near
future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of
making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is
sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground
does not match what the communists can bring to bear."
[26]
But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant
that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the
Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a
confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all,
"the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on."
[27]
Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command
during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise
state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such
comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way."
[28]
Broader Implications
Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct,
requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis. Our discussion
of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's
first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis"
[29]
-- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political
bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States
was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief
once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower
confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this
is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over
discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council.
[30]
According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for
deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military
targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In
short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which
add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the
Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited. So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's
central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their
framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective
nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those
with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C). Type A crises
essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk.
[31]
Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some
enemy transgression."
[32]
Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake.
Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument
that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory
stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals
of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially,
larger conventional and nuclear operations. Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model.
[33]
These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in
addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be
much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply
many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For
instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional
collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain
of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces
inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move
will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous. Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's
"firestorm" model.
[34]
These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and
non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give
states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of
crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short.
[35]
In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different
types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear
superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their
framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and
Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings. Brendan R. Green,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Austin Long,
Arlington, Virginia
In Response to a Critique
Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald
We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment
of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively.
[36]
Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our
article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are
delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the
ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of
interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our
argument. In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's
suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their
proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises.
Our Argument
In our article, we offer
a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises.
[37]
While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on
what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In
particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which
escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables
generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives
and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability"
crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low
controllability). Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important
questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis?
What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low
crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of
likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the
highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis
controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use
are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis
controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite
different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for
nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of
uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with
high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur
through a careful, deliberate process.
First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis
First, Green and
Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they
argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were
understood and appreciated by American leaders.
[38]
While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would
have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis.
[39]
The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less)
agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was
perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to
assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does
have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case.
Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to
the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself,
[40]
which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes
were at their highest.
[41]
We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his
report had much of an effect on operational planning.
[42]
And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their
argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the
dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis. We
would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate
into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among
scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by
destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
[43]
Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that
only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis.
[44]
Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with
nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the
threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be
deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which
there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and
Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree.
[45]
But Green and Long seem to view
any
ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue
that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the
aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is
that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position:
We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike." Part of our
motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the
typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either
side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases
exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis,
for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold.
[46]
Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting
strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because
the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about
making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we
observe in the historical record.
An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises
Second, Green and Long offer an
alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types
of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both
selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and
military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental
objections to their typology.
[47]
After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different
purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we
would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of
the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes
beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two
critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and
build upon them. First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for
example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two
variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants
(stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship
crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally
different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the
conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether
there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions
between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively
controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very
different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The
factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very
low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may
matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move. Second, to
the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light
on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political
bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits.
Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they
acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide
incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts.
Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present,"
their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are
not
a source of
interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it
also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all
exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use
simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out
by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the
conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that
there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint
of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically
problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover
that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such
crises have, in fact, taken place. In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely
grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work
on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises
differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics. Mark S. Bell,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Julia Macdonald,
Denver, Colorado
[post_title] => Contrasting Views on How to Code a Nuclear
Crisis [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] =>
[post_name] => contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2020-01-09
11:06:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-01-09 16:06:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] =>
http://tnsr.org/?p=1948 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw
[lead] => In this issue's correspondence section, Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long offer up an alternative way to
code nuclear crises in response to Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald's article in the February 2019 issue of TNSR. Bell and
Macdonald, in turn, offer a response to Green and Long's critique. [pubinfo] => [issue] => Vol 2, Iss 4 [quotes] => [style]
=> framing [type] => Framing [style_label] => The Foundation [download] => Array ( [title] => PDF Download [file] => 2442 )
[authors] => Array ( [0] => 279 [1] => 138 [2] => 258 [3] => 259 ) [endnotes] => Array ( [title] => Endnotes [endnotes] =>
[1]
Mark S.
Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises,"
Texas National Security Review
2, no. 2 (February
2019): 4064,
http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944
.
[2]
Bell and
Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 42, 63.
[3]
For an
excellent treatment of this problem in the international relations context, see Robert Jervis,
Perception and
Misperception in International Politics
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 15472.
[4]
Bell and
Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[5]
See
Memorandum for General Maxwell Taylor from Carl Kaysen, "Strategic Air Planning and Berlin," Sept. 5, 1961, from National
Archives, Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf
.
[6]
Marc
Trachtenberg, David Rosenberg, and Stephen Van Evera, "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," MIT Security Studies Program (1988),
9,
http://web.mit.edu/SSP/publications/working_papers/Kaysen%20working%20paper.pdf
.
[7]
Austin
Long and Brendan Rittenhouse Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike: Intelligence, Counterforce, and Nuclear Strategy,"
Journal of Strategic Studies
38, no. 12 (2015): 4446,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.958150
.
[8]
"An
Interview with Carl Kaysen," 9.
[9]
Quoted
in Long and Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike," 46.
[10]
James
R. Schlesinger, "Some Notes on Deterrence in Western Europe," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, June 30, 1962), 8.
[11]
Ernest R. May, John D. Steinbruner, and Thomas M. Wolfe,
History of the Strategic Arms Competition 19451972
, v.1
(Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), 475.
[12]
Quoted in Scott Sagan, "SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy,"
International Security
12,
no. 1 (Summer 1987): 34,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538916
.
[13]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 56. See also, May, Steinbruner, and Wolfe,
History of the Strategic
Arms Competition
, 475; and Owen Cot,
The Third Battle: Innovation in the US Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with
Soviet Submarines
(Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003), 42.
[14]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55, 59.
[15]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[16]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[17]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 59, fn 96. For more on Bundy, see, e.g., McGeorge Bundy et al., "Nuclear
Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance,"
Foreign Affairs
60, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 75368,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1982-03-01/nuclear-weapons-and-atlantic-alliance
.
[18]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[19]
Matthew Kroenig,
The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters
(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2018), 88.
[20]
Sagan, "SIOP-62," 50.
[21]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[22]
Sagan,
"SIOP-62," 36, and esp. n. 49.
[23]
Joint
Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 907-62 to McNamara, Nov. 20, 1962,
in Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS),
1961-1963
, Vol. 8, 38789, quotation on 388,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d109
.
[24]
For
example, consider his remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in
extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons," before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to
tactical use. See ExComm Meeting, Oct. 29, 1962, in Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds.,
The Kennedy Tapes: Inside
the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.
[25]
For
excellent accounts of Kennedy's Berlin policy and his views on nuclear superiority, which we draw upon heavily, see Marc
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1999), chap. 8; Francis J. Gavin,
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), chaps. 23.
[26]
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 292, 293, 294, 295.
[27]
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 353, 351.
[28]
Legere memorandum for the record of the White House daily staff meeting, Dec. 10, 1962, National Defense University, Taylor
Papers, Chairman's Staff Group December 1962-January 1963; quoted in
FRUS 1961-1963
, Vol. 8, 436.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d118
.
[29]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 43.
[30]
See,
e.g., Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 353, n. 3.
[31]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 4749.
[32]
Thomas C. Schelling,
Arms and Influence
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.
[33]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49.
[34]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 4950.
[35]
Schelling,
Arms and Influence
, 102.
[36]
This
work was supported by U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Project on Advanced Systems
and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) award FA7000-19-2-0008. The opinions, findings, views, conclusions or
recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of USAFA, DTRA or the U.S. Government.
[37]
Mark
S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises,"
Texas National Security Review
2, no. 2 (February
2019): 40-64,
http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944
. For additional
applications of our framework, see Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence: The Upside of the Trump-Kim
Summit,"
War on the Rocks
, June 15, 2018,
https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/toward-deterrence-the-upside-of-the-trump-kim-summit/
; Mark S. Bell and Julia
Macdonald, "How Dangerous Was Kargil? Nuclear Crises in Comparative Perspective,"
Washington Quarterly
42, no. 2
(Summer 2019): 13548,
https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1626691
.
[38]
One
minor correction to Green and Long's argument: The Cuban Missile Crisis is not the "sole empirical example" in our article
of a crisis characterized by a lack of incentives for first use. In the article we also argue that the 2017 Doklam Crisis
between India and China lacked strong incentives for first use, and we suspect there are plenty more crises of this sort in
the historical record. Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 6061.
[39]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[40]
The
quote from the crisis that Green and Long cite does not really support their argument. Green and Long state: "consider
[Kennedy's] remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that 'My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis,
everybody would use nuclear weapons,' before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use."
In fact, consider the full quote: "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use
nuclear weapons. The decision to use any kind of a nuclear weapon, even the tactical ones, presents such a risk of it
getting out of control so quickly." Kennedy then trails off but "appears to agree" with an unidentified participant who
states, "But Cuba's so small compared to the world." This suggests that Kennedy was expressing deep skepticism of any sort
of nuclear use remaining limited, as well as doubts about the merits of taking such risks over Cuba, rather than making any
sort of clear comparison between the merits of tactical use and massive pre-emption as Green and Long suggest. Ernest R. May
and Philip Zelikow, eds.,
The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.
[41]
For a
recent analysis of Kennedy's behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis that concludes that he was deeply skeptical of the
benefits of nuclear superiority during the crisis, see James Cameron,
The Double Game: The Demise of America's First
Missile Defense System and the Rise of Strategic Arms Limitation
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 2937.
[42]
For
example, see Francis Gavin's assessment that "little was done with" Kaysen's plan, a claim which echoes Marc Trachtenberg's
earlier assessment that "it is hard to tell, however, what effect [Kaysen's analysis] had, and in particular whether, by the
end of the year, the Air Force was prepared in operational terms to launch an attack of this sort." Francis J. Gavin,
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 38; Marc
Trachtenberg,
History and Strategy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 225.
[43]
Marc
Trachtenberg, "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,"
International Security
10, no. 1
(Summer 1985), 162,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538793
.
[44]
Thomas C. Schelling,
Arms and Influence
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.
[45]
Indeed, at the risk of adding even more complexity, the relevant threshold likely varies with the stakes of the crisis:
Leaders are likely to view lesser damage limitation capabilities as politically relevant when the stakes are higher than
they are when the stakes involved are lower.
[46]
For
discussion of the North Korean case, see Bell and Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence," and Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think
About Nuclear Crises," 6162.
[47]
We
do, however, suggest that our labels offer somewhat more
joie de vivre
than the alphabetic labels that Green and
Long offer. ) [contents] => Array ( [title] => [contents] => ) ) [queried_object_id] => 1948 [request] => SELECT wp_posts.*
FROM wp_posts WHERE 1=1 AND ( ( YEAR( wp_posts.post_date ) = 2019 AND MONTH( wp_posts.post_date ) = 10 ) ) AND
wp_posts.post_name = 'contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis' AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post' ORDER BY
wp_posts.post_date DESC [posts] => Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1948 [post_author] => 279 [post_date] =>
2019-10-03 05:00:03 [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-03 09:00:03 [post_content] =>
In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises"
Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long
In their article in the February 2019 issue of the
Texas National
Security Review
, Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal.
[1]
We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and
signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises
implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are
not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning.
[2]
We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results. Nevertheless, the article also
highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics:
Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important
variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code
ex ante
. The two
variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the
controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises
are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's
pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact
and theory.
[3]
To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the
best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the
nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that,
following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the
history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the
United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962. Below, we analyze their interpretation of the
Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of
both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis
for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment.
What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides
in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part
of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for
deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic
forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located,
and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal."
[4]
Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance.
This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first
strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational
capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear
forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below. Any concept of operations for a U.S. first
strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and
Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber
force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so
U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack
could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise
attack.
[5]
Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could
also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike."
[6]
Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In
terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had
detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources,
including satellite reconnaissance and human sources. U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear
forces.
[7]
As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were
only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on. As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low
state of alert."
[8]
Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year
later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the
closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its
bombers, as "sitting ducks."
[9]
James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of
nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high."
[10]
The authors of the comprehensive
History of the Strategic Arms Competition
, drawing on a variety of highly
classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:
[T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first
strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic
missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own
intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could
have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States.
[11]
The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had
to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in
general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
[12]
The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and
some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a
Soviet submarine during the crisis.
[13]
How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their
argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that
nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis.
[14]
Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)
-- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected
under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike.
[15]
Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis.
[16]
But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration
alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political
actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly
public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote.
[17]
The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald
acknowledge,
[18]
these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American
nuclear superiority.
[19]
The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of
American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any
circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear
force would strike the United States."
[20]
But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation"
capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly
disarming strike.
[21]
Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some
unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive
destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated."
[22]
Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara
commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 196468. This memorandum, sent shortly after the
crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the
memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable,
although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet
capability."
[23]
In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in
1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future. As for Kennedy's personal views, it is
important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in
opposite directions.
[24]
One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the
future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the
Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used,
and probably on a massive scale.
[25]
As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear
weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait
to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear
weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near
future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of
making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is
sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground
does not match what the communists can bring to bear."
[26]
But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant
that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the
Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a
confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all,
"the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on."
[27]
Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command
during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise
state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such
comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way."
[28]
Broader Implications
Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct,
requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis. Our discussion
of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's
first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis"
[29]
-- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political
bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States
was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief
once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower
confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this
is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over
discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council.
[30]
According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for
deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military
targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In
short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which
add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the
Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited. So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's
central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their
framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective
nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those
with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C). Type A crises
essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk.
[31]
Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some
enemy transgression."
[32]
Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake.
Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument
that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory
stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals
of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially,
larger conventional and nuclear operations. Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model.
[33]
These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in
addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be
much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply
many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For
instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional
collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain
of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces
inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move
will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous. Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's
"firestorm" model.
[34]
These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and
non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give
states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of
crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short.
[35]
In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different
types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear
superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their
framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and
Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings. Brendan R. Green,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Austin Long,
Arlington, Virginia
In Response to a Critique
Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald
We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment
of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively.
[36]
Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our
article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are
delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the
ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of
interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our
argument. In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's
suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their
proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises.
Our Argument
In our article, we offer
a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises.
[37]
While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on
what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In
particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which
escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables
generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives
and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability"
crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low
controllability). Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important
questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis?
What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low
crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of
likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the
highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis
controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use
are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis
controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite
different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for
nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of
uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with
high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur
through a careful, deliberate process.
First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis
First, Green and
Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they
argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were
understood and appreciated by American leaders.
[38]
While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would
have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis.
[39]
The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less)
agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was
perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to
assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does
have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case.
Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to
the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself,
[40]
which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes
were at their highest.
[41]
We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his
report had much of an effect on operational planning.
[42]
And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their
argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the
dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis. We
would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate
into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among
scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by
destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
[43]
Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that
only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis.
[44]
Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with
nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the
threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be
deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which
there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and
Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree.
[45]
But Green and Long seem to view
any
ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue
that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the
aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is
that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position:
We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike." Part of our
motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the
typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either
side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases
exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis,
for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold.
[46]
Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting
strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because
the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about
making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we
observe in the historical record.
An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises
Second, Green and Long offer an
alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types
of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both
selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and
military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental
objections to their typology.
[47]
After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different
purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we
would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of
the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes
beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two
critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and
build upon them. First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for
example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two
variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants
(stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship
crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally
different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the
conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether
there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions
between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively
controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very
different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The
factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very
low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may
matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move. Second, to
the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light
on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political
bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits.
Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they
acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide
incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts.
Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present,"
their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are
not
a source of
interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it
also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all
exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use
simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out
by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the
conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that
there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint
of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically
problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover
that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such
crises have, in fact, taken place. In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely
grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work
on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises
differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics. Mark S. Bell,
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Julia Macdonald,
Denver, Colorado
[post_title] => Contrasting Views on How to Code a Nuclear
Crisis [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] =>
[post_name] => contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2020-01-09
11:06:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-01-09 16:06:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] =>
http://tnsr.org/?p=1948 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw
[lead] => In this issue's correspondence section, Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long offer up an alternative way to
code nuclear crises in response to Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald's article in the February 2019 issue of TNSR. Bell and
Macdonald, in turn, offer a response to Green and Long's critique. [pubinfo] => [issue] => Vol 2, Iss 4 [quotes] => [style]
=> framing [type] => Framing [style_label] => The Foundation [download] => Array ( [title] => PDF Download [file] => 2442 )
[authors] => Array ( [0] => 279 [1] => 138 [2] => 258 [3] => 259 ) [endnotes] => Array ( [title] => Endnotes [endnotes] =>
[1]
Mark S.
Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises,"
Texas National Security Review
2, no. 2 (February
2019): 4064,
http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944
.
[2]
Bell and
Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 42, 63.
[3]
For an
excellent treatment of this problem in the international relations context, see Robert Jervis,
Perception and
Misperception in International Politics
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 15472.
[4]
Bell and
Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[5]
See
Memorandum for General Maxwell Taylor from Carl Kaysen, "Strategic Air Planning and Berlin," Sept. 5, 1961, from National
Archives, Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf
.
[6]
Marc
Trachtenberg, David Rosenberg, and Stephen Van Evera, "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," MIT Security Studies Program (1988),
9,
http://web.mit.edu/SSP/publications/working_papers/Kaysen%20working%20paper.pdf
.
[7]
Austin
Long and Brendan Rittenhouse Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike: Intelligence, Counterforce, and Nuclear Strategy,"
Journal of Strategic Studies
38, no. 12 (2015): 4446,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.958150
.
[8]
"An
Interview with Carl Kaysen," 9.
[9]
Quoted
in Long and Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike," 46.
[10]
James
R. Schlesinger, "Some Notes on Deterrence in Western Europe," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, June 30, 1962), 8.
[11]
Ernest R. May, John D. Steinbruner, and Thomas M. Wolfe,
History of the Strategic Arms Competition 19451972
, v.1
(Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), 475.
[12]
Quoted in Scott Sagan, "SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy,"
International Security
12,
no. 1 (Summer 1987): 34,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538916
.
[13]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 56. See also, May, Steinbruner, and Wolfe,
History of the Strategic
Arms Competition
, 475; and Owen Cot,
The Third Battle: Innovation in the US Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with
Soviet Submarines
(Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003), 42.
[14]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55, 59.
[15]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[16]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[17]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 59, fn 96. For more on Bundy, see, e.g., McGeorge Bundy et al., "Nuclear
Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance,"
Foreign Affairs
60, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 75368,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1982-03-01/nuclear-weapons-and-atlantic-alliance
.
[18]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[19]
Matthew Kroenig,
The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters
(Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2018), 88.
[20]
Sagan, "SIOP-62," 50.
[21]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[22]
Sagan,
"SIOP-62," 36, and esp. n. 49.
[23]
Joint
Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 907-62 to McNamara, Nov. 20, 1962,
in Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS),
1961-1963
, Vol. 8, 38789, quotation on 388,
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d109
.
[24]
For
example, consider his remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in
extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons," before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to
tactical use. See ExComm Meeting, Oct. 29, 1962, in Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds.,
The Kennedy Tapes: Inside
the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.
[25]
For
excellent accounts of Kennedy's Berlin policy and his views on nuclear superiority, which we draw upon heavily, see Marc
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1999), chap. 8; Francis J. Gavin,
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), chaps. 23.
[26]
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 292, 293, 294, 295.
[27]
Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 353, 351.
[28]
Legere memorandum for the record of the White House daily staff meeting, Dec. 10, 1962, National Defense University, Taylor
Papers, Chairman's Staff Group December 1962-January 1963; quoted in
FRUS 1961-1963
, Vol. 8, 436.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d118
.
[29]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 43.
[30]
See,
e.g., Trachtenberg,
A Constructed Peace
, 353, n. 3.
[31]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 4749.
[32]
Thomas C. Schelling,
Arms and Influence
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.
[33]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49.
[34]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 4950.
[35]
Schelling,
Arms and Influence
, 102.
[36]
This
work was supported by U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Project on Advanced Systems
and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) award FA7000-19-2-0008. The opinions, findings, views, conclusions or
recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of USAFA, DTRA or the U.S. Government.
[37]
Mark
S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises,"
Texas National Security Review
2, no. 2 (February
2019): 40-64,
http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944
. For additional
applications of our framework, see Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence: The Upside of the Trump-Kim
Summit,"
War on the Rocks
, June 15, 2018,
https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/toward-deterrence-the-upside-of-the-trump-kim-summit/
; Mark S. Bell and Julia
Macdonald, "How Dangerous Was Kargil? Nuclear Crises in Comparative Perspective,"
Washington Quarterly
42, no. 2
(Summer 2019): 13548,
https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1626691
.
[38]
One
minor correction to Green and Long's argument: The Cuban Missile Crisis is not the "sole empirical example" in our article
of a crisis characterized by a lack of incentives for first use. In the article we also argue that the 2017 Doklam Crisis
between India and China lacked strong incentives for first use, and we suspect there are plenty more crises of this sort in
the historical record. Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 6061.
[39]
Bell
and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.
[40]
The
quote from the crisis that Green and Long cite does not really support their argument. Green and Long state: "consider
[Kennedy's] remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that 'My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis,
everybody would use nuclear weapons,' before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use."
In fact, consider the full quote: "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use
nuclear weapons. The decision to use any kind of a nuclear weapon, even the tactical ones, presents such a risk of it
getting out of control so quickly." Kennedy then trails off but "appears to agree" with an unidentified participant who
states, "But Cuba's so small compared to the world." This suggests that Kennedy was expressing deep skepticism of any sort
of nuclear use remaining limited, as well as doubts about the merits of taking such risks over Cuba, rather than making any
sort of clear comparison between the merits of tactical use and massive pre-emption as Green and Long suggest. Ernest R. May
and Philip Zelikow, eds.,
The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.
[41]
For a
recent analysis of Kennedy's behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis that concludes that he was deeply skeptical of the
benefits of nuclear superiority during the crisis, see James Cameron,
The Double Game: The Demise of America's First
Missile Defense System and the Rise of Strategic Arms Limitation
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 2937.
[42]
For
example, see Francis Gavin's assessment that "little was done with" Kaysen's plan, a claim which echoes Marc Trachtenberg's
earlier assessment that "it is hard to tell, however, what effect [Kaysen's analysis] had, and in particular whether, by the
end of the year, the Air Force was prepared in operational terms to launch an attack of this sort." Francis J. Gavin,
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 38; Marc
Trachtenberg,
History and Strategy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 225.
[43]
Marc
Trachtenberg, "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis,"
International Security
10, no. 1
(Summer 1985), 162,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538793
.
[44]
Thomas C. Schelling,
Arms and Influence
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.
[45]
Indeed, at the risk of adding even more complexity, the relevant threshold likely varies with the stakes of the crisis:
Leaders are likely to view lesser damage limitation capabilities as politically relevant when the stakes are higher than
they are when the stakes involved are lower.
[46]
For
discussion of the North Korean case, see Bell and Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence," and Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think
About Nuclear Crises," 6162.
[47]
We
do, however, suggest that our labels offer somewhat more
joie de vivre
than the alphabetic labels that Green and
Long offer. ) [contents] => Array ( [title] => [contents] => ) ) ) [post_count] => 1 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] =>
[post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1948 [post_author] => 279 [post_date] => 2019-10-03 05:00:03 [post_date_gmt] =>
2019-10-03 09:00:03 [post_content] =>
In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises"
Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long
In their article in the February 2019 issue of the
Texas National
Security Review
, Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal.
[1]
We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and
signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises
implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are
not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning.
[2]
We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results. Nevertheless, the article also
highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics:
Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important
variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code
ex ante
. The two
variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the
controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises
are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's
pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact
and theory.
[3]
To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the
best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the
nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that,
following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the
history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the
United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962. Below, we analyze their interpretation of the
Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of
both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis
for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment.
What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides
in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part
of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for
deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic
forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located,
and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal."
[4]
Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance.
This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first
strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational
capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear
forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below. Any concept of operations for a U.S. first
strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and
Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber
force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so
U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack
could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise
attack.
[5]
Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could
also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike."
[6]
Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In
terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had
detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources,
including satellite reconnaissance and human sources.
U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear
forces.
[7]
As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were
only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on.
As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low
state of alert."
[8]
Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year
later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the
closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its
bombers, as "sitting ducks."
[9]
James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of
nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high."
[10]
The authors of the comprehensive
History of the Strategic Arms Competition
, drawing on a variety of highly
classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:
[T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first
strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic
missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own
intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could
have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States.
[11]
The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had
to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in
general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities.
[12]
The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and
some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a
Soviet submarine during the crisis.
[13]
How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962?
Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their
argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that
nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis.
[14]
Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)
-- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected
under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike.
[15]
Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis.
[16]
But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration
alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political
actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly
public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote.
[17]
The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald
acknowledge,
[18]
these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American
nuclear superiority.
[19]
The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of
American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any
circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear
force would strike the United States."
[20]
But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation"
capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly
disarming strike.
[21]
Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some
unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive
destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated."
[22]
Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara
commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 196468. This memorandum, sent shortly after the
crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the
memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable,
although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet
capability."
[23]
In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in
1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future. As for Kennedy's personal views, it is
important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in
opposite directions.
[24]
One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the
future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the
Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used,
and probably on a massive scale.
[25]
As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear
weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait
to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear
weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near
future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of
making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is
sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground
does not match what the communists can bring to bear."
[26]
But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant
that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the
Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a
confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all,
"the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on."
[27]
Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command
during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise
state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such
comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way."
[28]
Broader Implications
Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct,
requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis. Our discussion
of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's
first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis"
[29]
-- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political
bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States
was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief
once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower
confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this
is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over
discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council.
[30]
According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for
deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military
targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In
short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which
add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the
Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited. So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's
central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their
framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective
nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those
with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C). Type A crises
essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk.
[31]
Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some
enemy transgression."
[32]
Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake.
Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument
that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory
stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals
of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially,
larger conventional and nuclear operations. Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model.
[33]
These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in
addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be
much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply
many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For
instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional
collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain
of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces
inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move
will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous. Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's
"firestorm" model.
[34]
These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and
non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give
states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of
crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short.
[35]
In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different
types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear
superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their
framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and
Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings. Brendan R. Green,
Cincinnati, Ohio
Austin Long,
Arlington, Virginia
In Response to a Critique
Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald
We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment
of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively.
[36]
Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our
article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are
delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the
ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of
interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our
argument. In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's
suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their
proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises.
Our Argument
In our article, we offer
a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises.
[37]
While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on
what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In
particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which
escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables
generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives
and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability"
crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low
controllability). Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important
questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis?
What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low
crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of
likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the
highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis
controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use
are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis
controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite
different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for
nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of
uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with
high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur
through a careful, deliberate process.
First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis
First, Green and
Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they
argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were
understood and appreciated by American leaders.
[38]
While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would
have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis.
[39]
The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less)
agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was
perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to
assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does
have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case.
Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to
the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself,
[40]
which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes
were at their highest.
[41]
We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his
report had much of an effect on operational planning.
[42]
And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their
argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the
dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis. We
would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate
into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among
scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by
destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban
Missile Crisis.
[43]
Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that
only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis.
[44]
Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with
nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the
threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be
deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which
there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and
Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree.
[45]
But Green and Long seem to view
any
ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue
that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the
aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is
that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position:
We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike." Part of our
motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the
typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either
side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases
exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis,
for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold.
[46]
Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting
strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because
the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about
making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we
observe in the historical record.
An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises
Second, Green and Long offer an
alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types
of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both
selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and
military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental
objections to their typology.
[47]
After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different
purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we
would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of
the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes
beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two
critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and
build upon them. First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for
example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two
variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants
(stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship
crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally
different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the
conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether
there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions
between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively
controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very
different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The
factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very
low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may
matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move. Second, to
the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light
on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political
bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits.
Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they
acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide
incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts.
Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present,"
their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are
not
a source of
interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it
also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all
exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use
simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out
by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the
conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that
there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint
of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically
problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover
that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such
crises have, in fact, taken place. In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely
grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work
on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises
differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics.
Since the end of the Cold War, two camps can claim victory on most U.S. foreign policy
outcomes: neoconservatives and liberal internationalists. The neoconservatives have been
defined by their support for unilateral military interventions, democracy promotion, and
military supremacy. The liberal internationalists have focused on global economic
liberalization, multilateral humanitarian interventions, and the promotion of human rights
abroad. Both camps gained confidence from the supposed " end of history " and America's
" unipolar moment ." And
both camps have undergone a serious reckoning after the Afghanistan, Iraq, and forever wars, as
well as the global financial crisis calling into question neoliberal
economic policies -- namely, deregulation, liberalization, privatization, and austerity.
Prominent foreign policy advocates have quite publicly engaged in
soul-searching as they confronted these changes, and debates about the future of foreign
policy abound.
The emergence of a distinctively progressive approach to foreign policy is perhaps the most
interesting -- and most misunderstood -- development in these debates. In speeches and
articles, politicians like Sen.
Elizabeth Warren and Sen.
Bernie Sanders have outlined an approach to foreign policy that does not fall along the
traditional fault-lines of realist versus idealist or neoconservative versus liberal
internationalist (disclosure: I have been a longtime advisor to Sen. Warren). Their speeches
come alongside an
increasing number of
articles exploring the
contours of a
progressive foreign policy. Even those who might not consider themselves
progressive are
sounding similar themes .
From this body of work, it is now possible to sketch out the framework of a distinctively
progressive approach to foreign policy. While its advocates, like those in other foreign policy
camps, discuss a wide range of issues -- from climate change to reforming international
institutions -- at the moment, five themes mark this emerging approach as a specific framework
for foreign policy.
First, progressive foreign policy breaks the
silos between domestic and foreign policy and between international economic policy and
foreign policy. It places far greater emphasis on how foreign policy impacts the United States
at home -- and particularly on how foreign policy (including international economic policy) has
impacted the domestic economy. To be sure, there have always been analysts and commentators who
recognized these interrelationships. But progressive foreign policy places this at the center
of its analysis rather than seeing it as peripheral. The new progressive foreign policy takes
the substance of both domestic and international economic policies seriously, and its adherents
will not support economic policies on foreign policy grounds if they exacerbate economic
inequality at home. For example, the argument that trade deals must be ratified on national
security grounds even though they have problematic distributional consequences does not carry
much weight for progressives who believe that an equitable domestic economy is the foundation
of national power.
Second, progressive foreign policy holds that one of the important threats to American
democracy at home is nationalist
oligarchy (or, alternatively, authoritarian
capitalism ) abroad. Countries like Russia and China are not simply authoritarian
governments, and neither can their resurgence and assertion of power be interpreted as merely
great power competition. The reason is that their economic systems integrate economic and
political power. Crony/state capitalism is not a bug, it is the central feature. In a global
society, economic interrelationships
weaponize economic power into political power .
China, for example, already uses its economic power as leverage in political disputes with
other Asian countries. Its growing share of global GDP is one of the most consequential facts
of the 21st century. As a result of these dynamics, progressives are also highly skeptical of a
foreign policy based on the premise that the countries of the world will all become neoliberal
democracies. Instead, they take seriously the risks that come from economic integration with
nationalist oligarchies.
Third, the new progressive foreign policy values America's alliances and international
agreements, but not because it thinks that such alliances and rules can convert nationalist
oligarchies into liberal democracies. Rather, alliances should be based on
common values or common goals, and, going forward, they will be critical to balancing and
countering the challenges from nationalist oligarchies. Progressives are thus far more
skeptical of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and far more interested in reinforcing
and deepening ties with allies like Japan -- and are concerned about the erosion of alliances
like NATO from within.
Western elites and their lackeys in the media despise Russian president Vladimir Putin and
they make no bones about it. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Putin has rolled
back US ambitions in Syria and Ukraine, aligned himself with Washington's biggest strategic
rival in Asia, China, and is currently strengthening his economic ties with Europe which poses
a long-term threat to US dominance in Central Asia. Putin has also updated his nuclear arsenal
which makes it impossible for Washington to use the same bullyboy tactics it's used on other,
more vulnerable countries. So it's understandable that the media would want to demonize Putin
and disparage him as cold-blooded "KGB thug". That, of course, is not true, but it fits with
the bogus narrative that Putin is maniacally conducting a clandestine war against the United
States for purely evil purposes. In any event, the media's deep-seated Russophobia has grown so
extreme that they're unable to cover even simple events without veering wildly into
fantasy-land. Take, for example, the New York Times coverage of Putin's recent Address to the
Federal Assembly, which took place on January 15. The Times screwball analysis shows that their
journalists have no interest in conveying what Putin actually said, but would rather use every
means available to persuade their readers that Putin is a calculating tyrant driven by his
insatiable lust for power. Check out this excerpt from the article in the Times:
"Nobody knows what's going on inside the Kremlin right now. And perhaps that's precisely
the point. President Vladimir V. Putin announced constitutional changes last week that could
create new avenues for him to rule Russia for the rest of his life .(wrong)
The fine print of the legislation showed that the prime minister's powers would not be
expanded as much as first advertised, while members of the State Council would still appear
to serve at the pleasure of the president. So maybe Mr. Putin's plan is to stay president,
after all? .(wrong again)
A journalist, Yury Saprykin, offered a similar sentiment on Facebook, but in verse:
We'll be debating over how he won't leave, We'll be guessing, will he leave or won't he. And then -- lo! -- he won't be leaving. That is, before the elections he won't leave, And after that, he definitely won't leave." (wrong, a third time)
This is really terrible analysis. Yes, "Putin announced constitutional changes last week",
but they have absolutely nothing to do with some sinister plan to stay in power, and anyone who
read the speech would know that. Unfortunately, most of the other 100-or-so "cookie cutter"
articles on the topic, draw the same absurd conclusion as the Times , that is, that the
changes Putin announced in his speech merely conceal his real intention which is to extend his
time in office for as long as possible. Once again, there's nothing in the speech itself to
support these claims, it's just another attempt to smear Putin.
So what did Putin actually say in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly?
Well, that's where it gets interesting. He announced changes to the social safety net, more
financial assistance for young families, improvements to the health care system, higher wages
for teachers, more money for education, hospitals, schools, libraries. He promised to launch a
system of "social contracts" that commit the state to reducing poverty and raising standards of
living. He pledged to provide healthier meals to schoolchildren, lower interest rates for
first-time home buyers, greater economic support for working families, higher payouts to
pensioners, raises to the minimum wage, additional funding for a "network of extracurricular
technology and engineering centers". Putin also added this gem:
"It is very important that children who are in preschool and primary school adopt the true
values of a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of
motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by
respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence,
security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a
moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will
be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and
successful country."
Naturally, heartfelt statements like this never appear on the pages of the Times or any of
the other western media for that matter. Instead, Americans are deluged with more of the same
relentless Putin-psychobabble that's become a staple of cable news. The torrent of lies, libels
and fabrications about Putin are so constant and so overwhelming, that the only thing of which
one can be absolutely certain, is that nothing that is written about Putin in the MSM can be
trusted. Of that, there is no doubt.
That said, Putin is a politician which means he might not deliver on his promises at all.
That is a very real possibility. But if that's the case, then why did his former-Prime
Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, resign immediately after the speech? Medvedev and his entire cabinet
resigned because they realized that Putin has abandoned the western model of capitalism and is
moving in a different direction altogether. Putin is now focused on strengthening welfare state
programs that lift people out of poverty, raise living standards, and narrow the widening
inequality gap. And he wants a new team to help him implement his vision, which is why Medvedev
and crew got their walking papers. Here's how The Saker summed it up in a recent article at the
Unz Review :
"The new government clearly indicates that, especially with the nominations of Prime
Minister Mishustin and his First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov: these are both on
record as very much proponents of what is called "state capitalism" in Russia: meaning an
economic philosophy in which the states does not stifle private entrepreneurship, but one in
which the state is directly and heavily involved in creating the correct economic conditions
for the government and private sector to grow. Most crucially, "state capitalism" also
subordinates the sole goal of the corporate world (making profits) to the interests of the
state and, therefore, to the interests of the people. In other words, goodbye
turbo-capitalism à la Atlantic Integrationists!" ( "The New Russian Government" ,
The Saker)
This is precisely what is taking place in Russia right now. Putin is breaking away from
Washington's parasitic model of capitalism and replacing it with a more benign version that
better addresses the needs of the people. This new version of 'managed capitalism' places
elected officials at the head of the system to protect the public from the savagery of market
forces and from perennial-grinding austerity. It's a system aimed at helping ordinary people
not Wall Street or the global bank Mafia.
But while the changes to Russia's economic model are significant, it's Putin's political
changes that have drawn the most attention. Here's what he said:
(The) "requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of
international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not
restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our
Constitution ."
What does this mean? Does it mean that Putin will not respect international law or the
treaties it has signed with its neighbors? No, it doesn't, in fact, Putin has been an
enthusiastic proponent of international law and the UN Security Council. He strongly believes
that these institutions play a crucial role in maintaining global security, an issue that is
very close to his heart. What the Russian president appears to be saying is that the rights of
the Russian people and of the sovereign Russian government take precedent over foreign
corporations, treaties or free trade agreements. Russia will not allow the powerful and
insidious globalist multinationals to take control of the political and economic levers of
state power as they've done in countries around the world. Putin further clarified this point
saying:
"Russia can remain Russia only as a sovereign state. Our nation's sovereignty must be
unconditional. We have done a great deal to achieve this. We restored our state's unity and
overcome the situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by
oligarch clans. We created powerful reserves, which increases our country's stability and
capability to protect (us) from any attempts of foreign pressure."
For Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is the
bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully represents the will
of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech saying:
"The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source of
power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people, both today
and in the future."
So while there may be significant differences between Russian and US democracy, the basic
principle remains the same, the primary responsibility of the government is to carry out the
"will of the people". In this respect, Putin's political philosophy is not much different from
that of the framers of the US Constitution. What is different, however, is Putin's approach to
free trade. Unlike the US, Putin does not believe that free trade deals should diminish the
authority of the state. Most Americans don't realize that trade agreements like NAFTA often
include provisions that prevent the government from acting in the best interests of their
people. Globalist trade laws prevent governments from providing incentives to companies to slow
the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, they undermine environmental regulations and food safety
laws. Some of these agreements even shield sweatshop owners and other human rights abusers from
penalty or prosecution.
Is it any wonder why Putin does not want to participate in this unethical swindle? Is it any
wonder why he feels the need to clearly state that Russia will only comply with those laws and
treaties that "do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not
contradict our Constitution"? Here's Putin again:
"Please, do not forget what happened to our country after 1991. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, .there were also threats, dangers of a magnitude no one could have imagined
ever before. .Therefore We must create a solid, reliable and invulnerable system that will be
absolutely stable in terms of the external contour and will securely guarantee Russia's
independence and sovereignty."
So what happened following the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat economists to Moscow to assist in the
"shock therapy" campaign that collapsed the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased
unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude, accelerated
the slide to privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and sent the real
economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up
like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented
prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living
standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous other social
indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to
somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with more than one out of two children living in
families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people than
the Communists had said it would be. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the
national income, fell by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more
unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices, and the majority of people
wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding
Heights)
At the same time Washington's agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its troops,
armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia's border in clear violation of promises
that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its military "one inch east". At present, there
are more combat troops and weaponry on Russia's western flank than at any time since the German
buildup for operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Naturally, Russia feels threatened by this
flagrantly hostile force on its border. (BTW, this week, "The US is carrying out its biggest
and most provocative deployment to Europe since the Cold War-era. According to the US Military
in Europe Website: "Exercise DEFENDER-Europe 20 is the deployment of a division-size
combat-credible force from the United States to Europe .The Pentagon and its NATO allies are
recklessly simulating a full-blown war with Russia to prevent Moscow from strengthening its
economic ties with Europe.) Here's more from Putin:
"I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic
principles of a stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is
necessary to show political will, wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our
shared responsibility and real actions."
This is a theme that Putin has reiterated many times since his groundbreaking speech at
Munich in 2007 where he said:
"We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international
law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one
state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has
overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political,
cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is
happy about this? ." ("Wars not diminishing': Putin's iconic 2007 Munich speech, you
tube)
What Putin objects to is the US acting unilaterally whenever it chooses. It's Washington's
capricious disregard for international law that has destabilized vast regions across the Middle
East and Central Asia and has put world leaders on edge never knowing where the next crisis
will pop up or how many millions of people will be impacted. As Putin said in Munich, "No one
feels safe." No one feels like they can count on the protection of international law or UN
Security Council resolutions.
Putin:
"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing
about reforms, aggressive intervention destroyed government institutions and the local way of
life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and
total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously
resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and
terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it,
including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many
recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN
Security Council Resolution 1973 ."
Is Putin overstating Washington's role in decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan or
is this a fair assessment of America's pernicious and destabilizing role in the region? Entire
civilizations have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across the region
to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate its perceived enemies.
And all this military adventurism can be traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and
the triumphalist response from US powerbrokers who saw Russia's collapse as a green light for
their New World Order.
Washington reveled in its victory and embraced its ability to dominate global
decision-making and intervene unilaterally wherever it saw fit. The indispensable nation no
longer had to bother with formalities like the UN Security Council or international law. Even
sovereignty was dismissed as an archaic notion that had no place in the new borderless
corporate empire. What really mattered was spreading western-style capitalism to the four
corners of the earth particularly those areas that contained vital resources (ME) or explosive
growth potential. (Eurasia) Those regions were the real prize.
But then something unexpected happened. Washington's wars dragged on ad infinitum while
newer centers of power gradually emerged. Suddenly, the globalist utopia was no longer within
reach, the American Century had ended before it had even begun. Meanwhile Russia and China were
growing more powerful all the time. They demanded an end to unilateralism and a return to
international law, but their demands were flatly rejected. The wars and interventions dragged
on even though the prospects for victory grew more and more remote. Here's Putin again:
"We have no doubt that sovereignty is the central notion of the entire system of
international relations. Respect for it and its consolidation will help underwrite peace and
stability both at the national and international levels First of all, there must be equal and
indivisible security for all states." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, "
The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow, From the Office of the President of
Russia)
Indeed, sovereignty is the foundational principle upon which global security rests, and yet,
it is sovereignty that western elites are so eager to extinguish. Powerhouse multinationals
want to erase existing borders to facilitate the unfettered, tariff-free flow of goods and
people in one giant, interconnected free trade zone that spans the entire planet. And while
their plan has been derailed by Putin in Syria and Ukraine, they have made gains in Africa,
South America and Southeast Asia. The virus cannot be contained, it can only be eradicated.
Here's Putin:
"Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we
know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed. I think this situation
is in many respects the result of mistaken, hasty and to some extent over-confident choices
made by some countries' elites a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late 1980s-early
1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give
it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature.
But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves
this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and
economic order to fit their own interests.
In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other
actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and
attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organizations,
norms and rules. They chose the road of globalization and security for their own beloved
selves, for the select few, and not for all." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club)
As Putin says, there was an opportunity to "make globalization more harmonious and
sustainable", (perhaps, China's Belt and Road initiative will do just that.) but Washington
elites rejected that idea choosing instead to impose its own self-aggrandizing vision on the
world. As a result, demonstrations and riots have cropped up across Europe, right-wing populist
parties are on the rise, and a majority of the population no longer have confidence in basic
democratic institutions. The west's version of globalization has been roundly repudiated as a
scam that showers wealth on scheming billionaires while hanging ordinary working people out to
dry. Here's Putin again:
"It seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification in society and the
erosion of the middle class (but the situation) creates a climate of uncertainty that has a
direct impact on the public mood.
Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries
and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The
future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real
opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy."
(Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)
True, life is harder now and it looks to get harder still, but what is Putin's remedy or
does he have one? Is he going to stem the tide and reverse the effects of globalization? Is he
going to sabotage Washington's plan to control vital resources in the Middle East, become the
the main player in Central Asia, and tighten its grip on global power?
No, Putin is not nearly that ambitious. As he indicates in his speech, his immediate goal is
to reform the economy so that poverty is eliminated and wealth is more equally distributed.
These are practical remedies that help to soften capitalism and decrease the probability of
social unrest. He also wants to fend off potential threats to the state by shoring up Russian
sovereignty. That's why he is adding amendments to the Constitution. The objective is to
protect Russia from pernicious foreign agents or fifth columnists operating within the state.
Bottom line: Putin sees what's going on in the world and has charted a course that best serves
the interests of the Russian people. Americans would be lucky to have a leader who did the
same.
He is now granted $40 billion in tax breaks to the biggest fossil fuel
oligarchs–Rosneft and Gazprom. These are privatised companies that were formerly
state companies in the former USSR. Instead of reversing the trend Putin has escalated
privatization.
It seems you were misinformed. Rosneft and Gazprom are still state-owned, the latter
mostly and the former entirely. So if indeed Putin did grant them these tax breaks, it's just
one branch of the government transferring money to another branch of government–sort of
like when the Social Security Administration here in the US buy bonds from the Treasury
Department. It's just an accounting gimmick, not gift to 'oligarchs'. (BTW, why is it that
the media never refer to Soros, Bezos or the Rockefellers as 'oligarchs'? Why only
Russians?)
For Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is the
bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully represents the
will of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech saying:
"The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source
of power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people,
both today and in the future."
This is what has been missing from so called US Democracy for a while now.
The present day US is a hegemony of Special Interests busy looting the place under cover
their propaganda department (US MSM).
Great article, Mike Whitney. So far it's the only one I've seen that reveals a coherent hard
core in what Putin seeks to achieve with a seemingly bureaucratic rejiggering of the
constitution and ruling echelon. Maybe he's finally ending the humiliating indecision that
has stymied Russia the past three decades: Will the country keep trying to be yet another
pale copy of the financialized U.S. economic sphere, powered by dollar hegemony? Or, will it
free itself from predatory corporate domination in order to duplicate the obvious success of
sovereign next-door China? If your analysis is on the mark, Putin may have now found the
answer to Russia's debilitating post-Soviet identity crisis.
Trump's unexpected election and the parallel rise of nationalism in docile Europe suggests
that much the same crisis has now emerged within the Western empire. Will it be borderless
neofeudal corporatism for the benefit of those at the top of the social pyramid or will
working people regain a voice in their own government? Reading those troubled tea leaves,
Putin may have picked the right moment to launch Russia on the more promising path.
Is Putin overstating Washington's role in decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan
or is this a fair assessment of America's pernicious and destabilizing role in the region?
Entire civilizations have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across
the region to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate
its perceived enemies.
No need to qualify the cause of this nefarious plan by referencing some nebulous
objective. There was nothing nebulous about it. The plan to Remake the Middle East was
clearly articulated by Richard Perle, well before the GWOT was launched, in A Clean Break,
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm .
Sooner or later, every Bully will push the wrong opponent and wind up getting his ass
stomped in the dirt.
Sad, but true. I think everyone hopes that the US pulls off some sort of last minute
transformation and repentance, because the takedown would be very ugly for everyone
@geokat62 Don't forget to mention the Oded Yinon Plan, the plan to shatter all Israel's
neighbors into small, dysfunctional, quarrelling statelets. See, Global Research : "Greater
Israel" : The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.
God bless Putin and Russia for saving Syria from the terrorists created by the ZUS and Israel
and ZBritain and ZNATO , these terrorists AL CIADA aka ISIS and all offshoots thereof were
created and armed and funded to destroy the middle east for the zionist greater Israel
project and all of this was brought on by the joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911
and blamed on the arabs.
Who is the greater terrorist, the terrorists or the ones who created them.
@Sean Russia will do very well they are moving in the right direction, they are putting
regulations on those that need it, and better programs for the people.
I once read that you can start out with a strong generation and from that strong
generation ever generation after will become weaker and weaker, until you end up with a
generation like the U.S. has that's like clay in the hands of a master, they can't think nor
even act they just follow the dictates of the master.!!!
@Old and grumpy In regards to sanctions Russia for the last 3 years has been the greatest
producer and exporter of grain, and since food is the most important thing, the ZUS is
pissing into the wind with sanctions on Russia.
"This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people
see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping
policy." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)"
Jeez ain't that the truth. I live in Virginia and it seems that no matter how I vote it
just never changes anything. We just had big demonstrations against the stupid new gun laws
our despotic governor wants to enact and from where I'm sitting it didn't make one iota of
difference. The rank and file have zero to say in how they are governed But we sure get to
finance it with our taxes.
@Anonymous You are delusional and have obviously spent no time in Russia. When the Pussy
Riot grrrls desecrated the altar at St. Savior, Russians went ballistic, from the Patriarchs
down to the blue collar diesel mechanics.
Your so-called "faith" in the US and Europe has already sold out to Globohomo completely.
Most priests are gay and have been buggering the altar boys for decades. Protestant sects
have lesbian bishops. Your "faithful" have not only totally surrendered to the Globohomo
takeover, they now EMBRACE it proudly. "All are welcome." There is now no difference between
Vatican II Catholicism and Unitarian Universalism. Western Europe is so far gone, so
anti-life, there's hardly a white child left. Muslims are sharpening their machetes.
So you think there's no substance behind Orthodoxy. You are mistaken. (I'm Latin Mass
Catholic, BTW)
It's only consistent with his past behavior of reining in post-Soviet Russian
Oligarchs.
And there is the real reason why the "west" hates him. Because who controls the west? Who
owns all of the media, owns the politicians, and controls the narrative? Our very own
Oligarchs, indistinguishable from the Russian version and in fact interchangeable (borders
mean nothing to them). So of course they are pissed if Putin is rolling them back over in
Russia. How dare he.
Also, have you ever noticed that the word "Oligarch" is only every applied in the same
sentence as "Russian?"
How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress
pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo
Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0
SHARES
Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over
the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his
character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors
out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure
Ukraine.
That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo
launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about
whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch.
House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas
and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that
Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to
Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with
Yovanovitch for "a price."
Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things
Considered")
After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch,
whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done
what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.
Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room,
telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder,
so they could have more privacy.
Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant",
repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing
that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.
"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.
The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank
map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.
"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.
Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.
The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress
that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show
some support for Yovanovitch.
Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found
here .
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked
some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and
now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of
problems here or paying off the national debt?
The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would
clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags
they are gypsies and grifters...
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You
may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.
"... But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And ..."
"... The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. ..."
"... Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders. ..."
I've been writing and speaking for months about the looming danger of war with Iran, often to
considerable skepticism.
In June, in an essay entitled "
Eve of
Destruction: Iran Strikes Back ," after the U.S. initiated its "maximum pressure" blockade of
Iranian oil exports, I pointed out that "Iran considers that it is already at war," and that the
downing of the U.S. drone was a sign that "Iran is calling the U.S. bluff on escalation
dominance."
In an October
essay , I pointed out that Trump's last-minute calling off of the U.S. attack on Iran in
June, his demurral again after the Houthi attack on Saudi oil facilities, and his announced
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were seen as "catastrophic" and "a big win for Iran" by the
Iran hawks in Israel and America whose efforts New York Times (NYT) detailed in an
important article, " The Secret History
of the Push to Strike Iran ." I said, with emphasis, " It always goes to Iran ," and
underlined that Trump's restraint was particularly galling to hard-line zionist Republican
Senators, and might have opened a path to impeachment. I cited the reported
statement
of a "veteran political consultant" that "The price of [Lindsey] Graham's support would be an
eventual military strike on Iran."
And in the middle of December, I went way out on a limb, in
an essay suggesting
a possible relation between preparations for war in Iran and the impeachment process. I pointed
out that the strategic balance of forces between Israel and Iran had reached the point where
Israel thinks it's "necessary to take Iran down now ," in "the next six months," before
the Iranian-supported Axis of Resistance accrues even more power. I speculated that the need to
have a more reliable and internationally-respected U.S. President fronting a conflict with Iran
might be the unseen reason -- behind the flimsy Articles of Impeachment -- that explains why
Pelosi and Schumer "find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that."
So, I was the guy chicken-littling about impending war with Iran.
But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem
Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in
the Middle East? And Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization
Forces (PMF) unit, Kataib Hezbollah? Did not see that coming. Rage. Fear. Sadness.
Anxiety. A few days just to register that it really happened. To see the millions of people
bearing witness to it. Yes, that happened.
Then there was the anxious anticipation about the Iranian response, which came surprisingly
quickly, and with admirable military and political precision, avoiding a large-scale war in the
region, for the moment.
That was the week that was.
But, as the man said: "It ain't over 'til it's over." And it ain't over. Recognizing the
radical uncertainty of the world we now live in, and recognizing that its future will be
determined by actors and actions far away from the American leftist commentariat, here's what I
need to say about the war we are now in.
The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic
of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions,
Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani
was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what
his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course,
is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani "
a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant
ignorance of U.S. political culture.
It's virtually impossible to explain to Americans because there is no one of comparable
stature in the U.S. or in the West today. As Iran cleric Shahab Mohadi
said , when talking about what a "proportional response" might be: "[W]ho should we consider
to take out in the context of America? 'Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man
and SpongeBob? 'All of their heroes are cartoon characters -- they're all fictional." Trump?
Lebanese Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah said what many throughout the world familiar with both of
them would agree with: "the shoe of Qassem Soleimani is worth the head of Trump and all American
leaders."
To understand the respect Soleimani has earned, not only in Iran (where his popularity was
around
80% ) but throughout the region and across political and sectarian lines, you have to know
how he led and organized the forces that helped save
Christians ,
Kurds , Yazidis and others from being
slaughtered by ISIS, while Barack Obama and John Kerry were still "
watching " ISIS advance and using it as a tool
to "manage" their war against Assad.
In an informative
interview
with Aaron Maté, Former Marine Intelligence Officer and weapons inspector, Scott Ritter,
explains how Soleimani is honored in Iraq for organizing the resistance that saved Baghdad from
being overrun by ISIS -- and the same could be said of Syria, Damascus, or Ebril:
He's a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and in Syria. And anywhere where, frankly speaking, he's
operated, the people he's worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most
humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist but the fact is he
wasn't, and neither is Mr. Mohandes.
When ISIS [was] driving down on the city of Baghdad, the U.S. armed and trained Iraqi Army had
literally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and
Baghdad
[Soleimani] came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces] as
a viable fighting force and then motivated them to confront Isis in ferocious hand-to-hand combat
in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving Isis back and stabilizing the situation that
allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the Isis fight. But if it weren't for
Qassem Soleimani and Mohandes and Kataib Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS
flying over it. So the Iraqi people haven't forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the
scourge of ISIS.
So, to understand Soleimani in Western terms, you'd have to evoke someone like World War II
Eisenhower (or Marshall Zhukov, but that gets another blank stare from Americans.) Think I'm
exaggerating? Take it from the family of the Shah
:
Beyond his leadership of the fight against ISIS, you also have to understand Soleimani's
strategic acumen in building the Axis of Resistance -- the network of armed local groups like
Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the PMF in Iraq, that Soleimani helped organize and provide with
growing military capability. Soleimani meant standing up; he helped people throughout the region
stand up to the shit the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis were constantly dumping on them
More apt than Eisenhower and De Gaulle, in world-historical terms, try something like Saladin
meets Che. What a tragedy, and travesty, it is that legend-in-his-own-mind Donald Trump killed
this man.
Dressed to Kill
But it is not just Trump, and not just the assassination of Soleimani, that we should focus
on. These are actors and events within an ongoing conflict with Iran, which was ratcheted up when
the U.S. renounced the nuclear deal (JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and
instituted a "maximum pressure" campaign of economic and financial sanctions on Iran and
third countries, designed to drive Iran's oil exports to zero.
The purpose of this blockade is to create enough social misery to force Iran into compliance,
or provoke Iran into military action that would elicit a "justifiable" full-scale,
regime-change -- actually state-destroying -- military attack on the country.
From its inception, Iran has correctly understood this blockade as an act of war, and has
rightfully expressed its determination to fight back. Though it does not want a wider war, and
has so far carefully calibrated its actions to avoid making it necessary, Iran will
fight back however it deems necessary.
The powers-that-be in Iran and the U.S. know they are at war, and that the Soleimani
assassination ratcheted that state of war up another significant notch; only Panglossian American
pundits think the "w" state is yet to be avoided. Sorry, but the United States drone-bombed an
Iranian state official accompanied by an Iraqi state official, in Iraq at the invitation of the
Iraqi Prime Minister, on a conflict-resolution mission requested by Donald Trump himself. In
anybody's book, that is an act of war -- and extraordinary treachery, even in wartime, the
equivalent of shooting someone who came to parley under a white flag.
Indeed, we now know that the assassination of Soleimani was only one of two known
assassination attempts against senior Iranian officers that day. There was also an unsuccessful
strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, another key commander in Iran's Quds Force who has been
active in Yemen. According to the
Washington Post , this marked a "departure for the Pentagon's mission in Yemen,
which has sought to avoid direct involvement" or make "any publicly acknowledged attacks on
Houthi or Iranian leaders in Yemen."
Of course, because it's known as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis," the Pentagon wants
to avoid "publicly" bloodying its hands in the Saudi war in Yemen. Through two presidential
administrations, it has been trying to minimize attention to its indispensable support of, and
presence in, Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen with
drone strikes ,
special
forces operations , refueling of aircraft, and intelligence and targeting. It's such a nasty
business that even the U.S. Congress
passed a bipartisan
resolution to end U.S. military involvement in that war, which was vetoed by Trump.
According to the ethic and logic of American exceptionalism, Iran is forbidden from helping
the Houthis, but the U.S. is allowed to assassinate their advisors and help the Saudis bomb the
crap out of them.
So, the Trump administration is clearly engaged in an organized campaign to take out senior
Iranian leaders, part of what it considers a war against Iran. In this war, the Trump
administration no longer pretends to give a damn about any fig leaf of law or ethics. Nobody
takes seriously the phony "imminence" excuse for killing Soleimani, which even
Trump say s "doesn't matter," or the "bloody hands" justification, which could apply to any
military commander. And let's not forget: Soleimani was "
talking about bad stuff ."
The U.S. is demonstrating outright contempt for any framework of respectful international
relations, let alone international law. National sovereignty? Democracy? Whatever their
elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to
well, to do whatever the hell we want. "Rules-based international order"? Sure, we make
the rules and you follow our orders.
The U.S.'s determination to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the
explicit, unequivocal
demand of the friendly democratic government that the U.S. itself supposedly invaded the
country to install, is particularly significant. It draws the circle nicely. It demonstrates that
the Iraq war isn't over. Because it, and the wars in Libya and Syria, and the war that's
ratcheting up against Iran are all the same war that the U.S. has been waging in the
Middle East since 2003. In the end is the beginning, and all that.
We're now in the endgame of the serial offensive that
Wesley Clark described in
2007, starting with Iraq and "finishing off" with Iran. Since the U.S. has attacked, weakened,
divided, or destroyed every other un-coopted polity in the region (Iraq, Syria, Libya) that could
pose any serious resistance to the predations of U.S. imperialism and Israel colonialism, it has
fallen to Iran to be the last and best source of material and military support which allows that
resistance to persist.
And Iran has taken up the task, through the work of the Quds Force under leaders like
Soleimani and Shahlai, the work of building a new Axis of Resistance with the capacity to resist
the dictates of Israel and the U.S. throughout the region. It's work that is part of a
war and will result in casualties among U.S. and U.S.-allied forces and damage to their
"interests."
What the U.S. (and its wards, Israel and Saudi Arabia) fears most is precisely the kind of
material, technical, and combat support and training that allows the Houthis to beat back the
Saudis and Americans in Yemen, and retaliate with stunningly accurate blows on crucial oil
facilities in Saudi Arabia itself. The same kind of help that Soleimani gave to the armed forces
of Syria and the PMF in Iraq to prevent those countries from being overrun and torn apart by the
U.S. army and its sponsored jihadis, and to Hezbollah in Lebanon to deter Israel from demolishing
and dividing that country at will.
It's that one big "endless" war that's been waged by every president since 2003, which
American politicians and pundits have been scratching their heads and squeezing their brains to
figure out how to explain, justify (if it's their party's President in charge), denounce (if it's
the other party's POTUS), or just bemoan as "senseless." But to the neocons who are driving it
and their victims -- it makes perfect sense and is understood to have been largely a
success. Only the befuddled U.S. media and the deliberately-deceived U.S. public think it's
"senseless," and remain enmired in the
cock-up theory
of U.S. foreign policy, which is a blindfold we had better shed before being led to the next very
big slaughter.
The one big war makes perfect sense when one understands that the United States has thoroughly
internalized Israel's interests as its own. That this conflation has been successfully driven by
a particular neocon faction, and that it is excessive, unnecessary and perhaps disruptive to
other effective U.S. imperial possibilities, is demonstrated precisely by the constant plaint
from non-neocon, including imperialist, quarters that it's all so "senseless."
The result is that the primary object of U.S. policy (its internalized zionist
imperative) in this war is to enforce that Israel must be able, without any threat of serious
retaliation, to carry out any military attack on any country in the region at any time, to seize
any territory and resources (especially water) it needs, and, of course, to impose any level of
colonial violence against Palestinians -- from home demolitions, to siege and sniper killings
(Gaza), to de jure as well as de facto apartheid and eventual further mass
expulsions, if deems necessary.
That has required, above all, removing -- by co-option, regime change, or chaotogenic
sectarian warfare and state destruction -- any strong central governments that have provided
political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military support for the Palestinian resistance
to Israeli colonialism. Iran is the last of those, has been growing in strength and influence,
and is therefore the next mandatory target.
For all the talk of "Iranian proxies," I'd say, if anything, that the U.S., with its
internalized zionist imperative, is effectively acting as Israel's proxy.
It's also important, I think, to clarify the role of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this policy. KSA is
absolutely a very important player in this project, which has been consistent with its interests.
But its (and its oil's) influence on the U.S. is subsidiary to Israel's, and depends entirely on
KSA's complicity with the Israeli agenda. The U.S. political establishment is not overwhelmingly
committed to Saudi/Wahhabi policy imperatives -- as a matter, they think, of virtue -- as they
are to Israeli/Zionist ones. It is inconceivable that a U.S. Vice-President would
declare "I am a
Wahhabi," or a U.S. President
say
"I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die" for Saudi Arabia -- with
nobody even noticing . The U.S. will turn on a dime against KSA if Israel wants it; the
reverse would never happen. We have to confront the primary driver of this policy if we are to
defeat it, and too many otherwise superb analysts, like Craig Murray, are mistaken and
diversionary, I think, in saying things like the assassination of Soleimani and the drive for war
on Iran represent the U.S. "
doubling
down on its Saudi allegiance ." So, sure, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Batman
and Robin.
Iran has quite clearly seen and understood what's unfolding, and has prepared itself for the
finale that is coming its way.
The final offensive against Iran was supposed to follow the definitive destruction of the
Syrian Baathist state, but that project was interrupted (though not yet abandoned) by the
intervention of Syria's allies, Russia and Iran -- the latter precisely via the work of Soleimani
and the Quds Force.
Current radical actions like the two assassination strikes against Iranian Quds Force
commanders signal the Trump administration jumping right to the endgame, as that neocon hawks
have been " agitating for
." The idea -- borrowed, perhaps from Israel's campaign of
assassinating Iranian scientists -- is that killing off the key leaders who have supplied and
trained the Iranian-allied networks of resistance throughout the region will hobble any strike
from those networks if/when the direct attack on Iran comes.
Per Patrick
Lawrence , the Soleimani assassination "was neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected
the planning of the administration's Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to
take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with Iran." It means that war
is on and it will get worse fast.
It is crucial to understand that Iran is not going to passively submit to any such bullying.
It will not be scared off by some "bloody nose" strike, followed by chest-thumping from Trump,
Netanyahu, or Hillary about how they will "
obliterate " Iran. Iran knows all that. It also knows, as I've said
before , how little damage -- especially in terms of casualties -- Israel and the U.S. can
take. It will strike back. In ways that will be calibrated as much as possible to avoid a larger
war, but it will strike back.
Iran's strike on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq was a case in point. It was preceded by a warning
through Iraq that did not specify the target but allowed U.S. personnel in the country to hunker
down. It also demonstrated deadly precision and determination, hitting specific buildings where
U.S. troops work, and, we now know, causing at least eleven acknowledged casualties.
Those casualties were minor, but you can bet they would have been the excuse for a large-scale
attack, if the U.S. had been entirely unafraid of the response. In fact, Trump did
launch that attack over the downing of a single unmanned drone -- and Pompeo and the neocon crew,
including Republican Senators, were "
stunned " that he
called it off in literally the last
ten minutes . It's
to the eternal shame of what's called the "left" in this country that we may have
Tucker
Carlson to thank for Trump's bouts of restraint.
There Will Be Blood
But this is going to get worse, Pompeo is now
threatening Iran's leaders that "any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that
harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response."
Since Iran has ties of some kind with most armed groups in the region and the U.S. decides what
"proxy" and "interests" means, that means that any act of resistance to the U.S., Israel, or
other "ally" by anybody -- including, for example, the Iraqi PMF forces who are likely to
retaliate against the U.S. for killing their leader -- will be an excuse for attacking Iran.
Any anything. Call it an omnibus threat.
The groundwork for a final aggressive push against Iran began back in June, 2017, when, under
then-Director Pompeo, the CIA set up a stand-alone
Iran
Mission Center . That Center
replaced
a group of "Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran," because "Trump's
people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group." The purpose of this -- as of any --
Mission Center was to "elevate" the country as a target and "bring to bear the range of the
agency's capabilities, including covert action" against Iran. This one is especially concerned
with Iran's "increased capacity to deliver missile systems" to Hezbollah or the Houthis that
could be used against Israel or Saudi Arabia, and Iran's increased strength among the Shia
militia forces in Iraq. The Mission Center is headed by Michael D'Andrea, who is perceived as
having an "aggressive stance toward Iran." D'Andrea, known as "the undertaker" and "
Ayatollah Mike ," is himself a
convert to Islam, and
notorious for his "central role in the agency's torture and targeted killing programs."
This was followed in December, 2017, by the signing of a
pact with Israel "to
take on Iran," which took place, according to Israeli television, at a "secret" meeting at the
White House. This pact was designed to coordinate "steps on the ground" against "Tehran and its
proxies." The biggest threats: "Iran's ballistic missile program and its efforts to build
accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon," and its activity in Syria and support for
Hezbollah. The Israelis considered that these secret "dramatic understandings" would have "far
greater impact" on Israel than Trump's more public and notorious recognition of Jerusalem as
Israeli's capital.
The Iran Mission Center is a war room. The pact with Israel is a war pact.
The U.S. and Israeli governments are out to "take on" Iran. Their major concerns, repeated
everywhere, are Iran's growing military power, which underlies its growing political influence --
specifically its precision ballistic missile and drone capabilities, which it is sharing with its
allies throughout the region, and its organization of those armed resistance allies, which is
labelled "Iranian aggression."
These developments must be stopped because they provide Iran and other actors the ability to
inflict serious damage on Israel. They create the unacceptable situation where Israel cannot
attack anything it wants without fear of retaliation. For some time, Israel has been reluctant to
take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, having already been driven back by them once because the Israelis
couldn't take the casualties in the field. Now Israel has to worry about an even more
battle-hardened Hezbollah, other well-trained and supplied armed groups, and those damn
precision missiles . One cannot overstress how important those are, and how adamant the U.S.
and Israel are that Iran get rid of them. As another Revolutionary Guard commander
says :
"Iran has encircled Israel from all four sides if only one missile hits the occupied lands,
Israeli airports will be filled with people trying to run away from the country."
This campaign is overseen in the U.S. by the likes of "
praying
for war with Iran " Christian Zionists Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who together "
urged " Trump to approve the killing of Soleimani. Pence, whom the Democrats are trying to
make President, is associated with Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which paid for his and
his wife's pilgrimage to Israel in 2014, and is run by lunatic televangelist John Hagee, whom
even John
McCain couldn't stomach. Pompeo,
characterized
as the "brainchild" of the assassination, thinks Trump was sent by God to save
Israel from Iran. (Patrick Lawrence
argues
the not-implausible case that Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper ordered the assassination and
stuck Trump with it.) No Zionists are more fanatical than Christian Zionists. These guys are not
going to stop.
And Iran is not going to surrender. Iran is no longer afraid of the escalation dominance game.
Do not be fooled by peace-loving illusions -- propagated mainly now by mealy-mouthed European and
Democratic politicians -- that Iran will return to what's described as "unconditional"
negotiations, which really means negotiating under the absolutely unacceptable condition of
economic blockade, until the U.S. gets what it wants. Not gonna happen. Iran's absolutely correct
condition for any negotiation with the U.S. is that the U.S. return to the JCPOA and lift all
sanctions.
Also not gonna happen, though any real peace-loving Democratic candidate would specifically
and unequivocally commit to doing just that if elected. The phony peace-loving poodles of
Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) have already
cast their lot with the aggressive American policy, triggering a dispute mechanism that will
almost certainly result in a " snapback " of full UN
sanctions on Iran within 65 days, and destroy the JCPOA once and for all. Because, they, too,
know Iran's nuclear weapons program is a fake issue and have "always searched for ways to put
more
restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program." Israel can have all the
nuclear weapons it wants, but Iran must give up those conventional ballistic missiles. Cannot
overstate their importance.
Iran is not going to submit to any of this. The only way Iran is going to part with its
ballistic missiles is by using them. The EU3 maneuver will not only end the JCPOA, it may
drive
Iran out of the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Moon of Alabama says, the
EU3 gambit is "not designed to reach an agreement but to lead to a deeper conflict" and ratchet
the war up yet another notch. The Trump administration and its European allies are -- as FDR did
to Japan -- imposing a complete economic blockade that Iran will have to find a way to break out
of. It's deliberately provocative, and makes the outbreak of a regional/world war more likely.
Which is its purpose.
This certainly marks the Trump administration as having crossed a war threshold the Obama
administration avoided. Credit due to Obama for forging ahead with the JCPOA in the face of
fierce resistance from Netanyahu and his Republican and Democratic acolytes, like Chuck Schumer.
But that deal itself was built upon false premises and extraordinary conditions and procedures
that -- as the current actions of the EU3 demonstrate -- made it a trap for Iran.
With his Iran policy, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, what Trump is doing -- and can
easily demonstrate -- is taking to its logical and deadly conclusion the entire
imperialist-zionist conception of the Middle East, which all major U.S. politicians and media
have embraced and promulgated over decades, and cannot abandon.
With the Soleimani assassination, Trump both allayed some of the fears of Iran war hawks in
Israel and the
U.S. about his "reluctance to flex U.S. military muscle" and re-stoked all their fears
about his impulsiveness, unreliability, ignorance, and crassness. As the the
Christian Science Monitor reports, Israel leaders are both "quick to praise" his
action and "having a crisis of confidence" over Trump's ability to "manage" a conflict
with Iran -- an ambivalence echoed in every U.S. politician's "Soleimani was a terrorist, but "
statement.
Trump does exactly what the narrative they all promote demands, but he makes it look and sound
all thuggish and scary. They want someone whose rhetorical finesse will talk us into war on Iran
as a humanitarian and liberating project. But we should be scared and repelled by it.
The problem isn't the discrepancy in Trump between actions and attitudes, but the duplicity in
the fundamental imperialist-zionist narrative. There is no "good" -- non-thuggish, non-repellent
way -- way to do the catastrophic violence it demands. Too many people discover that only after
it's done.
Trump, in other words, has just started a war that the U.S. political elite constantly brought
us to the brink of, and some now seem desperate to avoid, under Trump's leadership . But
not a one will abandon the zionist and American-exceptionalist premises that make it inevitable
-- about, you know, dictating what weapons which countries can "never" have. Hoisted on their own
petard. As are we all.
To be clear: Iran will try its best to avoid all-out war. The U.S. will not. This is the war
that, as the NYTreports ,
"Hawks in Israel and America have spent more than a decade agitating for." It will start, upon
some pretext, with a full-scale U.S. air attack on Iran, followed by Iranian and allied attacks
on U.S. forces and allies in the region, including Israel, and then an Israeli nuclear attack on
Iran -- which they think will end it. It is an incomprehensible disaster. And it's becoming
almost impossible to avoid.
The best prospect for stopping it would be for Iran and Russia to enter into a mutual defense
treaty right now. But that's not going to happen. Neither Russia nor China is going to fight for
Iran. Why would they? They will sit back and watch the war destroy Iran, Israel, and the United
States.
There are massive street demonstrations in Baghdad today calling for the exit of U.S.
troops from the country. The demonstrations are in response to call for protests from Muqtada
al-Sadr. Estimates of the crowd size vary, but it is a huge turnout of Iraqis that wants us
gone:
100's of thousands protest in Baghdad, calling for all US troops to leave Iraq, close all
bases & embassies, if they don't they will be considered an occupying force. pic.twitter.com/C3CqBqpxyD
Some more photos of the march by Sadrists today in Baghdad, the turnout is huge by any
measure, perhaps the largest in #Baghdad so far,
and perhaps the most noticeable aspect is the lack of violence and troubles despite the scale
of it #IraqProtests
#Iraq #US pic.twitter.com/2xXGk2dSVY
The Trump administration has violated Iraqi sovereignty earlier this month by taking
military action inside Iraq against both Iraqis militias and the Iranian government without
Baghdad's consent, and their government wants our forces out of the country. Sadr has
considerable influence in Iraqi politics, and he has wanted U.S. forces out for a long time.
When opponents of our military presence can organize such huge popular demonstrations, it is
time for us to go. The U.S. should have withdrawn from Iraq years ago, and it would have been
better to leave on our own terms. Now the U.S. cannot stay without provoking armed opposition
from Iraqis to our continued presence.
So far the administration position has been to threaten Iraq with punishment for upholding
its own sovereignty. That's a disgraceful and imperialist position to take, and it is also an
untenable one. There have been enough American wars in Iraq. Trump should yield to the Iraqi
government's wishes and bring these troops home before any more Americans are injured or killed
as a result of his destructive Iran policy.
Daniel Larison is a
senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
AP tried to downplay the protests, reporting only 'hundreds. There must be close to a
million people out there (as reported by the Baghdad Chief of Police) and the fact that
Sadr and the other Iraqi Shia militias can organize this massive demonstrations proves that
the assassination of Soleimani, the protector of Syria and Iraq's Christians, did
absolutely nothing to drive a wedge between the various Iraqi Shia militia groups, the vast
majority of which are not Iranian sponsored but true Iraqi national patriots.
There is never a bad time to leave a country that we never should have invaded and
occupied. Not that I expect wisdom, common sense,or basic morality from a foreign policy
establishment that formulated a strategy for the Middle East, saw that it would entail the
genocide of Christians, Yezidis, and other minorities, and decided, "That's a price worth
paying."
"... Finally, the political dysfunction that now eats away at the United States' reputation, is not a factor that we should underestimate. Donald Trump's administration treats no one as equal. Only Israel and at times Saudi Arabia seem like favored nations if not full-fledged equals. Speaking of brotherhood and loyalty, Mr. Putin's loyalty to and rescuing of Syria's Assad has not gone unnoticed in these regions. At the same moment the US-led coalition tries to stabilize it's invaded satraps, Putin continues a more than forty-year tradition of sticking by the Syrian leadership. And the Russian president has capitalized on this aspect to expand Russian influence worldwide. ..."
Whenever there's an examination of Russia's resurgence in Middle Eastern and African affairs, the narrative is always
about weapons, economic competition, and Cold War-era detente. Few analysts or reporters examine the non-transactional
elements of the policies of Vladimir Putin. To really understand the recent successes of Mr. Putin and Russia, we must
understand the somewhat obscure aspects of Russia's foreign policy.
A perfect example of how trade statistics dominate
western thought process on Russia policy can be found at almost any Washington or London think tank. Take this Chatham
House
report
last year by Dr. Alex Vines OBE, for instance. The Africa Programme at Chatham House is not immune from the
disease that causes western experts to oversimplify and underestimate Putin's external policies. To quote Dr. Vines:
"Russia has, for several years, been quietly investing in Soviet-era partnerships and forging new alliances by
offering security, arms training, and electioneering services in exchange for mining rights and other opportunities."
As you can see, Vines is totally focused on transactional aspects of Russia's relationships, adhering to what
political scientists refer to as "rentierism" or the new imperialism. As you may know, the concept of the rentier
state is Marxist, thought to have come into practical use in the time of Lenin. But while the so-called rentier
mentality which dominates much of the Middle East and Africa does affect Russia and policy, the deeper implications of
Russia's new relationships are equally important.
Dr. Vines, Chatham House, and nearly all the west's other analytical stables discuss Russia's wielding of soft power.
This is true because their approaches and understanding of world affairs is from purely a businessman's or a general's
world perspective. This is the part of the reason west-east relations are so mucked up. Every reporter on a policy beat
in New York or Washington can write a biography on Vladimir Putin and "what he wants," but there's no one who really
understands how Russia's president is winning at world detente.
In much the same way business relationships are fostered in a highly competitive economic environment, Russia's
successful policies often win out because of the more subtle factors. In Africa, for instance, the history of the Soviet
Union's, and later Russia's criticisms of Cold War-era neocolonialism play a role. Make no mistake, ideologically, Mr.
Putin's efforts and outreaches are far more appealing than those of the US, France, Britain, Germany, and others with
the Anglo-European mindset toward these nations. As for the Middle East, Mr. Putin's policies win out in large part
because of a more "fraternal relationships" like the one between Russian and Middle Eastern Islamic communities.
Samuel Ramani and Theodore Karasik point these out in a report last year at
LobeLog
.
The western discussion centers around accusing Russia and Mr. Putin for what US policies are centered around. It's as
if the greatest minds in the western world cannot fathom establishing cultural or ideological linkages with people of
these nations. The Americans, French, Brits, and Germans look at Russia policy success as bankers and weapons dealers,
from a superiority and exceptionalism standpoint. While Russia seems to address the Middle East and Africa on a more
equal footing.
Finally, the political dysfunction that now eats away at the United States' reputation, is not a factor that we
should underestimate. Donald Trump's administration treats no one as equal. Only Israel and at times Saudi Arabia seem
like favored nations if not full-fledged equals. Speaking of brotherhood and loyalty, Mr. Putin's loyalty to and
rescuing of Syria's Assad has not gone unnoticed in these regions. At the same moment the US-led coalition tries to
stabilize it's invaded satraps, Putin continues a more than forty-year tradition of sticking by the Syrian leadership.
And the Russian president has capitalized on this aspect to expand Russian influence worldwide.
Russia is supplanting western powers as the more "reliable partner" for many reasons. And it does not hurt that
Donald Trump and his European allies continually stumble over their archaic ideas about emerging countries. Sure Russian
business will prosper from this dynamic shift in Africa and the Middle East, but the profit will not be nearly as
one-sided as it is with the neocolonialists. This
AI-Monitor
report puts it this way in a discussion of Mr. Putin's "Gulf Security Plan":
"He [Putin] might believe his is ultimately the only meaningful diplomatic channel; his stock rises, even if
incrementally, simply by playing on traditionally American turf; and the Gulf states, and maybe even the United
States and the EU, might eventually come around to avoid an unwanted crisis and conflict."
In short, Putin and Russia have been so successful, winning nowadays is about watching the US and allies make
mistakes as much as it is about created dynamic policies. For those unfamiliar, the Russian
concept
for the Gulf area is a strategy that will work. That is if the western hegemony can agree to try a new game
for peace and prosperity in these regions. I find it interesting that the official documentation of this Putin plan is
framed in the form of an invitation to Washington and the others, to take part in a broader coalition for peace and
security. Obviously, the Anglo-European cabal did not accept.
"Russia's proposals are in no way final and represent a kind of invitation to start a constructive dialogue on
ways to achieve long-term stabilization in the Gulf region. We are ready to work closely with all stakeholders in
both official settings and in sociopolitical and expert circles."
Yes, Russia wants trade and economic wins in both the Middle East and Africa. No, Vladimir Putin does not want to
leverage regions and continents in a global domination game intended to destroy America and allies. Destroying markets,
after all, is not a way to do good business. As for analyzing Putin, the experts should examine the other variables of
his success. That is, even if the goal of think tanks is to find an enemy's weakness. So far, Putin does not seem to
have any.
"It
seemed to me that ideologically he [Putin] was one of our people," the former Russian oligarch
says in the new Alex Gibney documentary Citizen K .
M ikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky, MBK in his homeland, is the most famous Russian
"oligarch," the name given by their compatriots to a handful of men who, when communism fell,
turned it into gangster capitalism. With an estimated $16 billion fortune, he became the
richest man in Russia. When the rules changed, he didn't adapt and spent a decade in
prison.
Alex Gibney's new documentary Citizen K , which opened in New York last week, tells
how MBK and others took advantage of schemes promoted by President Boris Yeltsin to privatize
state companies in order to raise the money he needed to win reelection. Gibney blames the
chaos of the times more than the thieves' venality.
Avoiding damning details, Citizen K casts its subject as a reformed sinner and even a
fighter for justice against an evil President Vladimir Putin. From the beginning, there's a
significant difference between reality and MBK's film portrayal.
The film says Khodorkovsky got involved in the Komsomol, the communist youth organization,
because the government relaxed restrictions on free enterprise for the group. The film doesn't
explain that as the deputy head of a Komsomol cell at a local technical institute, MBK
obtained and
sold computers at inflated prices and laundered Soviet credits with other imported goods
that he converted into hard currency. With the profits, he set up Menatep bank.
Then came the theft of Russia's patrimony. The film shows that the Yeltsin government, egged
on by American free-market boosters, announced a program to give citizens vouchers worth $40
each. The scheme was then promoted by a US team sent to end
Russian state control of enterprises and open them to the West. Vouchers could be traded, sold,
or exchanged for shares in state enterprises. MBK and others bought them from citizens unaware
of their value.
The film explains that Yeltsin, with a 3 percent approval rating, was going to lose the 1996
election. The government needed cash to pay salaries and pensions, so under "loans for shares,"
banksters made loans the government wouldn't repay, and when it defaulted, they got Russia's
state enterprises in sham auctions. The film depicts Khodorkovsky as "a man of intelligence and
great vision," but Gibney admits this was gangster capitalism.
He recounts that Khodorkovsky's Menatep was the only bidder for the oil giant, Yukos, valued
at $5 billion. The bank ran the auction itself and paid just $310 million for a 78 percent
stake in the company. Khodorkovsky declares, "I don't think this was a bad deal for the state."
The film cuts to shots of idle operations starting up.
Moscow Times founder Derk Sauer says in the film that Khodorkovsky was "using every
trick in the book available to him." There are no details. The film doesn't tell how MBK, not
satisfied with getting Yukos for a steal, then, according
to Russian charges , laundered multi-billions of dollars in profits that would have
represented evaded taxes and dividends for minority investors.
Bond also helped Khodorkovsky
cheat Russia and minority shareholders of
Avisma , a titanium company he also got at a rigged auction. Kenneth Dart , heir to the Dart disposable cup
fortune, former investor in Russia William Browder, and their New York partner Francis Baker
bought Avisma from MBK, on the understanding that profit-stripping would continue. When Bond
showed there is no honor among thieves and didn't pass on the cash, they sued. An affidavit by
attorney
Anthony Wollenberg said they were told that "a significant part of the profits which Avisma
was able to earn on the sale of its product were taken offshore through TMC," Titanium Metals
Co. He said that "was central to the entire transaction," that "without the right to those
profits, investment in Avisma was not an attractive proposition." This, too, is not in the
film.
In 1999 the ailing, drunk Yeltsin resigned and his prime minister, Vladimir Putin, took
over. The film suggests that Khodorkovsky was arrested for attacking Putin. It recounts that in 2003, Putin summoned Russia's
top businessmen to a televised roundtable about corruption. Khodorkovsky came with slides which reported that some Russians felt
that corruption existed at the highest levels of government, telling Putin that "25 per cent of the population believe that you
are among those taking bribes."
In fact, Khodorkovsky and Yukos were not singled out. Oil major Lukoil settled a claim for $200 million in taxes evaded in a
similar scheme.
The details of the transfer-pricing scams matter, because MBK followed the same business
model for the fertilizer company Apatit. He was initially arrested in 2003 for rigging the Apatit
privatization auction and embezzling profits. This is also not in the film.
The unreported Stephen Curtis story also figures in the film's attack on Putin. Gibney
declares that in England over 15 years there have been a growing number of mysterious deaths
related to Russia. He screenshots a New York Times story that says Curtis,
Khodorkovsky's lawyer, was killed in a helicopter crash, implying that Putin ordered his
death.
Former Financial Times journalist Thomas Catan's version was different. He wrote
that Curtis approached UK intelligence agencies weeks before the crash offering to provide
information, probably about Yukos. The UK's National Criminal Intelligence Service had assigned
Curtis to a handler just days before his new Agusta 109E helicopter crashed in March 2004.
Someone close to British intelligence told Catan, "My sense was that he was fearful of being
prosecuted by the Russian authorities for being party to assisting in the capital flight and
that he thought that going to the UK authorities would give him some sort of top cover."
Khodorkovsky says in the film that in the beginning, "it seemed to me that ideologically he
[Putin] was one of our people." Putin had told the oligarchs he wouldn't question their rigged
auction acquisitions if they kept out of politics.
In fact, MBK's conflict with Putin was not about charges of corruption by a man mired in
corruption but over MBK's decision to use his ill-gotten wealth for political influence.
Moscow Times founder Sauer says in the film, "Now he has all this money, he started
thinking about what's next." Later on Sauer says, "Putin had a very valid point. Half of the
parliament is on the payroll of Khodorkovsky, many of the top people in the oil ministry are
people appointed by the oligarchs. What is this? If I want to be a real president, I need to
have my own people, and I need to get these people out of politics."
Gibney confronts MBK: "It was said at the time that you were busy courting or even buying
influence in the Duma." Khodorkovsky replies, "We only dealt with our industry-related problems
. It was exactly as it happens in the United States Congress. Will you support our campaign in
the next election?" This answer is never challenged by Gibney.
However, the film does note MBK's other mistake: deciding to make Yukos a public company and
seek a merger with ExxonMobil, giving foreigners control of Russia's oil.
The film says Russia got back Yukos in a bankruptcy auction won by "a mysterious, newly
created company, Baikal Finance Group," which sold it to the government-controlled Rosneft. In
the film, Putin explains, "You all know perfectly well how privatization took place in the
early '90s. Many market players at that time received state property worth many billions. Today
the state, using absolutely legal market tools, establishes its interests. I think this is
quite normal."
Sauer notes, "In most countries in the world oil companies are owned by the state. Nothing
wrong with this. Good news for the Russians. That's how 99 percent of the people saw it."
Another journalist says in the film, "The fact that the oligarchs were so reviled and resented
by the Russian people was a fantastically useful tool for Putin . And when he did bring the
oligarchs to heel, it was incredibly popular." All true. But Gibney avoids detailing why MBK
was reviled.
He says, "Out of prison, Khodorkovsky is looking for a third act." Khodorkovsky speaks in
Kiev in 2014 at a rally in favor of the US-supported coup against Ukraine president Viktor
Yanukovych, whom Washington considered too close to Russia.
There's a lot about MBK suffering in prison and thinking about his children. Gibney asks,
"Do you think that being in prison gave you special insight into Putin and the people around
him?"
"Yes. The way that the criminals think is exactly that way that the criminal group around
Putin thinks. It's a criminal mentality." That could explain his quips that "in Russia laws are
an iffy question" and "the strictness of Russian laws is compensated by the lack of obligation
to follow them."
He gave Gibney an opening: "As a co-owner of Yukos I had to make enormous efforts to protect
this property. I had to close my eyes and put up with many things all for the sake of my
personal wealth, preserving and increasing it." But Gibney doesn't take it. He never asks for
details. Or how MBK can return what he stole.
On January 25, 1995, the Russian military mistook a Black Brant XII missile launched by a
group of scientists from Norway and the United States to study the Northern lights over
Svalbard for a nuclear attack by the US Navy with a Trident ballistic missile. It was the first
case when the Russian leader brought the nuclear suitcase in a state of combat readiness.
The rocket, which was equipped to study the Northern lights, was launched from the island's
Andøya Rocket Range, located off the North-West coast of Norway. It was moving along the
same trajectory that US Intercontinental nuclear missiles could fly towards Moscow. Alarm
sirens sounded in the Russian radar center, where technical specialists recorded the flight of
the missile, and where the message about the us missile attack came from.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin summoned the generals and military advisers, and a "nuclear
suitcase" "Cheget"was delivered to him. He had less than ten minutes to decide whether the
Russian military would strike back. "I really used my" little black box "with a button for the
first time yesterday, which is always with me," Yeltsin told the press the next day, after
narrowly avoiding a nuclear disaster. -- I immediately contacted the Ministry of defense and
all the military commanders I needed, and we tracked the movement of this missile from start to
finish."
A few years later, Spiegel Online noted that Yeltsin left Russian nuclear missiles in his
mines at the time, probably "because relations between Russia and the United States in 1995
were relatively trusting."
The scientists who conducted the study, starting in 1962, launched more than 600 missiles,
but the Black Brant XII rocket was larger than the previous ones and more like an American
ballistic missile. A month before this launch, a team of researchers instructed the Norwegian
foreign Ministry to notify neighboring countries of their experiment. Russian officials
received such a notification from Oslo three weeks before the launch, but it was apparently
ignored by them. The radar crews of the Russian missile warning system (SPRn) were also not
informed and reported that it was a potentially nuclear missile moving towards Russia.
Peter Pry, a former CIA officer, wrote that although there were other false alarms in the
nuclear age, none of them went as far as the Norwegian missile incident, "the single most
dangerous moment of the nuclear missile era."
It came as the biggest shock of the day on Wednesday. The
Russian government resigned. The day before President Vladimir Putin gave his State of the
Nation address and outlined a slate of constitutional changes.
That speech prompted an overhaul of Russia's government.
Putin's plan is to devolve some of the President's overwhelming power to the legislature and
the State Council, while beefing up the Constitutional Court's ability to provide checks on
legislation.
From TASS:
In Wednesday's State of the Nation Address, Putin put forward a number of initiatives
changing the framework of power structures at all levels, from municipal authorities to the
president. The initiatives particularly stipulate that the powers of the legislative and
judicial branches, including the Constitutional Court, will be expanded. The president also
proposed to expand the role of the Russian State Council. Putin suggested giving the State
Duma (the lower house of parliament) the right to approve the appointment of the country's
prime minister, deputy prime ministers and ministers.
The bigger shock was that in response to this Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev dissolved the
current government willingly and resigned as Prime Minister.
Within hours Putin recommended Federal Tax Service chief, Mikhail Mishustin as Prime
Minister. The State Duma approved Putin's recommendation and Mishustin was sworn in by Putin
all within a day.
While this came on suddenly it also shouldn't be a surprise. These changes have been
discussed for months leading up to Putin's speech. And it's been clear for the past few years
that Putin has been engaged in the second phase of his long-term plan to first rebuild and then
remake Russia during his time in office.
The first phase was rescuing Russia from economic, societal and demographic collapse. It was
in serious danger of this when Putin took over from Boris Yeltsin.
It meant regaining control over strategic state resources, rebuilding Russia's economy and
defense, stabilizing its population, getting some semblance of political control within the
Kremlin and bringing hope back to a country in desperate need of it.
Hostile analysts, both domestic and foreign, criticized Putin constantly for his tactics.
Russia's reliance on its base commodities sectors to revive its economy was seen as a
structural weakness. But, an honest assessment of the situation begs the question, "How else
was Putin going to back Russia away from the edge of that abyss?"
These same experts never seem to have an answer.
And when those critics were able to answer, since they were people connected to monied
interests in the West who Putin stymied from continuing to loot Russia's natural wealth, their
answer was usually to keep doing that.
Don't kid yourself, most of the so-called Russia experts out there are deeply tied back to
Wall St. through one William Browder and his partner-in-crime Mikhail Khordokovsky.
Nearly all of them in the U.S. Senate are severely compromised or just garden variety
neocons still hell-bent on subjugating Russia to their hegemonic plans.
Their voices should be discounted heavily since they are the same criminals actively
destroying U.S. and European politics today.
In the West these events were spun to suggest Putin is consolidating power. The initial
reports were that he would remove the restraint on Presidential service of two consecutive
terms. And that this would pave the way to his staying in office after his current term expires
in 2024.
That, as always when regarding Russia, is the opposite of the truth. Putin's recommendation
is to remove the word "consecutive" from the Constitution making it clear that a President can
only ever serve two terms. Moreover, that president will have had to have lived in Russia for
the previous 25 years.
No one will be allowed to rule Russia like he has after he departs the office. Because Putin
understands that the Russian presidency under the current constitution is far to powerful and
leaves the country vulnerable to a man who isn't a patriot being corrupted by that power.
There are a number of issues that most commentators and analysts in the West do not
understand about Putin. Their insistence on presenting Putin only in the worst possible terms
is tired and nonsensical to anyone who spends even a cursory amount of time studying him.
These events of the past couple of days in Russia are the end result of years of work on
Putin's part to purge the Russian government and the Kremlin of what The Saker calls The Atlanticist Fifth Column.
And they have been dug in like ticks in a corrupt bureaucracy that has taken Putin the
better part of twenty years to tame.
It's been a long and difficult road that even I only understand the surface details of. But
it's clear that beginning in 2012 or so, Putin began making the shift towards the next phase of
Russia's strategic comeback.
And that second phase is about taking a stable Russia and elevating its institutions to a
more sustainable model.
Once birth rates improved and demographic collapse averted the next thing to do was to
reform an economy rightly criticized for being too heavily dependent on oil and gas
revenues.
And that is a much tougher task. It meant getting control over the Russian central bank and
the financial sector. Putin was given that opportunity during the downturn in oil prices in
2014.
Using the crisis as an opportunity Putin began the decoupling of Russia's economy from the
West. During the early boom years of his Presidency oil revenue strengthened both the Russian
state coffers and the so-called oligarchs who Putin was actively fighting for control.
He warned the CEO's of Gazprom, Rosneft and Sberbank that they were too heavily exposed to
the U.S. dollar this way in the years leading up to the crash in oil prices in 2014-16.
And when the U.S. sanctioned Russia in 2014 over the reunification with Crimea these firms
all had to come to Putin for a bailout. Their dollar-denominated debt was swapped out for euro
and ruble debt through the Bank of Russia and he instructed the central bank to allow the ruble
to fall, to stop defending it.
Taking the inflationary hit was dangerous but necessary if Russia was to become a truly
independent economic force.
Since then it's been a tug of war with the IMF-trained bureaucracy within the Bank of Russia
to set monetary policy in accordance with Russia's needs not what the international community
demanded.
That strong Presidency was a huge boon. But, now that the job is mostly done, it can be an
albatross.
Putin understands that a Russia flush with too much oil money is a Russia ruled by that
money and becomes lazy because of that money. Contrary to popular opinion, Putin doesn't want
to see oil prices back near $100 per barrel.
Because Russia's comparative advantage in oil and gas is so high relative to everyone else
on the world stage and to other domestic industries that money retards innovation and
investment in new technologies and a broadening of the Russian domestic economy.
And this has been Putin's focus for a while now. Oil and gas are geostrategic assets used to
shore up Russia's position as a regional power, building connections with its new partners
while opening up new markets for Russian businesses.
But it isn't the end of the Russian story of the future, rather the beginning.
And the slow privatization of those industries is happening, with companies like Gazprom and
Rosneft selling off excess treasury shares to raise capital and put a larger share of them into
public hands.
Again, this is all part of the next stage of Russia's development and democratizing some of
the President's power has to happen if Russia is going to survive him leaving the stage.
Because it is one thing to have a man of uncommon ability and patriotism wielding that power
responsibly. It's another to believe Russia can get another man like Putin to take his
place.
So, Putin is again showing his foresight and prudence in pushing for these changes now. It
shows that he feels comfortable that this new structure will insulate Russia from external
threats while strengthening the domestic political scene.
To understand what comes next, you have to take into account a vitally important statement
which Putin made a few moments before he set out his proposed constitutional reforms. He told
his audience that his experience meeting with the leaders of the various Duma parties at
regular intervals every few weeks showed that all were deeply patriotic and working for the
good of the country. Accordingly, he said that all Duma parties should participate in the
formation of the cabinet.
And so, we are likely to see in the coming days that candidates for a number of federal
ministries in the new, post-Medvedev cabinet will be drawn precisely from parties other than
United Russia. In effect, without introducing the word "coalition" into his vocabulary,
Vladimir Putin has set the stage for the creation of a grand coalition to succeed the rule of
one party, United Russia, over which Dimitri Medvedev was the nominal chairman.
The end result of this move to devolve the cabinet appointments to the whole of the Duma is
to ensure that a strong President which Putin believes is best for Russia is tempered by a
cabinet drawn from the whole of the electorate, including the Prime Minister.
That neither opens the door to dysfunctional European parliamentary systems nor closes it
from a strong President leading Russia during crisis periods.
Once the amendments to the constitution are finalized Putin will put the whole package to a
public vote.
This is the early stage of this much-needed overhaul of Russia's constitutional order and
the neocons in the West are likely stunned into silence knowing that they can no longer just
wait Putin out and sink their hooks into his most likely successor.
Sometimes the most important changes occur right under our noses, right out in the open.
Contrast that with the skullduggery and open hostility of the political circus in D.C. and you
can which direction the two countries are headed.
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the
Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General
Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this
targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the
assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US
officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance":
once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?
A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link
between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the
command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These
leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against
the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in
their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or
without Sardar Soleimani".
"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is
the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria,
Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number
of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs
domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these
fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training
and finance," said the source.
In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political
leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat
of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These
officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part
of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to
defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar
ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is
under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve
a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly
affect these forces and their plans.
In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official
request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and
were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall
of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the
Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and
fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its
allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to
transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.
The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand
against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the
Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the
decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare
experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq
throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.
Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah
officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish
Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to
defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its
control in northern Iraq.
The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to
Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and
political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader.
Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these
find it difficult to overcome their differences together.
The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when
meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance"
doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns
among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan
expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces'
departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but
part of it.
Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed
on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani
as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish
to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed
Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in
particular, to all allies where US forces are present."
Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was
aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the
"Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track.
The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi
factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never
expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to
express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.
Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a
road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and
support Palestine.
All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran
and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it
according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said
from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".
Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a
long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011).
Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are
seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have
violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US
administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.
The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen
within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime
Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their
presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to
leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.
Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude
a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one.
Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of
their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any
other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis
of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential
campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kevin Smith: "Higgins is currently frantically trying to prop up the Douma narrative against a mountain of evidence disproving
his conclusions. For those who’ve followed his story, it’s clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set up to take the fall
when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the mainstream.
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held together
by elastic, and is not for sale." ~Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
"... I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path. ..."
"... This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing. ..."
"... I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people can relate better to events today. ..."
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held
together by elastic, and is not for sale."
Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
Like many, I've been following the Douma scandal for some time and particularly since the
OPCW whistleblowers and leaked emails blew the lid off the official narrative that Assad used
chemical weapons there.
For the past few weeks he's been debating the topic with Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, Scott Lucas and various Middle East based journalists
who created and then pushed the false narrative.
In fact, it's not really a debate. Peter Hitchens is quite literally slaughtering these
narrative managers – his logic and clear thinking – and wit exposing the numerous
gaps in their story and their desperate deflections.
Hitchens position is not exactly the same as many of us here hold – that Douma was a
clear false flag. What he is saying is the evidence points to there being no chemical attack by
the Syrian government, the pretext used for the attack on Syria. He doesn't wish to speculate
on matters which aren't conclusively proven, for example precisely on what did actually
happen.
I respect that position in many ways and his refusal to comment on the dead civilians in the
Douma images makes sense from a journalist in the mainstream. I think by having a position
which is clear and unassailable enables him to easily brush off his online detractors and not
allow them to deflect to other issues.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Hitchens has a calm and rational argument for
all the issues he covers. This puts clear ground between him and his online opponents who often
resort to childish abuse.
My 80-year old mum admires him too. She describes him as 'frightfully posh'. Perhaps someone
who might have belonged in a previous age – but I'm glad we have him in this one.
Anyway, I think we can be sure that Hitchens will continue his important work within the
remit he's chosen and others will investigate the unanswered questions which arise from the
Douma incident.
Ultimately the question about the dead civilians in the images is simply too dreadful to
ignore.
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
And then, of course, the resulting air strikes nearly caused us to go to war with Russia,
with all that would entail.
While these investigations continue, I think it's timely to see where these events fit into
the way the general public think and perceive wrongdoing and to try to radically to change
this.
I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and
events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you
explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem
hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path.
This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset
that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way
be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of
concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so
ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing.
I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to
people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed
him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries
complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back
at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people
can relate better to events today.
So, here follows an analogy of a character who lived in the 17th century. His traits, his
crimes, the political climate and peoples misguided perceptions in response can be compared to
recent events and one particular individual causing havoc in the world today.
Of course I refer to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.
Eliot ( 'suck my balls' ) Higgins and
Titus Oates1. Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat
Higgins probably doesn't need much of an introduction here. It seems he has no specific
qualifications relevant to his role and a bit of a drop-out in terms of education.
Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no
knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo."
But this didn't prevent him blogging about world events and then setting himself up and his
site as investigator for several incidents most notably the shooting down of the MH17 passenger
plane over Ukraine and allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. It's now known that
Bellingcat is funded by pro-war groups including the Atlantic Council
Higgins has been accused by chemical weapons experts, academics and independent journalists
on the ground of fabricating evidence to reach a predetermined outcome decided on by his
funders.
His rise to prominence was fast and apparently some media editors now refer their
journalists to Bellingcat fabrications rather than allowing them to do any journalism
themselves.
For those who've followed his story, it's clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set
up to take the fall when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the
mainstream.
2. Titus Oates and the Popish Plot
Oates was a foul-mouthed
charlatan , serial liar and master of deception who lived in the 17th century. His earlier
life included being expelled from school and he was labelled a 'dunce' by people who knew him.
He became a clergyman and later joined the Navy. His career was plagued by various sex scandals
and charges of perjury.
In the 1670s during the time of Charles II, religious tensions threatened to spill over into
civil war but the pragmatic King, by and large, kept a lid on it.
However, along with Dr Israel Tonge an anti-Catholic rector, Oates started writing
conspiracy theories and inventing plots and later began writing a manuscript alleging of a plan
to assassinate King Charles II and replace him with his openly Catholic brother.
When the fabrication started to gather momentum, the King had an audience with Oates and was
unconvinced and was said to have found discrepancies in his story.
However, the tense political and religious climate at that time was ideal for conspiracy
theories and scaremongering. The King's ministers took Oates at his word and over a dozen
Catholics were executed for treason. This story created panic and paranoia lasting several
years taking the nation to the brink of civil war.
Over time Oates lies were exposed and when the Catholic King James II came to the throne, he
tried Oates with perjury and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
After James II fled England during the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' King William and
Queen Mary pardoned Oates and gave him a pension.
For me, this whole episode has many obvious parallels with Higgins, the long-running Russia
and the anti-Semitism witch-hunts in the media and the false narratives over Iraq, Libya and
Syria. Like those in power today, Oates had a knack for getting away with it. And I guess we
can all relate this to Julian Assange – the victims or whistleblowers being punished and
the perpetrators getting off.
I had wondered why James II, often ruthless and unforgiving had not executed Oates. But
apparently the crime of perjury even then didn't carry the death sentence. The judge who
convicted Oates was said to have tried his best to finish him off through the whipping, though
he survived.
But perhaps even the King and judiciary in failing in this or not using other means at their
disposal, couldn't comprehend the enormity of his crimes. Oates was after all a rather absurd
character, open to ridicule.
Perhaps this is a bit similar to people today when discovering that Eliot Higgins is also a
foul-mouthed fraud – but they can't reconcile this comical ex-lingerie employee as a
menace to humanity.
3. Modern day
In the past few weeks I've read various older articles on Iraq and Syria. US troops
shooting people for fun from a helicopter . The perpetrators are still free – the
whistle-blowers who exposed that, and other events in prison or exile.
Last year we learned about a shocking massacre of Syrian children,
unreported in the mainstream media . Mainstream journalists through their one-sided
distortions of the conflict and silence, perpetuating the myth that the terrorists who carried
out this mass murder are freedom fighters.
And as I've mentioned, we've seen firmer evidence of what many of us knew along – that
Douma was a staged fabrication as a pretext for air-strikes and dangerously escalating the
Syrian war. The likes of Eliot Higgins and others in the media, colluding in the cover-up of
mass murder which likely facilitated this event. And for those honest journalists and experts
who bring the truth of these staged events to us,
smears will no doubt continue .
Higgins and others in the media who lie, misinform or remain silent are no better than those
shooting civilians from helicopters or starting these wars in the first place. In fact, they
have killed more and keep killing.
This modern-day Titus Oates, and others share a big responsibility for death and destruction
in the Middle East and a dangerous new Cold War.
As I say, I think people are waking up to the distorted narratives and misdirections which
have inflicted war on others. Now they need to take the next step and grasp the sheer enormity
of the crimes and the risks of global conflict if we don't act.
So, how do we achieve this and get in a position of holding the criminals and war
propagandists to account?
By confronting them directly and mercilessly. As Jeremy Corbyn should have done over the
anti-Semitism hoax. Perhaps we should adopt some of the tactics they use against the
truth-tellers and whistle-blowers. I don't mean by lies or smears. Maybe even ridiculing these
people and their nonsense might have the effect of trivialising the crimes they have
committed.
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
We need to recognise more the seriousness of the crimes. This commentary from the usually
measured Piers Robinson about the staged event in Douma reflects the true gravity of the
situation in
terms of the OPCW complicity .
4. The hijacking of OPCW
The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As
the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have
suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass
murder."
We need to now apply this strong language to all crimes committed, be it from the soldiers
on the ground, the governments starting these wars or supplying terrorists or the media which
promote mass murder through their lies, distortions and silence when presented with the true
facts.
We need to go on the offensive and call out the criminals and spell out in no uncertain
terms what we are dealing with. With the evidence and fact-based analogies or arguments we
publish we should be using more commentary such as 'mass murderer', 'traitor' or 'terrorist
propagandist'.
This is particularly important in light of events in recent days. The assassination of
General Qasem Soleimani has been normalised in both mainstream and on social media. The people
legitimising state-sponsored murder in offices thousands of miles away from Iran, woefully
ignorant of the potential of this causing a chain of events which could visit our door
soon.
Above all, we should specifically name and shame the individuals promoting war. This needs
to be relentless. The official war narratives which have crumbled so far are ample evidence of
wrongdoing on a vast scale. So, we can be confident in doing this with the truth firmly on our
side.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted
wardropper ,
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
Yes indeed.
I was, however, reminded today of the huge mountain we yet have to climb before it can be
normal again NOT to be corrupt and wicked. The scenario was a session of acrimony in a US
Senate chamber, and according to the NYTimes, "Tensions grew so raw after midnight that Chief
Justice Roberts cut in just before 1 a.m. to admonish the managers and the president's
lawyers to "remember where they are" and return to "civil discourse." "
"Remembering where you are", when dealing with Titus Oates and other vulgar frauds is perhaps
not entirely appropriate ?
wardropper ,
Apologies, I forgot to set the first sentence in quotes
Thom ,
Hitchens may be on the level on this particular issue but it is part of a wider deception
where Hitchens poses as a friend to critical thinkers and then tells them they are helpless
and/or can do nothing about it. If he really had journalistic integrity he wouldn't be taking
a salary from the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper that relentlessly lied for the Tories at the
last election, with the help of the itelligence agencies.
Koba ,
As good as Hitchens has done here he's still at heart a Trotskyist he lives a good split and
a toothless display just like the Trotskyists he used to side with. His brother went from
Trotskyist to soft neocon and peter went from Trotskyist to an ardent Christian Conservative
in a veeeeeery short space of time. Plus there dad was deeeeep in with the establishment and
his mum Jewish. So .
Bellingcrap is just another scam like Dupes (Snopes) and Politi"facts". All of them are
funded by the Atlantic Council and the CIA front National Endowment for "Democracy". Their
cover as an "independent objective fact checking service" is about as transparent as Saran
Wrap.
tonyopmoc ,
I really liked this when I read it this morning, before the grandkids came round, but I
thought some of the comments a bit severe..
I mean this photo is of some 40 year old kid, who lives in Leicester, and his
Mum/wife/sister or whatever works in the local Post Office .
I personally had never heard of Brown Noses, and I have never personnally succeeded in
getting anything I wrote, posted above our below the line, since The Manchester Guardian
moved from Manchester to London, and whilst I do love reading some of the posters' comments
well look face it.
Even though Rhys probabaly doesn't like what this kid writes – Elliot is it? he is
hardly going to come round with a chainsaw, to cut his head off is he? He probably never even
thought of it.
He did say he is small fry, and he probably is still a virgin (been brainwashed – so
he actually belives the model doll is better. What has he got to compare it to?)
So I can't blame any of them.
There are alternatives as well as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and all those Dating
Websites, when almost everything you write gets deleted.
Just go down the local pub when there is a good band on. Even I can pull there, but I am
better looking than both Rhys and Elliot
I Like Girls.
I am a man. It's Normal
Just keep fit dancing and smiling, and you will be O.K.
Tony
paul ,
The prime importance of these endless hoaxes, smears, lies, fabrications and official
approved conspiracy theories, lies not so much in the events themselves as what it says about
the nature of the people who rule over us and their courtiers and handmaidens in the MSM.
It would take a whole forest of trees merely to catalogue all their lies over the years,
whether it's the Iraq Incubator Babies, the black Viagra fuelled rape gangs in Libya, the
Syrian Gas Hoaxes, 9/11, Iraq's WMD, Iran's non existent nuclear weapons, Skripal,
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, or the communist spy/ terrorist/ anti semitic smear campaign against
Corbyn. And that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. You could go back further to
Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf, the "Holocaust", Zinoviev Letter, Bayonetted
Belgian Babies, Raped Belgian Nuns, Human Bodies Made Into Soap. The list is endless.
We have been lied to consistently for years, decades, and generations. And these lies have
been peddled endlessly in the MSM, no matter how ludicrous and transparently false they are.
In the absence of direct personal knowledge or very convincing evidence to the contrary, you
just have to assume that everything we have ever been told, are being told, and will be told,
and most of the accepted historical record, are simply false. Nothing, nothing at all, can
ever be taken at face value.
And those who rule over us and who are responsible for these lies are psychopathic
subhuman filth devoid of any moral values or any redeeming features whatsoever. They are a
thousand times worse than the worst mass murderers or child killers who have ever been
through our courts. The Moors Murderers, the Ted Bundys, the Jeffrey Dahmers, were seriously
damaged individuals who killed a handful of victims. And they did their own dirty work. The
Blairs, the Campbells, the Straws, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Allbrights,
the Macrons, the Camerons, the Netanyahus, the Trumps, have the blood of millions on their
hands. They and their wire pullers are responsible for the death, starvation and misery of
tens and hundreds of millions.
So when Blair, or Johnson, or Trump or whoever is interviewed on television, you have to
remember that individual is a thousand times worse than the Moors Murderers, and we would
actually be that much better off if Brady or Hindley were ruling over us. They deserve no
respect or deference or legitimacy. They plot the murders of millions and the starvation of
tens of millions – and laugh and giggle as they do so. They should be simply recognised
for what they awe – psychopathic subhuman filth.
I do agree with you Paul and of course all you say is true. One of the main problems is that
these people have the power to build artificial constructs sufficient for the masses to
believe and perpetuated through their bought and paid for MSM whose journalists are mere foot
soldiers and wish only to get their pay checks. They have no reason to question the lies and
distortions pedaled to them by TPTB – they merely repeat the false narrative:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it!" – Upton Sinclair
And we, the great 99%, have little power to change things except within our local network.
We can shout all we like on social media but it changes nothing until the great crisis
reoccurs and perhaps the masses will rise and demand a just and equitable system. Until that
day perhaps this little video will provide an understanding:
The business of the MSM throughout the ages has been to traumatise or at least just generally
worry the public with headlines focused on fear, envy, anger, revenge, and hate. Include all
five in your story and you're well on the way to a Pulitzer Prize, bestowed on the profession
by one of the great muckrakers of all time. It's not incidental that there have been a
disturbing number of winners that have turned out to be dissembling frauds. Add to this the
fact that 'journalism' training apparently does not teach entrants to distinguish the
difference between opinion and news, and the die is cast: propaganda as news.
Dungroanin ,
Here is what BellEndScat supporting Rusbridger is moaning about.
"For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been
dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the
owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the
World).
The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going
to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the
second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we
can only surmise what is going on.
But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than
£70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The
BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in
damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach
£1bn."
"Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the
Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise
what is going on."
-- --
Completely ignoring that the Integrity Iniative infested Guardian ITSELF objected to the
recommendation of Levesons thoroughly public Inquiry and opposition to a independent press
regulator!
It would have been a building block and certainly stopped most of the continued press
misbehaviour over the last 5 years.
Neither Fish nor Fowl Mr Rusbridger. More sinner that saint, more like.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Going to the heart of what Bellingcat, MI6 and CIA is Pompeo's: "We lie, we cheat, we steal."
These evil filth are devoid of any moral code and have no respect whatsoever for the laws of
God or Man. At which point, consider Moses' (how apt) Ten Commandments. There among them is:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness". Think what you will of these Ten, but as a moral code,
they were quite useful.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Would that all these scum could share the fate of their progenitor, Streicher-without the '
necktie party'. Life at hard labour would do the lot of them much good.
Brianeg ,
I looked at the Veterans Today link and it all sounds very plausible'
However in today's world nothing makes sense especially when the questions arise.
Is it possible to change the signal of an aircrafts transponder remotely. Can the target
acquisition radar on the missile be spoofed remotely. Just why did the flight control officer
sanction the take off of this plane in the middle of a war unless they were party to the
whole thing.. Just what were the six Israeli F-35 jets doing flying close to the Iranian
border?
Okay there is a lot of smoke but just where is the fire.
Just as interesting is that none of the twelve Iranian missiles was intercepted and there
are rumours that the Iranians were able to take out of action American air defences.
I am sure that like with Douma when the majority of NATO missiles were intercepted by
missiles that were decades old, you wonder what might happen when most of the middle east is
covered by the S-300 and later versions.
This is a story that has got a long way to run and we might never hear the ending.
Dungroanin ,
Facts are inconvenient.
Many planes took off.
This one was delayed by the pilot 'to remove overloading'.
Reports of Cruise missiles heading in.
The thing about 'chips' is they could easily be identified by putting them in a black box
and watching what they do using a chip which only does that!
The whole bs about it's THEM not US crap falls away. Just need some open source simple
'custodian' chip manufacturer to make that available. If it can be made a 'gate keeper' than
we are all safe.
Mucho ,
"It sounds a bit MAGA. "
After this, I will never, ever read any of your comments ever again. Get lost!
Mucho ,
You talk so much crap. Please, keep it to yourself
Dungroanin ,
I ain't saying that is your opinion am I?
The bit I watched was him being gung-ho about getting back 'control of microprocessors'
!!!
There is a big difference between designing chips and 'manufacturing' facilities'.
Have you never wondered why most actual building of small electrical component equipment
takes place in Asia?
I don't care wherher you read my comments- i am free to post what I want on whatevet
article and whoevers comment. And stick to facts.
Mucho ,
"The bit I watched ".
Honestly, I am so tired of people who comment on things they know nothing about. Everything
you say is wrong, because you are speaking from a position of total ignorance, because you
haven't watched the films.
Watch 1 to 3. Watch 22 and 23 ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not skimming. Then comment. Every
inaccurate comment you make is covered in detail. Honestly it's no wonder we're so fucked.
From 2005 after one google search, time spent on this, 10 seconds:
"While Yona was developed in partnership with one of Intel's California centers, the 65nm
microprocessor product is the first to be developed in its entirety, both the architecture
and strategy, by Intel engineers at its Israel plants in Haifa and Yakum. " https://www.israel21c.org/intels-new-chip-design-developed-in-israel/
You know zilch, you understand nothing, you make assumptions, you don't watch or read the
material, and then in your total ignorance, you spew your feeble thoughts on this forum.
Moron
Mucho ,
You define the phrase "ignorant Brit"
Dungroanin ,
Mucho since you FAILED instantly in your promise to ignore me – i will respond to your
toy throwing out of the parambulator.
First just telling people to WATCH something without explaining what the salient point to
be learnt – is not the way to influence or educate.
I prefer reading an argument- I definitely do not spend hours watching TV or listening to
propaganda by msm / indy or 'shock jocks' – that last was the personality I saw and
didn't feel the need to hear anymore as I don't when Nigel Farage and his ilk do on the radio
here.
If you want to inform or prove something to me or anyone else kindly post a link to a
written piece.
Second, chips are designed eveywhere there is such competence. Chip manufacturing mainly
improved theough research in top universities.
The UK was a lead chip designer too.
None of that means the Israelis haven't monopolosed tech and own many patents. The fact is
the Israelis ARE part of the 5+1 eyed world Empire – they are the plus one. Snowdens
whistleblowing makes absolutely clear that the +1 gets a higher clearance than the +4.
That's as nice as I am prepared to be, so finally, that last paragraph is what is known as
PROJECTION. Look it up and learn that it comes from your fav bogeymen brainfuckers.
That is some serious self-hate you have going on – work on it.
Take it easy ok?
Mucho ,
Number 23 is totally relevant too, going deep into chips, backdooring and kill switch usage
Koba ,
So the mocking of maga is what set you off? Fuck maga and it's idiot supporters great nations
don't slaughter civilians for capital
chris morris is very funny has a fine body of twisted comedick works
for all his charm his role is too destroy society degrade
he is khazar after all
sacha baron co hen the names speaks for itself an empty cruel tool
never trust a coen cohen khan or cowen or co they cookoo
eliot mcfuck higgins is not oirish
he is not certainly related to snooker loopy or is it darts i cannot remember hero alex
higgins.
eliot"s dad is rita katz from site intel group amaq news
his mom barbera lerner spector
or is it vice versa
versa vice
whatever
shirley you
get my the friends of the oirish israel drift
so to speaks
or sum such
Mucho ,
Brilliant, insightful, logical hypothesis of the recent plane downing over Iran by Jeremy
Rothe Kushel. Ignore the video, this is about the written article.
For further info about Israeli tech domination, what it is, where it comes from and the
implications of this, go to Brendon O Connell's YT channel. Number 22 in his list is very
important.
Mucho ,
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel is a very important member of the truth community, in no small part due
to the fact that he is an Ashkenazi Jew. My personal belief is that in the end, the Jewish
community will play a pivotal role in weeding out the evil that rules over us. I wish we
didn't have these labels, that we could have true freedom to play our chosen role in our God
created realm, but at this stage in the game, we're stuck with our divide and rule labels and
systems of control.
Jeremy's style is to the point, he has great depth of knowledge, an encyclopedic knowledge of
his field and is a highly astute commentator. He presents a lot of complex information in
fairly easy to digest chunks with his co-host, Greg McCarron, on their show "The Antedote" on
YT, as well as doing a lot of guerilla style activism in US politics. Highly recommended.
norman wisdom ,
i met elliot many years ago
the chap on the 8 year old lap top above
we called him fat face down the synagogue ohh how we laughed
he laughed as well everytime someone said it
such fun
are rabbi one day organised a trip and lecture tour of chatham house the belly of the
beast.
we learnt all about how tough regime change was and how difficult it is to do on a bbc size
budget.
what we learnt was that having are people everywhere really helped
scripted up to speed influencer roles in media in public on track on page working cog
like.
a kind of khazar collective non semites only for security reasons of course.
we could work from a very low pound dollar and shekels base and still be very effective.
never under estimate the benjamins or elliots it is folks like this that are the real hero
of the oded yinon
yes sir
already my life
fat face eliot boy done good
and like all khazar he hates the sephardim jewisher and the unclean arab which is shirley
a bonus is it not
George Mc ,
First off, if folks haven't a clue who Harold Shipman is, you're not going to get far with
Titus Oats. At the most they might think it's a character from Gormenghast.
Second, I initially misread the article and thought that the figure from the 17th century
actually WAS Higgins of Bellingcat. And if that seems an absurd assumption to make, even
temporarily, it doesn't seem much more absurd than some of the stuff he says e.g.
I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo.
The point has been raised that there are psyops perpetrated with a malicious sense of
humour as if to say, "These suckers will swallow anything". Higgins with his "education" from
Arnold and Rambo may be an example of one of those jokes.
Third, and to end on an optimistic note, I like the 17th century sentencing and recommend
we bring it back:
and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
Dungroanin ,
Admin – a suggestion on keeping recent articles available from the top of the page.
Problem: As you add new aricles at top left the ones on the very right drop away! Almost
as if being binned into a memory hole.
Solution: allow a scroll at the right hand edge so that these older links are easily
available to readers. Only a minor coding change without any change to your front page.
Tallis Marsh ,
I concur! I'm sure many of us will appreciate a scroll on the right hand edge so we can
access the older articles. Thanks in advance, OffG!
Oliver ,
HM Armed Forces operations in Syria follow the doctrine of Major General Sir Frank Kitson who
learnt his stuff in Kenya in the 1950s. Murder, torture, rape the staples of the British
military's modern terrorist ability. NATO doctrine too.
This is an important article: one of the few that dares to express that Douma et al are not
mere false flags they a darkly psychotic form of 'snuff propaganda porn' (including the
recycling and rearanging of 'props' that were until recently animate human souls with a
lifetime of possibility abnegated for ideology). The Working Group on Syria is part of a
small counter-narrative subset – along with Sister Agnes Mariam, Vanessa Beeley, RT (on
occasion), UK Column, The Indicter, Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli – who are willing to
state plainly that this is child murder. Now I wholeheartedly commend Kevin that we should
name and shame the culprits and their supporters.
"No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people
for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks."
I had a similar epiphany in early 2016. The barbaric of murder of starved and thirsty
children at Rashidin – Syrian innocence lured by much needed sweets and drinks only to
be blown apart in front of their mothers. Anyone who supports the White Helmets terrorist
construct and their NATO-proxy child-murderers needs to be exposed. But what if that trail of
exposure leads back to the leader of the Labour party: who had just personally endorsed the
charity funding of the White Helmets? And continued to support the Jo Cox Foundation of
Syrian humanitarian bombers and R2P interventionists? Which itself is a front for the dark
money web of 'philanthrocapitalism' that is the shadow support network for regime change
crimes against humanity. This is when righteous indignation meets the dark wall of silence
around the social construction of reality. Especially if you put Jeremy Corbyn in the
frame.
What this means is the ability to frame dark actors for the true evil they are has to be a
two-way flow. Meaning is created across networks, not just by naming but by naming and
agreeing across narrative communities. Again, this is not abstruse: it is social reality.
Social reality is not reality: it is a consensual constructivism. Significant numbers of
others have to be in a position of consensual agreement in order to challenge the dominant
narrative(s). So I echo the sentiment that many can see that the dominant narrative –
especially concerning Syria – is deeply flawed. But they are as yet unwilling to admit
that the depth of the flaw is in fact a tear in social reality that cannot be easily
healed.
This is the aspect of social reality called 'universe maintenance'. Doxa is the reality
constructing belief set – the episteme of interacting beliefs. The narrative has two
main aspects: ortho-doxa and hetero-doxa – the orthodox maintaining and heterodox
subverting discourses. In order to truly subvert the hegemonic orthodoxy – there has to
be a social moment of criticality when the heterodox is no longer deniable. To reach that
point: the intrajecting true has to be believable to the hegemonic orthodoxy. Now we have a
third mode: para-doxa when the true 'state of affairs' is not believable – it is easily
rejected as paradoxical to the reigning consensus covenant of the true. This is universe
maintaining: whereby the the totality of the dominant discourse actually subsumes or repels
any paradox as a half-truth or ameliorated, disarmed less-than-true ('conspiracy theory').
This is known as 'recuperation'. Anything that meets the dominant discourse has to be
explained in the terms of the dominant discourse accommodative and recommending itself to the
dominant discourse. Which then becomes a part of the dominant universe of discourse.
A moment of the true is like a barb to a bubble. It has to be contained and wrapped in
narrative that describes and explains it into a consumable form. The full realisation of the
propagandic child murder in Syria – tacitly supported by the Labour Party and Jeremy
Corbyn in particular – would destroy the symbolic universe of social reality. Of which
it is my personal experience no one really wants to do. The correlations, direct and indirect
links, and universally maintained orthodoxy of narrative discourse point to an accomodation.
An explanation or multivariate set of explanations that problem shift and ascribe blame to
imaginary actors. To deflect or defend the personal self. Because the personal self is
independently situated outside the social sphere. Or is it?
Seeing the real event as it happens requires the perspicacity of social inclusion. We all
create social reality together: with our without layers of dualising exclusion that protects
us from the way the world really is. Who would vote to legitimise the supporters of NATO and
the child-murderers of Syria? 31 million legitimising independent social actors just did. Do
you suppose they did so in full knowledge that it is child-murder they were supporting? Or
did they create universe maintaining accommodations to the truth? That is how powerful the
screening discourses and legitimising orthodoxic narrative mythology is. It is not that it
cannot be subverted: its just that calling out the true evil has to be heard in unison by
large or social small assemblages willing to totally change everything – including
themselves. In order to transition to a different social reality one that accommodates the
truth. One which will look nothing like the social reality we choose to maintain as is.
Francis Lee ,
My first attempt didn't get through. Herewith second.
It seems to me that the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, although they may have
some impact on external geopolitical issues, are a matter for them. At the present time the
relevant question regarding the RF is as follows: Question 1. Is Russia a revionist state
intent on an expansionist foreign policy? Answer NO. But it is not going to tolerate NATO
expansion into its own strategic zones, namely, Ukraine, Georgia and the North Caucusas.
Question 2. Is the Anglo-Zionist empire in open of pursuit of a world empire intent on
destroying any sovereign state – including first and foremost Russia – which
stands in its way? Answer YES. This really is so blatant that anyone who is ethnically
challenged should seek psychiatric help. In Polls conducted around the world the US is always
cited as the most dangerous enemy of world peace, including in the US itself. Thus a small
influential (unfortunately deranged) cabal based in the west has insinuated its way into the
institutions of power and poses a real and present danger to world peace.
This being the case it is imperative to push all and any 'normal' western governments and
shape public opinion and discourse (except the nut-jobs like Poland and the Baltics) into
diplomacy. Wind down NATO just as the Warsaw Pact was wound down. that will do for starters.
Of course the PTB in all the western institutions – the media (whores) the deep state,
the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House the Arms merchants, the
security services GCHQ, the CIA, Mossad and the rest will oppose this with all the power at
their command. This is the present primary site of struggle, mainly propagandistic, cultural
and economic, but with overtones of kinetic warfare.
Similar diplomatic initiatives must be directed at China. Yes, I know all about China's
social credit policy, I don't particularly like the idea of 24 hour system of surveillance,
and I wouldn't want to live there, but is already a virtual fait accompli in the west. Again
it bears repeating that sovereign states should be left to their own devices. After all
'States have neither permanent friends of allies, only permanent interests. (Lord Palmerston,
19 century British Statesman). No more 'humanitarian interventions' thank you very much. How
about Mind our own Business non-interventions.
I make no apologies for being a foreign policy realist – if that hasn't become
apparent by this stage!
BigB ,
Francis:
The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating
the Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?
Market mechanisms and methodology are exponentially expansionist, extractivist, and
extrapolative. Market propaganda is free and equal exchange coupled with mutual development
through comparative advantage. Everyone benefits, right?
No: markets operate as vast surplus value extractors that only operate unequally to
deliver maximum competitive advantage to the suprasovereign core. Surplus value valorises
surplus capital which cannot be contained in a single domestic market: so it seeks to exploit
underdeveloped foreign markets setting up dependencies and peripheries in the satellite
states. Which keeps them maldeveloped. In short: Russia and China's wealth is not just their
own.
Russia and China are globalisation now. Globalist exponential expansionism, extractivism,
and extrapolation is the repression of humanism and destruction of the biosphere. It can't
stop growing in the cancer stage of hyper-capitalism. We are currently consuming every
resource at a material throughput increase of 3% per annum year on year. That's a 23 year
exponential doubling of material resources. And a 46 year doubling of the doubling. How long
before globalisation uses everything? How far into the race to the bottom will the market
collapse?
It would be really nice to return to a Westphalian System of non-expansionist,
non-extractivist sovereign nation states. It is just not even plausible under market
mechanisms of extraction. There can be no material decoupling and development remains
contingent on an impossible infinity: because development remains parallel and assymetrically
maintained. And all major resources are depleting exponentially too. Including the nominative
renewable and sustainable ones.
Degrowth; self-sufficiency; localised 'anti-fragility', steady-state; asymmetric
development of the marginalised and the peripheralised; regenerative agroecological
agriculture; human development not abstract market development; are just some of the
pre-requisites of a return to sovereign states. Russia 'sovereigntist' globalisation is the
expansionist opposite to that. The RF is part of the biggest market in the world that hoovers
up as much surplus value as it can before sending a large tranche of it to London. As much as
$25bn a year in capital flight into the offshore nexus of secrecy jurisdictions. It's a
globalist expansionist market mechanism that hoovers all vitality out of the life-ground.
That: I call expansionist and imperialist of which Russia and China are now the major
part.
Francis Lee ,
"The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating the
Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?"
No, I wouldn't actually. Building roads, rail connections and other trade routes doesn't
strike me as imperial expansion. No-one is being forced to join the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) or into reconfiguring their internal political and economic structures, as
the US does in Latin America or as the British did in India and Southern Africa. (East India
Company and the British British South Africa Chartered Company). The SCO is a voluntary
arrangement. Uzbekistan for example has decided not to join the central Asian Eurasian
Economic Union – well that's its prerogative. No-one is going to send any gun-boats to
force them. (I am aware that Uzbekistan is a landlocked country, but I was talking
figuratively.)
The EEU's genesis has along with the SCO and BRI has been forced upon the China/Russia
axis as part of an emerging counter-hegemonic alliance against the US's imperial
aggrandisement with its kowtowing vassals in tow. Russia has no claims on any of its
neighbours since it is already endowed with ample land and mineral deposits. China is a key
part of this essentially geopolitical bloc quite simply because the US imperial hegemon is
determined to stop China's development by all means necessary including the dragooning of
contiguous military bases in US proxy states around China's maritime borders.
A distinction should be made between rampant imperialism of the Anglo-zi0nist empire, and
the response of an increasingly bloc of states who find both their sovereignty and even their
existence threatened by the imperial juggernaut. What exactly did you expect them to do given
the hostility and destructive intent of the Empire? Defence against imperialism is not
imperialism. The defence of autonomy and sovereignty of international society and the
creation of an anti-hegemonic have the potential to finally create a transformative new world
order (and goodness knows we need one) announced at the end of the Cold War in 1991. This
ambition finds support not only in Russia and China but in other countries ready to align
with them, but also in many western countries. I obviously need to put the question again.
Who is and who is not the greatest threat to world peace? Surely to pose the question is to
answer it.
Dungroanin ,
Agree Francis.
There is a move to suggest that the Old Empire retains a 'maritime' world and the SCO
confines itself to the Eurasian land mass.
Dream on.
The Empire is DEAD. Long live the new Empire!
BigB ,
Who is the greatest threat to world peace and to the world itself? We are. The global carbon
consumption/pollution bourgeoisie. It is the global expansionist mindset that is increasing
its demands for growth – as the only solution to social problems, maldevelopment, and
maldistribution caused by excessive growth. Supply has to be met by exponentially expanding
markets. Whether this is voluntaristic or coerced makes very little difference to the market
cancer subsuming the globe. Benign or aggressive forms of cancer are still cancer. And the
net effect is the same.
Russia and China – the 'East' – uphold exactly the same corporate model of
global governance that the 'West' does. Which has been made clear in every joint communique
– especially BRICS communiques. I have made the case – following Professor
Patrick Bond – that BRICS in particular (a literal Goldman Sachs globalist marketing
ploy) – are sub-imperial, not anti-imperial. All their major institutions are dollar
denominated for loans; BRI finance is in dollars; BRICS re-capitalised the IMF; Contingency
Reserve Arrangements come with an IMF neoliberalising structural adjustment policy; etc. It
is the same model East and West. One is merely the pseudo-benign extension of the other. The
alternative to neoliberal globalisation is neoliberal globalisation. This became radiantly
clear at SPIEF 2019: TINA there is no alternative.
The perceived alternative is the reproduction of neoliberalism – which has long been
think-tanked and obvious – and its transformation from 'globalisation 3.0' to
'globalisation 4.0' trade in goods and services, with the emphasis on a transition to
high-speed interconnectivity and decoupled service economies. Something like the
Trans-Eurasian Information Super Highway (TASIM)? With a sovereigntist and social inclusivity
compact. So the neoliberal leopard can change its spots?
No. Whilst your argument is sound and well constructed: it is reliant on the early 20th
century Leninist definition of 'imperialism' as a purely militarist phenomena. Imperialism
mutated since then – from military to financial (which are not necessarily exclusive
sets) – and is set to metastasise again into 'green imperialism' of man over man (and
it is an andrarchic principle) and man (culture) over nature. Here your argument falls down
to an ecological and bio-materialist critique. Cancer is extractivist and expansionist
wherever it grows.
Russia is the fourth largest primary energy consumer on the planet. Disregarding hydro
– which is not truly ecological – it has a 1% renewable penetration. It is a
hydrocarbon behemoth set to grow the only way it knows how – consuming more
hydrocarbons. They cannot go 'green': no one can. And a with a global ecological footprint of
3.3 planets per capita, per annum, this is not sustainable. Now or ever.
So a distinction needs to be made between the old rampant neoliberal globalisation model
(3.0) – the Anglo-Zionist imperialist model – and the emergent neoliberal
globalisation model (4.0) of Russia/China's rampant ecological imperialism? And a further
distinction needs to be made about what humanity has to do to survive this distinction
between aggressive and quasi-benign cancer forms. Because we will be just as dead, just as
quick if we cannot even identify the underlying cancer we are all suffering from.
Koba ,
Big B sit down ultra! China and Russia rent empires and have no desire to be! If you're a
left winger you're another poor example of one and more than likely a Trotskyist
Richard Le Sarc ,
Love the nickname, Josef.
Louis Proyect ,
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
-- -
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories. The notion that this kind of slaughter took place to "facilitate" a false flag is
analogous to the 9/11 conspiracism that was on display here a while back and that manifested
itself through the inclusion of NYU 9/11 Truther Mark Crispin Miller on Tim Hayward's
Assadist propaganda team.
Sad, really.
Harry Stotle ,
Go on Louis, remind us about the 'terrorist passport' miraculously found at the foot of the
collapsed tower with a page coveniently left open displaying a 'Tora Bora' stamp – I
kove that bit.
I mean who, apart from half the worlds scientific community is not totally convinced by
such compelling evidence, especially when allied to the re-writing of the laws of physics in
order to rationlise the ludicrous 2 planes 3 towers conspiracy theory?
Next you'll be telling us it was necessary for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for
reasons few American'srecall beyond the neocon fantasy contructed on 11th Septemember,
2001.
Dave Hansell ,
It's clear to a blind man on a galloping horse from this comment of yours Mr Proyect that
concepts such as objective evidence, logical and rational deduction, the scientific method
etc are beyond your ken.
Faced with the facts of a collapsing narrative of obvious bullshit and lies you have
bought into, which you are incapable of facing up to, it is unsurprising that you are reduced
to such puerile school playground level deflections.
So come on, try getting out of the gutter and upping your game. Because this fare is
nothing short of sad and pathetic.
We know from the evidence of those who actually know their arse from their elbow on these
matters that the claims of an attack using chemical weapons on this site are
unsustainable.
Which leaves the issue of the bodies at the site. Given they did not lose their lives as a
result of the unscientific bullshit explanation you desperately and clearly want to be the
case the question is how did those civilians lose their lives? How did their corpses find
their way to that location?
Did Assad and his "regime" murder them and move the bodies to that site (over which they
had no control) in order to create a false flag event to get themselves falsely accused of an
NBC attack Louis? Because that's the only reasonable and rational deduction one can imply
from your argument and approach.
It is certainly more reasoned, rational and in keeping with the scientific method (you
might want to try it sometime) to surmise that the bodies on site, having not been the result
of the claimed and unsustainable narrative you have naively committed to, either died on site
from some other cause or were brought to the site for the purpose of creating your fantasy
narrative.
In the latter case it is further a matter of rational and reasoned deduction that such an
occurrence could only be carried it in circumstances in which whoever carried it out had
actual, effective and physical control of a geographical location and area situated within a
wider conflict zone.
Again, it remains a piece of factual reality that this location was not under the control
of the Assad 'regime.' Not least because otherwise there would be no logical or rational
military reason for the de facto Syrian Government and it's armed forces to waste resources
attacking it.
Unless of course he buys I to the conspiracy theory and hat they somehow organised a false
flag implicating themselves?
I'm sure everyone else here in the reality based community is waiting with bated breath
for you to 'explain' how they did this Louis.
I know I am. I could do with a good laugh.
George Mc ,
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories.
Umm – the assumption that Muslims DIDN'T do it is "Islamophobic"? Even on your own
terms you're not making much sense these days, Louis.
Hi I'm Louis an unrepentant Marxist and I willfully refuse to use block-quotes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
More proyectile vomitus in defence of child-murdering salafist vermin. How low can this
creature descend?
Louis Proyect ,
Richard, such abusive language only indicates your inability to discuss the matter at hand.
In general, a detached sarcasm works much better in polemics. You need to read Lenin to see
how it is done. I should add that I am referring to V.I. Lenin, not John Lenin who wrote
"Crippled Inside".
Richard Le Sarc ,
You defended the salafist butchers with lies, proyectile-do you not even comprehend your own
sewage? Or did someone else write it and you just appended your paw-print?
Dave Hansell ,
Apologies here. There is an open goal and the ball needs to be put in the back of the net:
Seems that Louis here is well ahead of the curve in terms of Fukuyama's well known
observation about the end of history.
For Louise history, in terms of the progress and development of human knowledge, stopped
around a century ago with whatever Lenin wrote.
But that's what happens to those who only read one book.
Sad really.
Dungroanin ,
You come across more as Yaxley – Lenin mr Tommy Proyect – but he is a MI5 stooge
unlike you cough cough.
Koba ,
Lenin hates Trotsky! Trotsky was a power mad maniac who wanted a permanent war state to
somehow spread his specific brand of "ahem" socialism, which won't win you friends! "Hi yeah
sorry we killed your family in a war we started to save you but yippee Trotsky is now in
charge so stop complaining"! You're just a bunch of liars the trots
Maggie ,
learn to use the internet which has the information you need to learn the truth:
Maggie don't take jimmy bore as some truth teller he's a bland progressive with revolutionary
slogans like proyect! He also has a habit of equating Stalin with Hitler in that god awful
nasal accent of his
Richard Le Sarc ,
Thems White Helmets is always so neat and tidy. Their mammies must have insisted that they
always look their best.
paul ,
The British taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters in Syria routinely committed
massacres and filmed their victims. The resulting footage was passed off by tame media hacks
as "evidence" of regime atrocities.
Koba ,
Death to the Trotskyists
Fuck proyect your name calling says it all!
Islamophobes indeed?! What an idiot
Harry Stotle ,
The alternative media, and a smattering of truth tellers are locked in an asymmetrical
information-war with the establishment – with an all too obvious 'David & Goliath'
sort of dynamic underlying it.
The question asked at the heart of this article is how to break the vice like grip
information managers hold over various geopolitical narratives, referencing events in Douma
in particular.
Alnost reflexively 9/11 comes to mind – a fairly unambiguous example of mass murder
for which the official account does not withstand even the most cursory form of scrutiny.
Professionals even went so far as to purger themselves while the investigating committee
admitted they were 'set up to fail' (to quote its chairman).
Yet the public, instead of shredding Bush, limb from limb (for the lies that were told)
rolled onto their back while the neoncons tickled their collective belly as you might do with
a particulalrly adorable puppy,
So if we can't even get to the bottom of events in the middle of New York what realistic
chance of doing so in a hostile war zone like Douma?
On balance racism, together with other forms of collective loathing is the most likely
reason why this unsatisfactory state of affairs is unlikely to change.
A collective 'them and us' mindset makes it far easier for information managers to
manipulate a visceral hatred and fear of 'the other'.
Today it is Qasem Soleimani westerners are taugyt to despise, yesterday it was Bashar
al-Assad, before that Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Nicolás
Maduro . the list just goes on and on.
Information managers simply wind the public up so that collective anger can be directed
toward governments or individuals they are trying to bring down – recent history tells
us that the public are largely oblivious to this process, so thus never learn from their
mistakes.
Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely on, is the
ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose a grave
threat to 'our way of life' while failing to notice that it is in fact our own leaders who
are carrying out the worst atrocities.
harry law ,
Harry Stotle, .."Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely
on, is the ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose
a grave threat to 'our way of life'. That's true Hermann Goring had it about right with this
quote
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for
that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
"... Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers. ..."
Martin Indyk: An Important Neoliberal Defects From the Blob
Let's hope the former ambassador's heresy about withdrawing from the Middle East catches
fire and spreads. Then-VP of Brookings Martin Indyk in 2017. (Sharon Farmer/sfphotoworks)
January 22, 2020
|
12:01 am
Andrew
J. Bacevich Within the inner precincts of the American foreign policy establishment, last
names are redundant. At a Washington cocktail party, when some half-sloshed AEI fellow
whispers, "Apparently, Henry is back in Beijing to see Xi," there's no need to ask, "Which
Henry?" In that world, there is only one Henry, at least only one who counts.
Similarly, there is only one Martin. While Martin Indyk may not equal Henry Kissinger in
star power, he has for several decades been a major player in U.S. policy regarding Israel and
the Middle East more broadly. Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, senior
director on the National Security Council, twice U.S. ambassador to Israel, assistant secretary
of state for Near East affairs, presidential envoy -- not a bad resume for someone who was born
in London, raised in Australia, and became a U.S. citizen only in his 40s.
Throughout his career, Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace
process" and in the proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that
process to a successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United
States has vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability
and the well-being of the people living there dependent on the United States exercising what
people in Washington call "leadership." In this context, of course, leadership tends to be a
euphemism for the use or threatened use of military power.
These are, of course, establishment notions, to which all members of the "Blob" necessarily
declare their fealty. Indeed, at least until Trump came along, to dissent from such views was
to become ineligible for appointment to even a mid-level post in the State Department, the
Pentagon, or the White House.
Yet Martin has now publicly recanted.
In an extraordinary op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), he
asserts that "few vital interests of the US continue to be at stake in the Middle East."
Policies centered on ensuring the free flow of Persian Gulf oil and the survival of Israel have
become superfluous. "The US economy no longer relies on imported petroleum," he correctly
notes. "Fracking has turned the US into a net oil and natural-gas exporter." As a consequence,
Persian Gulf oil "is no longer a vital interest -- that is, one worth fighting for. Difficult
as it might be to get our heads around the idea, China and India need to be protecting the sea
lanes between the Gulf and their ports, not the US Navy."
As for the Jewish State, Martin notes, again correctly, that today Israel has the capacity
"to defend itself by itself." Notwithstanding the blustering threats regularly issued by
Tehran, "it is today's nuclear-armed Israel that has the means to crush Iran, not the other way
around."
Furthermore, Martin has had his fill of the peace process. "A two-state solution to the
Palestinian problem is a vital Israeli interest, not a vital American one," he writes,
insisting that "it's time to end the farce of putting forward American peace plans only to have
one or both sides reject them."
Martin does identify one vital U.S. interest in the Middle East: averting a nuclear arms
race. Yet "we should be wary of those who would rush to battle stations," he cautions. "Curbing
Iran's nuclear aspirations and ambitions for regional dominance will require assiduous American
diplomacy, not war."
That last sentence captures the essence of Martin's overall conclusion: he proposes not
disengaging from the Middle East but demilitarizing U.S. policy. "After the sacrifice of so
many American lives, the waste of so much energy and money in quixotic efforts that ended up
doing more harm than good," he writes, "it is time for the US to find a way to escape the
costly, demoralising cycle of crusades and retreats."
Now such sentiments appear regularly in the pages of The American Conservative and on
the website of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . Yet in establishment
circles, a willingness to describe U.S. policy in the Middle East as quixotic is rare indeed.
As for acknowledging that we have done more harm than good, such commonsense views are usually
regarded as beyond the pale.
Martin deserves our congratulations. We must hope that his heresy catches fire and spreads
throughout the Blob. In the meantime, if he's in need of office space, the Quincy Institute
stands ready to help.
Welcome to the ranks of the truth tellers, comrade.
Andrew Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large and president of the Quincy Institute. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,has
just been published.
"Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" and in the
proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that process to a
successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United States has
vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability and the
well-being of the people living there"
No. The only use he ever had for the peace process was as cover for what Israel was really
doing.
The only interest he ever cared about was Israel, not the stability or well-being of any
other people but the hawks among Israelis.
He perverted US policy from the inside, in pursuit of those ends of those Lobby partisans.
He has never been anything else.
And is about to pervert it AGAIN. One must be a total ignoramus not to notice American
public's changing attitude towards Israel, as well as Israel's high powered lobbyists.
Before the change turns into an outright hostility, the apologists of the Empire are defusing
the nascent rage. So, HE is the one to be PRAISED for being so wise, and deserving our
support?
This leopard will keep on changing spots, but never his nature.
He is and will remain ardent apologist of American Empire -- for as long as this Empire
serves his primary interest. And that interest is clear -- interest of Israel AND all of its
citizens around the globe.
It is disheartening to read Bacevich praise Indyk-who was, after all, one of the architects
of our disastrous Middle East "policy". I guess the Quincy Institute wants to hew a path
closer to the mainstream narrative. What will be next? An apologia for Doug Feith and Richard
Perle?
Indyk's comments read like a neo-con who's lost favor and power. This is not a good sign.
This points to the internecine warfare within the halls of conceptual power being closer to
decided. With the diplomats out, it leaves the apocalypse cult as the de-facto winner.
Expect more ludicrous demands of US vassals and more effort to attack Iran. They're not
going to stop. Where the oil comes from doesn't matter, what currency is used to conduct
trade does.
It is exactly so -- internecine warfare. But I do not see them loosing power. They are losing
NARRATIVE both internationally and domestically. This is a beginning of crafting a new
narrative to stem the rising hostility against Israel centric militaristic foreign policy
orientation.
Thus switching to "diplomacy", as military posturing just brings about dead ends to
defend.
He wants results, So, change the narrative, diffuse anti-Israeli tide, and become a beacon of
reason and wholesomeness. Who can resist these new spots?
There was never anything Quixotic about US foreign policy in the ME. As for Israel/Palestine,
the policy, and "Martin" was central to it, was to pretend to negotiate in good faith while
Israel occupied "the land from the river to the sea." In Iraq, except for Cheney's oil lust,
it was to carry out the neo-con chant of "the road to Iran is through Iraq." As for Iran, it
has been to barely resist Israel's, and US Israel-firster's, pressure for war, though it may
still happen.
You mean to say that some establishment guy finally got fed up with all the bullshit?
In any event, Indyk is wrong to believe that Israel can defeat Iran in a conflict. Israeli
nuclear weapons are really of little consequence in such a situation as the majority of them
must be delivered by aircraft which Iran will simply shoot down. Those that are siloed will
most likely meet the same fate. But in either case Russia will not allow any such conflict to
go nuclear.
In terms of conventional capabailities, the IDF has never been a very good military unit
since it basically has only entered engagements with less than equally capable opponents.
However, that has all been changing since Hezbollah's defeat of the IDF in 2006.
Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular
military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with
Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers.
The Israeli navy is meaningless in this situation so it is only in the air that Israel now
has any claim to fame. However, instead of increasing its Air Force with modernized F15x
models, Israel has opted to acquire the F35, which no amount of avionics can make the
air-frame fly better. Iran still uses the F14 as a heavy fighter, which Israel also requires
for her situation making the acquisition of the F35 rather odd.
In the end, it will be Iranian missile development that places that nation in a position
to deal a death blow to the Israeli state.
It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be
attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring
office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone,
we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along
with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now
occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.
Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and
ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces
Just when you thought that Washington could not sink any lower in the international
diplomacy game, the Trump White House compounds its previous misdeed by issuing a public death
threat against the successor of assassinated Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.
Presidential US Special Envoy to Iran, Brian Hook, gave a statement to the Arabic language
newspaper,
Asharq al-Awsat , where he warned new General of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC), Esmail Ghaani, that he will end up like Soleimani should he be accused of killing any
Americans, remarking that, "follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the
same fate."
Hook continued saying,"We will hold the regime and its agents responsible for any attack on
Americans or American interests in the region."
Hook also went on to boast that Washington's state-sponsored assassination of Soleimani has
made the Middle East a safer place because it has "create a vacuum that the Regime will not be
able to fill," inferring that Ghaani will not be able to marshal "Iran's agents in the
region".
Hook also repeated the common talking point that Soleimani was the 'world's most dangerous
terrorist' – a label which hardly corresponds with facts which clearly demonstrate that
the Iranian military leader was leading the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq and
Syria.
In the interview, Hook also used the opportunity to reinforce another State Department
narrative which still claims that Iran somehow launched the September attack on Saudi Arabia's
Aramco oil facilities – even though the likely culprit, Yemen's Houthi rebel forces,
had already taken credit for the attack.
Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been
promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both
countries told Middle East Eye.
The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties' attempts to
expel American troops from their country.
Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and
Palestine.
Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using
land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean.
For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by
Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.
Biden's plan was actually an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq into three distinct
enclaves (because an integrated, multicultural Iraq is anathema to the US colonial divide and
conquer strategy).
Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic
presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of
a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.
"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing
Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in
parliament, told Reuters.
"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the
communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over
resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep
the problems alive for a long time."
For all his brazen denials about his Iraq involvement, one wonders whether, if Joe Biden
hadn't been selected Obama's Vice President, he might have eventually been named Iraq
Viceroy.
Now Trump is adopting Biden's plan.
Same as it ever was.... up 12 users have voted. --
Tom Steyer is my favorite billionaire. Let's eat him last.
Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks
been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials
from both countries told Middle East Eye.
The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties' attempts
to expel American troops from their country.
Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria,
Lebanon and Palestine.
Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of
using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean.
For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007
proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential
candidate.
Biden's plan was actually an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq into three distinct
enclaves (because an integrated, multicultural Iraq is anathema to the US colonial divide
and conquer strategy).
Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq
as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian
enclaves.
"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of
dividing Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab
blocs in parliament, told Reuters.
"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the
communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over
resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would
keep the problems alive for a long time."
For all his brazen denials about his Iraq involvement, one wonders whether, if Joe
Biden hadn't been selected Obama's Vice President, he might have eventually been named
Iraq Viceroy.
Trump needs to claim victory over ISIS and get the hell out. Those one million peaceful
protesters will turn into something really ugly, probably joined by parts or all of the Iraqi
military. That will be far worse for him, with scenes of US diplomats being airlifted out of
the embassy by helicopter. up 10 users have voted. --
Capitalism has always been the rule by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate
them or restrict their power.
B - AP isn't the only outlet falsely reporting the protest. Please get screen shots from the
other "reports" (like Bloomberg) and add them to this post to document the media
manipulation.
Around Baghdad's Hurriyah Square, the streets were a sea of black, white and red, as
protesters clutched Iraqi flags and wore shrouds around their shoulders to evoke the
country's dead.
White shrouds around their shoulders do not "evoke the country's dead" but a a sign of
willingness for martyrdom. Those guys ( vid ) are ready to
fight and die for their aim.
Yes, I was thinking about something along those lines, and was about to write a comment.
There are conservative tribal leaders, who were at one point relatively favourable to the US,
and who might be susceptible to this manoeuvre, and to Saudi persuasion. I was thinking in
particular of Abu Risheh. However, unfortunately, their peoples along the Euphrates got
flattened by the fighting during the Surge (after the period you're citing), so I don't know
how enthusiastic they're going to be. It's a conventional problem, if the US makes a deal
with a chief, indeed MbS is an example, they presume that they've got the whole people. They
haven't.
div> please, do not try to search for US policy sense in the whole ME. all
the moves there are done by the Israel firsters: destroy first then invent "senses". even the
first Gulf War was lacking any policy consideration. I hope one day before she dies, to listen
to what US Ambassador at that time, April Gillepsie, has to say about "her" entrapment of
Saddam Hussein, a sort of McNamara hour of acknowledging.
Posted by: nietzsche1510 , Jan 24 2020 18:59 utc |
54
please, do not try to search for US policy sense in the whole ME. all the moves there are
done by the Israel firsters: destroy first then invent "senses". even the first Gulf War was
lacking any policy consideration. I hope one day before she dies, to listen to what US
Ambassador at that time, April Gillepsie, has to say about "her" entrapment of Saddam
Hussein, a sort of McNamara hour of acknowledging.
Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Jan 24 2020 18:59 utc |
54
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Thirty-four US service members have been diagnosed with concussions
and traumatic brain injuries after Iran conducted ballistic missile strikes on two bases in
Iraq with half of them still undergoing medical treatment, Department of Defence spokesman
Jonathan Hoffman said in a press briefing on 24 January.
"With regard to the number of recent injuries here is the latest update 34 total members have
diagnosed with concussions and TBI [traumatic brain injury]", Hoffman told reporters.
Concussions or Headaches.? When it's serious we have to lie -
Paging Dr. Donald J. Trump
Paging any available Dr. or resident at Mayo Clinic
I wouldn't deny the US is capable of creating an Iraqi al-Tanf. The US is always capable of
air-supporting isolated bases, as long as there is the determination to do so. It's been
shown many times, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. More, I don't see. The Sunnis have seen the
way the Syrian Kurds were abandoned, so nobody's going to be enthused. And the surge has not
been forgotten.
"The Shi'a can certainly get their people out - which by the way is why they have such
effective militias. The Sunnis don't have similarly effective militias (though such would
probably also be politically difficult)."
Wondering why ? Because the don't want to live as minorities any more, specially where
they are the majority. There is need for a collective security across the Shia community
throughout the Western Asia and has nothing to do with US. Because US and UK, historically
and continually have supported and inspired Sunni clients against Shia uprisings
For equal rights, US and UK and their clients have become a common threat to Shia resistance.
This resistance and sense of common security within Shia communities is so strong and
imbedded that killing one leader here one commander there will not change the outcome. As an
example Abbas Mussavie was assassinated by IDF in 1992 who replaced him that became more
dangerous and kicked Israel out of Lebanon, one Hassan Nassrollah
US will end up leaving like in VM No matter what she does
I was thinking along the lines of Saudi intermediaries doing deals with tribes as Mcgurk
pulled off in the Raqqa meeting when he brought in a Saudi intermediary or envoy to do a deal
with the tribes of Deir Ezzor. I see the tribe break down into clans, so suppose it would or
may be the heads of clans that deals would have to be done with.
What strikes me about this though is that US are looking at retreating into the area ISIS
have retreated to and where they arose - the Iraq Syria border regions.
- Muqtada Al Sadr is an iraqi nationalist. As long as he can get help from Iran he will
take it. But when that help is no longer needed then he will try to reduce the "influence" of
the iranians as much as possible. Prehaps the words "boot them out" is a bit "over the
top".
- But the relationship will Always remain friendly. But he is "his own man".
- In this regard this a re-run of what happened in the year 2003 & 2004. Back then the US
wanted to pick their own sock puppet but the shiites out-witted the US.
Interesting that the number of US troops suffering concussive injuries from the Iran
retaliatory strikes has been quietly reassessed to 44 persons. That seems significant in
light of the extensive threats beforehand that any injury to a US person would ignite
thunderous reprisal. It seems, then, the Americans have no plan, the Soleimaini hit was not
thought through, and they are not in any way prepared for a necessary readjustment of their
position in the region. Trump at Davos dismissed the protests and again threatened sanctions
on Iraq - the fulcrum of US power has now visibly shifted from the military to the dominance
of the reserve currency in the form of economic reprisals (sanctions). Reduced to imposing or
threatening economic blockades on adversary populations is not a winning long-term
strategy.
It is not only the MSM coordinated blackout on the important events developing in Iraq,
notice also the scarce half hundred comments here in this thread on the same events by the
usual and otherwise prolific regulars, who preferred to comment on so used Boeing or whatever
old topic instead...
Meanwhile, those of us who wished to comment got banned, as they seemed to be some other
who wanted to comment by other media, like Pepe Escobar in Facebook...
Elijah Magnier says,
Someone should write an article on how Main Stream Media and most reputable agencies either
ignored what happened in #Baghdad #Iraq today or deliberately downplayed it because it
calls for the #US to leave.
News is strikingly manipulated s since the war in #Syria 2011.
Incredible, isn't it? A policy of parcellisation which has already failed twice, in Iraq
and then again in Syria. And now Trump is going to do it again, according to reports which
could well be right. They're sufficiently stupid. They're actually expecting the poor
suffering Fallujans, who suffered through more than a month of being tortured by US troops,
are going to stand up and fight for the US.
It's a complete misappreciation of the situation, not unusual in the US. It is of course
true that the Sunnis suffer from the unthinking policies of the Shi'a, and are treated like
an occupied country. But that doesn't mean that the Sunnis think they can stand up an
independent state. They don't, particularly if the US only stations a handful of troops
there.
The US could of course militarily occupy the area, but that's not Trump's plan, as it
would be too politically intrusive back home.
By the way I hear we're about to receive Trump's overall peace plan for the Middle East.
Given that the first rollouts fell totally flat, I wouldn't be too optimistic about its new
reception in the Middle East.
- Carving out a state in North-Western Iraq is part of "The Biden plan" of 2006 (/2007 ?).
The Biden plan was to divide Iraq into 3 parts: Kurdistan, "Sumnnistan" and "Shia-stan".
- Was this the reason why the US "created" ISIS (in 2014) ??
The Shi'a can certainly get their people out - which by the way is why they have such
effective militias. The Sunnis don't have similarly effective militias (though such would
probably also be politically difficult).
The US certainly doesn't have much idea how to tackle such a movement. The renewal of the
plan for parcellisation just shows up the bankruptcy of US policy, nothing spoke to me so
strongly of the failure of US thinking. For all the number of Washington think-tanks
concentrating on the ME, they can't come up with workable ideas.
Posted by: Ernesto Che | Jan 24 2020 12:32 utc | 6
Al-Sadr is indeed an Iraqi nationalist, and not particularly pro-Iranian, others are more.
He more profited from Iran's safe haven, than became pro-Iranian.
On the other hand, he's unlikely to become Prime Minister, as too extreme. The US, if it
gets a say in the choice of the next PM, will veto. And he's a sort who is in permanent
opposition to everything, rather than in government, much like Corbyn in Britain.
On January 18, Houthi rebels targeted the al Estiqbal military training camp, used by the
Saudi-led coalition and forces loyal to Yemen's UN-recognised government. The strikes
resulted in at least 116 deaths and dozens (if not hundreds) of injuries. Those struck had
reportedly just finished praying at the base's mosque. According to Saudi media, the
Houthis used a combination of ballistic missiles and drones.
The fake media are trying to trasvesticize these protests as antigovernment protests in the
eyes of the Waestern and American population, fortunately, the images are worth thousands
words:
During the first of the various criminal attacks on Fallujah, Sadr famously promised to
deploy the Mahdi Army there to defend the largely sunni community.
The US fears nothing more than nationalism in the middle east- all its policies are aimed at
atomising communities and fostering sectarian division. It is a tactic that has worked well
in the United States for centuries- preserving the absolute power of the capitalist oligarchy
by setting black against white, catholic against protestant, settler against indigenous,
migrant against native.
It is difficult to conceive of a more evil policy than that of encouraging shi'ites to bully
sunnis and vice versa, while dissecting society into shreds of ethnic and sectarian entities
, which are then armed and trained to fight and kill one another.
This was the basis of the surge under Petraus. Of course the British had established the
practice themselves. Among other things they employed christian Assyrians as police.
Al Mayadeen is reporting testimonies from all confesional sides on that this is an united
clamor coming from the whole Iraqi society, who sees a clear link between occupation and
corruption, in spite of their internal political differences, seeing no future while the US
remains in the country corrupting and compromising Iraqi reconstruction and progress.
They are saying that the numbers seen demonstrating today in Iraq, in the anniversary of
the other historical 1920 anticolonial demonstration, equates a popular referendum on the US
illegal and forced presence in the country.
The representatives of the protesters are stating that there are being stablished
diplomatic means for the US to go out, but, in case it refuses doing it by these means, the
resistance will come into action. Thus a way of no return for the US is being delineated
here...
Since the assassination drones cannot fly all the way from US territory to their intended
targets,
any country that harbors the drones is actually complicit to the crimes of the US of A.
They must be made to understand that these assassinations will cost them eventually as
accessories
to these crimes.
Possibly the most potent leverage Iraq can have on the US is for the Iraqi parliament to
decree that all legal previously agreed immunity for US military guilty of crimes in Iraq is
null and void. All US war criminals immediately liable to be tried in Iraq under Iraq law,
unless the US commit to a prompt and orderly withdrawal. Right to prosecute still reserved in
case of US non-compliance with any such commitment.
Whether or to what extent this could be made retrospective to the beginning of the current
agreement (on the grounds that the agreement has been violated) I don't know. Maybe it might
be possible to apply retrospectively at least to the first verifiable breech of the agreement
by the US, I have no idea. Or maybe the agreement can only be deemed void with effect from a
statement by the parliament, I have no idea. In any case, the US is now there illegally:
any US soldier can legally be arrested and imprisoned at any time; and any US
soldier from now on killing or injuring any person in Iraq is automatically a war
criminal.
If it can so some extent legally be made retrospective, the US would automatically face a
terrifying situation.
(Any prisons containing US prisoners in Iraq need full military protection though - I
recall previously the US destroyed a prison with a tank where some soldiers were
arrested).
The link from Al Mayadeen includes live stream with commentary in Arabic of the crowds
gathering who seem in the sizes of Arbaeen pilgrimage...or more.....since
multiconfessional...
"... Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment -- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading a communist takeover of the United States. ..."
"... State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations. ..."
"... Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security. ..."
"... After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defense contractors and sub-contractors. ..."
"... That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate. ..."
Amidst all the anti-Russia brouhaha that has enveloped our nation , we shouldn't forget that the U.S. national-security establishment
-- specifically the Pentagon, CIA, and FBI -- was convinced that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent who was spearheading
a communist takeover of the United States.
This occurred during the Cold War, when Americans were made to believe that there was a gigantic international communist conspiracy
to take over the United States and the rest of the world. The conspiracy, they said, was centered in Moscow, Russia. Yes, that Russia!
That was, in fact, the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state type of governmental structure
after the end of World War II. The argument was that a limited-government republic type of governmental structure, which was the
national's founding governmental system, was insufficient to prevent a communist takeover of the United States. To prevail over the
communists in what was being called a cold War, a it would be necessary for the federal government, they said, to become a national-security
state so that it could wield the same type of sordid, dark-side, totalitarian-like practices that the communists themselves wielded
and exercised.
The conviction that the communists were coming to get us became so predominant, primarily through official propaganda and indoctrination,
especially in the national's public (i.e., government) schools, that the matter evolved into mass paranoia. Millions of Americans
became convinced that there were communists everywhere. Americans were exhorted to keep a careful watch on everyone else, including
their neighbors, and report any suspicious activity, much as Americans today are exhorted to do the same thing with respect to terrorists.
Some Americans would even look under their beds for communists. Others searched for communists in Congress and within the federal
bureaucracies, even the Army, and Hollywood as well. One rightwing group became convinced that even President Eisenhower was an agent
of the Soviet government.
In the midst of all this national paranoia, the FBI, the Pentagon, and the CIA became convinced that King was a communist agent.
When King began criticizing U.S. interventionism in Vietnam, that solidified their belief that he was a communist agent. After all,
they maintained, wouldn't any true-blue American patriot rally to his government in time of war, not criticize or condemn it? Only
a communist, they believed, would oppose his government when it was committed to killing communists in Vietnam.
Moreover, when King began advocating for civil rights, especially in the South, that constituted additional evidence, as far as
the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon were concerned, that he was, in fact, a communist agent, one whose mission was to foment civil strife
in America as a prelude to a communist takeover of America . How else to explain why a black man would be fighting for equal rights
for blacks in nation that purported to be free?
The website kingcenter.org points out:
After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous
verdict on December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. Mrs. Coretta Scott King welcomed the verdict saying, there is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in
the assassination of my husband Martin Luther King Jr. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented
during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal governments were deeply
involved in the assassination of my husband.”
And why not? Isn't it the duty of the U.S. national-security state to eradicate threats to national security? What bigger threat
to national security than a person who is supposedly serving as an agent for the communists and also as a spearhead for an international
communist conspiracy to take over the United States?
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after
the federal government was converted into a national-security state . As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal
assassination manual that trained its agents
in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA's role in state-sponsored assassinations.
In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out
to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba,
the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security. In the early 1960s, the CIA , in partnership
with the Mafia, the world's premier criminal organization, conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba, a country
that never attacked or invaded the United States. In 1973, the U.S. national-security state orchestrated a coup in Chile, where its
counterparts in the Chilean national-security establishment conspired to assassinate the democratically elected president of the
country, Salvador Allende, by firing missiles at his position in the national palace.
The mountain of circumstantial evidence that has accumulated since November 1963 has established that foreign officials weren't
the only ones who got targeted as threats to national security. As James W. Douglas documents so well in his remarkable and profound
book
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters , the U.S. national-security establishment also targeted President John
F. Kennedy for a state-sponsored assassination as well.
Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination -- they concluded
that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national
security.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one
great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of defense contractors and sub-contractors.
That's when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace,
friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy's
Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations
with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy's fate.
But what many people often forget is that one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a
major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.
What better proof of a threat to national security than that " reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and
then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist
takeover of the United States?
The loss of both Kennedy and King constituted conclusive confirmation that the worst mistake in U.S. history was to abandon a
limited-government republic type of governmental system in favor of a totalitarian governmental structure known as a national-security
state. A free nation does not fight communism with communist tactics and an omnipotent government. A free nation fights communism
with freedom and limited government.
There is no doubt what both John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. would have thought about a type of totalitarian-like governmental
structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression,
coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction,
not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.
Anyone looking with sober eyes upon today's world and the feeble economic and geopolitical
underpinnings holding the system together must accept the fact that a new system WILL be created.
This is not an opinion, but a fact. We are moving towards eight billion lives on this globe and the means of
productive powers to sustain that growing population (at least in the west) has been permitted to decay terribly over
the recent half century while monetary values have grown like a hyperinflationary cancer to unimaginable proportions.
Derivatives speculation alone under the deregulated "too big to fail" banking system has resulted in over $1.5
quadrillion in nominal values which have ZERO connection to the real world (GDP globally barely accounts for $80
trillion). Over the past 5 months
$415 billion of QE bailouts have been released into the bankrupt banks
to prevent a collapse. So, economically
it's foundation of sand.
Militarily, the west has followed the earlier Roman empire of yesteryear by overextending itself beyond capacity
creating situations of global turmoil, death and unbounded resentment at the dominant Anglo American powers
controlling NATO and the Military-industrial complex.
The recent near-war with Iran at the start of 2020 put the world on a fast track towards a nuclear war with Iran's
allies Russia and China.
Culturally, the disconnection from the traditional values that gave western civilization it's moral fitness to
survive and grow has resulted in a post-truth age now spanning over three generations (from the baby boomers to
today's young adults) who have become the most confused class of people in modern history losing all discrimination
of "needs" vs "wants", "right" vs "wrong", "beauty" vs "ugliness" or even "male" and "female".
Without ranting on anymore, it suffices to say that this thing is not sustainable.
So the question is not "will we get a new system?" but rather "whom will this new system serve?"
Will this new system serve an oligarchical agenda at the expense of the nations and people of the earth or will it
serve the interests of the nations and people of the earth at the expense of the oligarchy?
Putin Revives a Forgotten Vision
President Putin's January 15 State of the Union was a breath of fresh air for this reason, as the world leader who
has closely allied his nation's destiny to China's Belt and Road Initiative, laid out a call for a new system to be
created by the five largest nuclear powers as common allies under a multi-polar paradigm.
After speaking about Russia's vision for internal improvements, Putin shifted towards the international arena
saying:
I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable
world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom
and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions."
Calling for Russia, the USA, UK, China and France to organize a new architecture that goes far beyond merely
military affairs, Putin stated:
The founding countries of the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that bear a
special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development of humankind. These five nations should
first of all start with measures to remove the prerequisites for a global war and develop updated approaches to
ensuring stability on the planet that would fully take into account the political, economic and military aspects
of modern international relations."
Putin's emphasis that "the United Nations should set an example" is not nave fantasy, nor "crypto globalist
rhetoric" as some of his critics have stated.
Putin knows that the UN has been misused by anti-nation state ideologues for a very long time. He also knows his
history better than his critics and is aware that the original mandate of the United Nations was premised upon the
defense of the sovereign nation state. Article 2.1 of the charter clearly says:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
For readers who are perhaps rightfully cynical that such organizations as the UN could ever play a truly positive
role in world affairs, it is important to recall that the UN was never intended to have any unilateral authority over
nation-states, or military power unto itself when was created in 1945.
Its purpose was intended to provide a platform for dialogue where sovereign nation-states could harmonize their
policies and overcome misunderstanding with the aim of protecting the general welfare of the people of the earth.
Articles 1.3-4 state clearly that the UN's is designed
"to achieve international co-operation in solving
international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."
If the United Nations principles as enunciated
in
its pre-amble
and core articles were to ever be followed (just like America's own admirable constitution): then
wars of aggression and regime change would not be possible.
Article 2.4 directly addresses this saying:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state".
These principles stand in stark contrast to the earlier 1919 Round Table/RIIA-orchestrated attempt at a
post-national world order under the failed League of Nations which was rightfully
put out of its misery
by nationalists of the 1920s.
FDR's 1944 vision, as Putin is well aware, was based not on "world government", but rather upon the concept of a
community of sovereign nations collaborating on vast development and infrastructure projects which were intended to
be the effect of an "internationalization" of the New Deal that transformed America in the years following the Great
Depression.
Thousands of Asian, African and South American engineers and statesmen were invited to visit the USA during the
1930s and early 1940s to study the Tennessee Valley Authority and other great New Deal water, agriculture and energy
projects in order to bring those ideas back to their countries as a driver to break out of the shackles of
colonialism both politically, culturally and economically.
In opposition to FDR, Churchill the unrepentant racist was okay with offering political independence, but never
the cultural or economic means to achieve it.
Although the world devolved into an Anglo-American alliance with FDR's death in 1945, the other Bretton Woods
Institutions which were
meant to provide
international productive credit to those large scale infrastructure projects to end colonialism
were taken over by FDR's enemies who purged the IMF and World Bank of all loyalists to FDR's international New Deal
vision throughout the years of the red scare.
Whether these corrupt financing institutions can be brought back to their original intention or whether they must
simply be replaced with new lending mechanisms such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, BRICS New Development
Bank or Silk Road Investment Fund remains to be seen.
What is vital to keep in mind is that Putin (just like FDR before him) knows that neither Britain nor Britain's
Deep State loyalists in America can trusted.
Yet, in spite of their mistrust, they both knew that a durable world order could only be accomplished if these
forces were reined in under a higher law imposed by the authority of truly sovereign nations, and this is why FDR's
post-war plans involved a USA-Russia-China-UK partnership to provide the impetus to global development initiatives
and achieve the goals of the Atlantic Charter.
This partnership was sabotaged over FDR's dead body as the Cold War and Truman Doctrine broke that alliance. The
goal of ending colonialism had to wait another 80 years.
At the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin had already laid his insight into history clearly on the table when
he said:
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that "security for one is
security for all."
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out:
When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger I consider that the
unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if
there was individual leadership in today's and precisely in today's world, then the military, political and
economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at
its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation."
Putin is not nave to call for the United Nations charter to serve as the guiding light of a new military,
political, economic architecture.
Nor is he nave to think that such untrustworthy nations as the USA, UK and France should serve in partnership
with Russia and China since Putin knows that it will be Russia and China shaping the terms of the new system and not
the collapsing basket-cases of the west whose excess bluff and bluster betrays a losing hand, which is why certain
forces have been so desperate to overthrow the poker table over the past few years.
The fact that Putin, Xi and their growing allies have not permitted this chaos agenda to unfold has not only
driven "end of history" imperialists into rage fits but also gives FDR's vision for a community of sovereign
nation-states a second chance at life.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
The big mistake was giving France, UK and the US or FUKU or FUKUS, USSR NKA Russia and China any veto
over the other independent Nations on the planet. Especially since the first two were responsible for
hobbling together the Frankenstein monster known as the United States of America that was created by
rapacious theft and genocide of the indigenous population followed by almost total ecocide and now has
been loosed upon the world it seems to accomplish the same thing under the cover of bringing it
"freedom and democracy".
Paul
,
It's a pity the experience of the League of Nations isn't examined any longer because it is
instructive. OK Congress declined to approve it so the Pilot Wilson was missing but more serious was
the problem of totally partisan and self serving decisions that made its provisions a mockery. Italy
was 'allowed' to keep on occupying Ethiopia and sanctions eg on oil were simply declined, partly
because the US supplied the oil and wasn't going to stop selling it, especially to Mussolini who was
rapidly becoming a client state of America in enormous debt.
BigB
,
Someone said it was "banal" of me to oppose 'The Western Intellectual Tradition' (TWIT). Well, here is
its vision *in extremis*. If you do not recognise it: this is 'Platonic Humanism' in all its glory.
It reads well. It is sensible and intelligible in its clearly written propositions. It has meaning and
clearly denotes real world events right? And yet it is ultimately unintelligible and non-sensical
in an early Wittgensteinian sense of its underlying logic. If you did not immediately recognise the
subtextual vision of Lyndon LaRouche: you might want to read it again?
The underlying logic is one of economic infinity: completely decoupled from the neo-Malthusian
sustainable 'green iron cage' that prohibits the *productive* economy growing forever as per the
deluded LaRouchian proscription. Which is utterly banal: if not actually exceedingly dangerous.
This fact of life is the essential proof that not only mankind but the universe is unbounded in
its potential for constant self-perfectibility and thus ANTI-ENTROPIC in its essence.
To illustrate my point: this is from an earlier text. I never actually know where I stand: because
"anti-entropy" is laced through much of the commentary here. Which is why this text may appeal on a
superficial reading? It ticks a lot of boxes: including perpetual capitalist growth; expansion of the
SCO/BRI/BRICS/EAEU/CPEC colonisation of the Eurasian 'supercontinent'; and development of an
anti-hegemonic sovereigntist bloc. All of which seem as a fashionable vogue for the internet
progressive about town. But in multipolar alliance with Donald Trump! Infinite anti-entropic
capitalistic growth guided by the UN Charter with Putin, Xi AND Trump at the helm in an "alliance
for a new just economic order"? Sounds like hell to me.
My point is that perhaps we should learn to read more deeply? Perhaps at the underlying
paradigmatic logic of the text? Power is transmitted in mysterious ways. Everyone is paranoid about
"mind-control" and "hidden agendas". Well, Matthew's is a prime exemplar of hidden context perhaps
not to be uncritically assimilated? Unless, perhaps you share the vision of unlimited
self-perfectibility; infinite nuclear fusion powered bourgeois ecumenical consumerism decoupled from
ecological neo-Malthusian 'limits-to-growth'; and ANTI-ENTROPY? In which case you may be a banal
Platonist TWIT too? 🙂
LaRouche was a cultic delusionist who took cherrypicked ideas to assemble an intelligible and
sensible montage of beliefs that did not hang together. Which makes his writing absurd nonsense and a
philosophical non-entity. Any putative logical link to the real world is severed by its premises. This
piece is reduced to a mere a Trojan Horse for gibberish. It is a meaning-less 'language game'.
As unfortunate as it may seem: entropy exists as a fundamental property of the ecosphere. Resources
deplete and growth is thermodynamically limited. We need a new system: one which actually addresses
the extinction level ecological crisis we are in the midst of. Something we need to understand and
embrace: not illogically deny. This text subverts that strategic denial to its own ends. Let the
reader be aware of the paradigmatic subtext.
paul
,
Russia and China have always been status quo powers, more concerned with their own internal
development than implementing insane Neocon/ James Bond Villain-style fantasies of world domination.
This was true even during the period of communist rule. Their growth and influence in the world can
only be viewed as a positive development.
China built the infrastructure in the Third World that was
neglected during centuries of colonialism.
China builds things.
America (and its cringing satellites like Britain and France) bomb things.
Most people in Africa and elsewhere prefer building things to bombing things.
Dungroanin
,
A good piece The UN is not fit for purpose.
The SCO already operates under a 'charter' which goes past religion and cultural hagemony by any one
nation or peoples. Since it already represents more than half the worlds population and the majority
of its land mass it is only a matter of time that the defunct UN is upgraded to these standards and
absorbed into it OR crashes and burns.
Today there were hundreds of thousands of Iraqis maybe over million, in showing the US and its
allies that they really are serious about their national sovereignty and demand that the foreign
forces fuck off!
The US response? To revive the old divide and rule option. Break up Iraq into religion and
sectarian areas using the 'never learning Charlie Brown' proxy Kurds by offering them tet another
football to kick!
While the world accelerates towards a new order which puts economic security and mutual defence at
its core, the US and its gunfighter professional gamblers resort to poker terminology 'we are ALL
IN' in keeping the Iranians and Syrians (and Turkey?) out of the SCO to stop a nonstop link from the
Med to the Pacific and Artic to the Southern Seas.
All in! Lol. They going to lose their shirts and be overturning the table and demanding a shootout
to keep from paying up their bet.
It's a bluff and sitting with pocket rockets a simple CALL by the new, new world order.
Excellent. Worthy of wide dissemination for its first nine paragraphs alone.
BigB
,
Phillip, my friend this is not a personal attack, but have you heard of Lyndon LaRouche? I
suggest you might want to read up on his agenda then re-read the text in its wider context? The
subtleties are not explicit: but if you are aware of LaRouche or read some of the authors other
texts they are obvious in the subtext.
The basic premise unstated herein is for Trump,
Putin, and Xi to form a wider multipolar alliance against the British economic empire (the British
Deep State infiltrators) for untrammeled infinite global economic growth with maximum penetration
of nuclear power (eventually nuclear fission) into every economy of the world. To the ends of a
global bourgeois consumer culture serviced by the BRI intitiative. Unrestricted by neo-Malthusian
ecologists like me, who say this is impossible.
We may not always see eye to eye: but I'm pretty sure you do not envisage a hypothetically-
infinite ecumenical consumerism as humanities apex culture? Not least as I assume that you would
agree that this is actual ecological fantasy the world is finite, as are resources which means
this text needs to be shredded not further disseminated?
UN Charter .. "sustainable development of humankind"
One of the top priorities
must be:
Swift actions to STOP poisoning our food.
Seamus Padraig
,
A very sanguine view of FDR. To be sure, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty what he
would have done
had he survived the war, but it boggles the mind to
think that he was going to be forever cool with the idea of sharing the world with Russia and China,
when he abjectly refused to share it with Germany and Japan in his own lifetime.
And please don't believe that old canard about the Japanese wanting to take over America; it was
actually Roosevelt who precipitated the whole war with Japan, with his oil embargo and what not. He
even had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor from multiple sources, but deliberately withheld that
intelligence from his own navy. FDR clearly wanted the attack on Pearl Harbor to be as devastating as
possible, so as to drag his recalcitrant countrymen to war, and it worked. In fact, eighty years
later, we're still at war. That's the
real
legacy of FDR, not the
long-gone New Deal, of which only Social Security survives (for now). All the other 'alphabet soup'
programs he initiated are gone.
I will always wonder wistfully how our history would have turned out had
Huey Long
become president instead.
seriouslyman
,
Everything Putin says is perfect. There is nothing bad that can be said about Russia on offguardian.
Anyone with any mild criticism of russia is a pro imperialist bastard and cannot be engaged with.
Offguardian has rightly attacked almost every significant political figure on earth from corbyn to
trump. Putin is the only person who can save us. There is no flaw in his character or politics and
anyone who suggests otherwise is a conspiracy theorist. Good on Offguardian for never publishing any
negative stories about this brilliant intelligent fair play hero who will save us all from hell.
paul
,
No, Little Greta is going to save us.
Vlad isn't going to do that, but he has done quite a good job so far of stopping the Exceptional
And Indispensable People from blowing up the planet.
This gives Greta the chance to save us all from the global warming and the polar bears.
Andy
,
Sarcasm can be an effective tool for making a point. This is an example of it not being.
Francis Lee
,
I am trying hard to assess your contribution but couldn't find anything either interesting or
relevant to say about it, other than it is little more than sarcastic rant. How does it, or is it
even meant to, increase our understanding of international relations? Who exactly makes those
claims about Putin?
What I would say about Putin is that he is simply talking like a foreign
policy realist. More power to his elbow I say; we could do with some more realism. His political
position is very similar to American foreign policy realists such John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
who to their credit put the Zionist noses (AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, AEI) out of joint with the
publication of "The Israel Lobby". Putin's views could have come straight out of the Treaty of
Westphalia (1648) which brought an end to the Wars of the Reformation could have come straight from
the Treaty, which were based on the following precepts which of course support a multipolar not a
unipolar system. Liberal imperialism, humanitarian intervention, call it what you will is a deadly
threat to the future of mankind. In contrast multipolarism as an alternative. See below.
1. States existed within recognised borders.
2. Each states sovereignty was recognised by the others
3. Principles of non-interference were agreed.
4. Religious differences between states were tolerated.
5. States might be monarchies, republics, democracies, as was their wont
6. Permanent state interests or
raison d'etat
was the organizing
principle of interntional relations.
7. War was not entirely eliminated, yet it was mitigated by diplomacy and balance-of-power
politics.
9. The object of the balance of power was to prevent one state from becoming so powerful that it
could conquer others and destroy world order.
Sounds like straight common sense to me.
BigB
,
seriouslyman has a point. The progressive world is extremely slow to recognise the capitalist
colonisation of 70% of the Eurasian globe as an existential threat to humanity. As I have been
pointing out: capitalism does not transform to a benign humanist alternative as it travels West
to East. Russia and China's economic expansionist extractivisim is inimical to all life on
Earth. Especially as China has taken a coal-fired 'Great Leap Backwards' to maintain growth in
the face of the secular synchronised global economic slowdown.
When the very real extinction
level threat of industrialised financialised capitalism is reduced to a personification and
represented as the personality of one man VVP this is nothing more than a masking discourse
that conceals the globalised extinctionism of fossil fuel capitalism. Perhaps the time to
reflect on the superior personality of VVP will come when we are all gasping for our last breath
breathing in petrol?
Capitalism thrives on such personal Fetishism. Power is the invisibilising of capitalism's
truly destructive force. No one even wants to open the discourse into what underlies Russia's
welfare capitalism. Which is infinite market mechanism extraction and quasi-eternal expansionism
of fossil fueled growth. Which will kill us all just as soon as America's big guns and bombs.
George Mc
,
You know BigB I can't help but get the feeling that behind all that polysyllabic
pontificating, everything you say comes down to a kind of masked reactionary claptrap. You
call yourself "neo-Malthusian". Well that's comparatively candid. Malthus being the most
obvious case of a capitalist apologist of the most brutal sort. And how interesting that you
are having a go at Putin here as if to suggest that even some kind of socialist
transformation isn't going to save us. So what then? Some kind of reaching back to some
healthy sparsely populated savannah filled with Conan the barbarian types?
And this:
"Perhaps the time to reflect on the superior personality of VVP will come when we are
all gasping for our last breath breathing in petrol?"
Seems to me you are secretly longing for that moment of last breath when you can finally
gleefully shout, "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah Told you so!" before croaking.
Frank
,
Sorry, but this doesn't sound much like satire.
It sounds like an 8-year-old taught you everything you know about geopolitics, and unfortunately
it all went a bit over your head.
George Mc
,
Two points:
First, I fail to see the point of pillorying Putin when the entire Western media is
already doing so.
Second, to pillory Putin on the pretence of "a plague on all their houses" takes us nicely into
that pleasant non-committal "higher sphere" where all-is-one-and-one-is-all. The old con trick of
"being reasonable" in order to sit on an all-facing fence and basically have no opinion at all.
Estaugh
,
So far, Vlad has being doing a very good job, (saving us all from Hell), and it seems, most of the
world is increasingly backing him up. That's tough on 'pro-imperialist bastards' but that's
cricket.
Tuesday evening, 21 January, the composition of Russia's new
cabinet was announced to the nation and the world. Russian state television was caught as
unawares as any of us in the broad public when the names of the departing ministers, the names
and biographical details of arriving ministers and the few changes in reporting lines were
released to the wire services. Their correspondents hastened to find Duma members, think tank
celebrities and others whom they hoped could make sense of the changes for their viewers.
Eventually, late in the night, a picture emerged of what the latest seismic wave in Russian
politics means. I will try to present the generalities here. I will not go into detailed
examination of each minister, because such micro-investigation is neither my specialty, nor is
it likely to interest an international readership for whom 'which way the wind is blowing' is
quite sufficient.
Of course, in the past week, even the contours of political change have appeared inscrutable
to Western media who could only fall back on the assumptions that whatever Putin is up to
cannot be good. Hence, the flurry of articles following Mr. Putin's address to the bicameral
legislature a week ago which sought to portray the constitutional changes he promised as
serving only one purpose: to perpetuate his dominance and control over Russian politics after
his presidential term ends in 2024. That was so despite the fact that nothing whatsoever in his
proposed reforms would facilitate the stated objective and despite the fact that the changes,
which diminish his power when implemented, would come four years before he has to relinquish
his office.
However, even the harshest critics of Russia and Putin are beginning to change their
minds.
The New York Times' "Morning Briefing" today told its online subscribers:
Quote
On social media,
our correspondent writes from Moscow , Russian political analysts "have put forward so
many different theories that they paint a picture of a nation in collective
befuddlement."
Case in point:
Mr. Putin's announcement prompted a string of high-level resignations and unexpected
appointments. Yet the new cabinet, announced on Tuesday, includes the most prominent members
of the last one.
Background: Many analysts initially thought that the constitutional changes were intended
to allow Mr. Putin, 67, to take up a powerful role when his second presidential term expires
in 2024. Now they aren't so sure.
Unquote
Chapeau! This is one of the rare instances when the editors of The New York Times
have followed the facts to an inconvenient truth about Putin and Russia – and have shared
with their readership what they found.
Surely the confusion in the minds of the Russian public, as well as domestic and foreign
political observers, over how to understand all the changes and prospective changes in Russia's
federal government was not by accident, but by design. The intention of Mr. Putin and of Sergei
Kiriyenko, his close assistant in these reforms within his presidential administration, was
surely to conflate two very different political disruptions: first, the introduction of
constitutional reforms that rebalance the power sharing between executive, legislative and
judicial branches of the federal government; and second, the change of cabinet to remove
ineffectual and unpopular ministers, to bring in fresh blood from among the most successful
administrative and technical talent operating at the higher levels of the federal government
and groomed for succession these past several years. Both very separate measures share one
common feature: to lay the groundwork for the Duma elections scheduled to be held in September
2021. They will likely generate more excitement in the public and will be more consequential
than would otherwise be the case.
As for the proposed constitutional changes, I believe they serve a very clearly defined
purpose: to prepare Russia for the post-Putin era by introducing checks and balances that will
prevent any one branch of government, meaning the executive, from 'running away with the show'
and changing the vector of Russia's development and its orientation in the world as the result
of the unforeseeable popularity and electoral victory by a candidate to the presidency put up
by the Opposition, or even by factions within the Ruling Party and other 'Duma parties' in 2024
and thereafter.
Commentators have often speculated on whom Putin was grooming as his successor. We now have
the answer: no one. And this is a wise approach to the issue, because no one in Russia would be
capable of filling the shoes of Vladimir Putin, who is a once in a hundred years political
phenomenon. And so the shoes to be filled in 2024 and thereafter have been downsized via the
power sharing provisions of the proposed constitutional reforms.
Now let us turn our attention to the new cabinet of ministers which Mr. Putin convened and
welcomed last night.
In the past few days, many have asked why Putin prompted Dimitri Medvedev and his
ministers to resign a week ago. One of my fellow panelists in a Turkish international English
television (TRT World) program yesterday devoted to Putin's announced reforms offered the
explanation that Medvedev was, in effect, forced out because he is so unpopular in the country.
See here.
Indeed, unpopular he was, but that is not a new development. Rather, I believe the fate
of Dimitri Medvedev and his cabinet was decided in the presidential administration back in
December when the weak results on implementation of the president's high priority National
Projects during 2019 came in and when it also became clear that GDP growth during the year had
been anemic, trailing rather than matching or exceeding global trends. A government shakeup was
already in the cards from that moment.
... ... ...
It must be remembered that during his tenure as president, Medvedev showed himself to be the
most outgoing, the most friendly to the West of all Russian and Soviet heads of state in the
last hundred years or more. It was a very regrettable mistake by Western leaders that his
initiative to begin talks on revising the security architecture of Europe was spurned, and that
he was intentionally misled about NATO intentions in Libya when the UN, with Russian support,
voted to allow military intervention for humanitarian purposes.
Personal unpopularity or battle fatigue may explain the decision not to reappoint several
members of the outgoing cabinet. The first rule pertains to Minister of Culture Vladimir
Medinsky, who is guilty of graphomania and has been filling a whole library shelf with his
overly nationalistic and simplistic histories while in office. Moreover, he got embroiled in
quite controversial issues of what is permitted as artistic expression, making many
enemies.
Then there was the non-reappointment of Vitaly Mutko who had been the Sports Minister until
2016 and carried all the baggage of Russia's shame over doping, of its strained relations with
FIFA. Mutko had been 'kicked upstairs' to a deputy premiership more for the sake of defying
Western allegations against him than because of any personal merit justifying his new position.
Clearly it was time to move on and reward others more worthy.
As for Minister of Health Dr. Veronika Skvortsova, who was omnipresent in the country
overseeing a vast reform program to bring quality health care to the rural population and also
raise the level of diagnosis and early treatment for cardiovascular and oncological illnesses
everywhere, the best guess is that she was simply worn down by the task and needed to pass the
baton to someone else.
In my two essays on the planned constitutional reforms over the past week, I expressed the
optimistic hope that President Putin would use the occasion of appointing a new cabinet to take
the first step towards power sharing with the Duma. Specifically, I suggested that he might
bring into the cabinet parliamentarians from the minority parties in the Duma, allotting to
them portfolios in the more innocent domains such as labor, social welfare and culture, in
effect forming a coalition government and thereby consolidating the Russian political
landscape.
Reviewing the list of new ministers in the incoming cabinet, it is clear that quite the
opposite has happened: the cabinet has been de-politicized . To be sure, nearly all
members of the cabinet are members of the United Russia party. But they are what we may call
just card-carrying members, whereas the former prime minister Dimitri Medvedev was and remains
the head of United Russia.
The new cabinet members are concentrated in the 'economic block' and in the 'social block'
of ministries, the two areas that rank very high in the fulfillment of President Putin's
pledges to the nation to raise living standards through fulfillment of his National Projects.
They are what the Russians call
хозяйственники
or управленцы, which we may
translate as highly competent managers with proven success in getting things done. Technocrats,
by another name. One or two come from the administration of Moscow mayor Sobyanin, who oversees
the country's most successful municipality. One or two come from among the Prime Minister's
former colleagues in the Federal Tax Service, which is a model of technological innovation and
efficiency.
At the same time, the most experienced and successful ministers from the Medvedev cabinet
have been kept on in their posts. In particular, I point to Anton Siluanov at Finance, Sergei
Lavrov at the Foreign Ministry, Sergei Shoigu at Defense, Alexander Novak at Energy. While
Siluanov has been stripped of his rank as first deputy prime minister, he received moral
compensation by being assigned the additional responsibility for State Property. I explain
Siluanov's removal from the deputy prime minister list as resulting from the ambitions of PM
Mikhail Mishustin, who is himself a very experienced financial expert, to have free hands in
this domain.
Now we will have to wait till just after the September 2021 Duma elections to see to what
extent Mr. Putin intends to bring the lower house of parliament into the middle of national
policy making by granting them seats in the cabinet.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest bookDoes Russia Have
a Future?was published in August 2017. Reprinted with permission from his blog .
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
A new poll shows a plurality of Americans approve of President Trump's decision to order
the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Forty-one percent of Americans agreed with the decision, according to the Associated Press
and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday. Thirty percent disapproved
and the remaining 30 percent were indifferent.
On Jan. 3 the U.S. killed Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. The move raised tensions in
the Middle East and fears of a new war. Iran launched rocket attacks on two bases with U.S.
personnel in Iraq days later.
A Thursday article by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone discusses Dennis Kucinich's work in
politics, from Kucinich's eight terms in the United Sates House of Representatives to his two
presidential campaigns to his activities since leaving political office. Taibbi, in the article
focused much on Kucinich's long-term devotion to advancing the case for peace, describes
Kucinich as "antiwar to his core."
Vanessa Beeley provides a short, incomplete, list.
I look at the pictures of today's refugees and see the faces of yesterday's. I see the
conditions they inhabit, the squalor and filth, and I see the same in pictures from the past.
I read the words of hatred directed at those innocents and recall the same words being said
of their predecessors.
And the source of the words and plight of the innocents both present
and past come from the same portals or power--The Imperialist West and its Zionist progeny.
How many millions have died to enrich their purse, to increase the size of the estates, to
serve as their slaves? How many more in the future will share their fate?
Will humans ever
evolve to become peaceful animals and save themselves?
Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a
partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered
neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also
managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush
II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while
contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading
chaos, unrest and terrorism...
On this day in 1991, the US bombed an infant formula production plant in Iraq as part of
Operation Desert Storm. The US lied, calling it a biological weapons facility, but in
actuality, "it was the only source of infant formula food for children one year and younger
in Iraq."
If the U.S. can do it or rather, have been assassinating other countries Officials, so can
others and eventually, they will retaliate. No U.S. official will be safe, even in the
mainland U.S. An old saying applies here. You sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.
The world is rapidly tiring of the classless thuggery of the U.S.A.
Excellent point... and furthermore, if Russia & others are capable of clandestine hits
(as per the accusations against them, i.e. Skripal, MH17, Litvinenko) then why on earth would
US invite such operations against themselves?
I'm sure if they (Russia/Iran/others) really wanted to, unfortunate mishaps, like
traceless, self-inflected, nail-gun accidents are easily possible
Just when you think ZATO couldn't get any stupider...
"The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards
US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general. Iraq would like to see these
forces depart for good, putting an end to US influence in Mesopotamia and West Asia. A
massive protest has been organised for this Friday 24th January, led by Sayyed Moqtada
al-Sadr, who is warning the US of the consequences of ignoring this Parliamentary decision.
It is expected to be the most massive protest in the history of Iraq. But this protest is
only the beginning."
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/22/immediate-us-withdrawal-due-to-its-violation-of-the-agreement-and-iraq-sovereignty/
The murder of Soleimani was not a one-off: it will be the policy to take out leaders and US
vassals dare not speak up: Murder and Sanctions (aka "Financial Warfare" ) is what they do.
The US will assassinate Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani if he targets
Americans, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook has warned.
"If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate,"
Hook said, speaking to Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, in an interview
published Thursday.
According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on
Americans or American interests will be met with a decisive response, which the president
demonstrated on January 2".
Hook also said he believed that "the Iranian regime" now "understands that they cannot
attack America and get away with it".
Yes and soon.
Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious
extraterritorial sanctions.
USA has just but a bulls-eye on every American in Iraq and Syria.
Every anti-Iranian ideologue (starting with Netanyahu) will now start planning false-flag
attacks.
Just another dog whistle like Obama's "red-line" farce.
PS Did any media confirm the death of the US translator that caused USA to bomb the
Iraqi PMU? His name wasn't even released for a couple of week AFTER he was killed and AFAIK
no one really knows who killed him.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Probably little happens until UN sanctions "snap-back". That will light the fuse and the
fireworks start a number of weeks later but certainly before July (somebody wrote about
Russia's being able to sell arms to Iran on the 5th-year anniversary of the JCPOA on July
14th).
Sadly, the false-flag needed to energize the masses with "war fever" (like after 9-11) is
likely to require that many Americans are killed. And possibly not just military but
civilians.
Aside:
The cover of the 2015 Economist comes to mind. Two arrows on the lower right contain the
numbers "11.5" and "11.3". The sand behind the arrows might represent the middle east. Do the
two arrows represent a date range (European-like dates) of March 11th to May 11th? FYI:
Persian New Year is March 21st, UN sanctions are likely to "snap-back" by mid-March.
The eleventh of the month has gained significance due to 9-11 and 7-11 (in England). Thus,
3-11, 4-11, and 5-11 would have symbolic value as for a "terrorist" incident.
How could the Economist have predicted such a date range? I've said many times that I
thought that the JCPOA was a delaying tactic that was needed simply because Syrian regime
change was taking longer than expected. From such a point of view, it's reasonable to assume
that steps are taken to end the agreement and/or prompt strikes (symbolized by the arrows on
the Economist's cover) prior to the end of the agreement or important anniversary milestones
(like Ruissia's being able to sell arms after 5 years).
While some might say that such musings are irrational "conspiracy theory", I bring it up
because neocons and other bad actors engage in long-term planning to achieve their goals. We
are not suppose to notice such planning and then when things happen (like 9-11 and the
2008 Global Financial Crisis) it is quickly claimed that "no one could've foreseen"
such things - which becomes an excuse for the bad actors to go unpunished.
!!
Jackrabbit , Jan 23 2020 18:36 utc | 46
3.11.2004 Madrid Atocha train station attacks happened...allegedly AQ autorship...
1.7.2015 Charlie Hebdo attack...IS/AQ autorship...allegedly...
The murder of Soleimani was not a one-off: it will be the policy to take out leaders and US
vassals dare not speak up: Murder and Sanctions (aka "Financial Warfare" ) is what they do.
The US will assassinate Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani if he targets
Americans, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook has warned.
"If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate,"
Hook said, speaking to Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, in an interview
published Thursday.
According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on
Americans or American interests will be met with a decisive response, which the president
demonstrated on January 2".
Hook also said he believed that "the Iranian regime" now "understands that they cannot
attack America and get away with it".
Yes and soon.
Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious
extraterritorial sanctions.
by William Walter Kay Posted on
January
23, 2020 January 22, 2020 Katyushas are short-range, unguided artillery rockets typically
fired in salvos from truck-mounted launch-tubes. Iraq's insurgents deploy three types.
The smallest is 107 millimeters in diameter and 1 meter long. Its 19 kilogram weight
includes an 8 kg high-explosive, shrapnel-bearing warhead. The 107mm is often fired from a
12-tube launcher, however, infantry-portable single-tube tripods are common. An experienced
crew with a standardized weapon can hit a 400 X 400 meter target from 8 kilometers away.
During the Vietnam War the US Army considered the 107mm to be their adversaries' most
formidable weapon.
The 122mm 'Grad' Katyusha is 3 meters long and weighs 75 kg. Its warhead spans a third of
its length and weighs 18 kg. It has a 20-kilometer range and a 30-meter lethal radius.
220mm Katyushas hurl 100 kg warheads 30 kilometers.
Katyushas have advantages over mortars. They deliver the same payload twice the distance
and they fire multiple ordnance more rapidly. The globally ubiquitous BM-21 Grad fires forty
122mm rockets in three minutes. Reloading takes 10 minutes. Thus, Katyushas excel at
"shoot-and-scoot" operations. As well, Katyushas' flat trajectories permit line-of-sight
attacks and their 700 meter-per-second velocities provide unique anti-building potential.
After helping suppress the ISIS-led insurgency (2014-17) US forces defaulted to their
previous occupation plan. Central to this program are segregated compounds situated inside
Iraqi Armed Forces bases. These installations, always near airstrips, contain mere hundreds
(not thousands) of US and Coalition troops who ride herd over the Iraqi Army whilst grooming
and directing Iraq's 15,000-strong Special Forces.
Embassies and consulates are integral to the occupation. The sprawling US Embassy compound
dominates Baghdad's fortified "Green Zone" which also houses Coalition partners' embassies,
and the headquarters of the many NGOs insinuated throughout Iraqi society.
The occupation facilitates local activities of American and European businesses. These
require office blocks, oil-field infrastructure; and, gated communities for imported
talent.
Pre-2011 Americans relied on bases containing thousands of troops. These were remotely
located and allocated substantial resources to thwart indirect (mortar and rocket) attacks
through: counter-artillery, drone surveillance, and fighting patrols. Despite this, indirect
fire inflicted 3,000 casualties (including 211 fatalities) on American forces; many occurring
inside 'secure' bases.
The US-led Coalition's current archipelago of military, diplomatic, intelligence, business
and NGO installations are ill-equipped to defend themselves against indirect fire. Proximity
to cities makes them sitting ducks.
In September 2018 persons unknown began targeting US installations with Katyushas. This
list chronicles these attacks. *
(A dozen mortar attacks are not listed; Katyushas being the weapon of choice.)
September 8, 2018 – four rockets (three 107mms and one 122mm) fall near the Green
Zone.
September 8, 2018 – two salvos of 107mms land near the US Consulate beside Basra
Airport.
September 28, 2018 – three 107mms are fired at the Basra Consulate; two land on
site.
December 27, 2018 – two 107mms are fired at Al-Asad Airbase (160 kilometers west
of Baghdad) during Trump's visit.
February 2, 2019 – an attack on Al-Asad Airbase is aborted. Three ready-to-launch
122mms are captured.
February 12, 2019 – three 107mms hit Q-West Airfield (an off-the-books base south
of Mosul).
May 1, 2019 – two 107mms hit Camp Al-Taji: a 'training' institute, 40 kilometers
north of Baghdad.
May 19, 2019 – two rockets land near the US Embassy.
June 10, 2019 – rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
June 12, 2019 – rocket attack on a "northern air base" starts a fire.
June 13, 2019 – rocket attack on Nineveh Command Headquarters (Mosul Presidential
Palace).
June 14, 2019 – a rocket lands near the US Embassy.
June 17, 2019 – three rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
June 18, 2019 – Nineveh HQ is attacked by two 122mms; one hits, one misses.
June 19, 2019 – rockets strike a gated community outside Basra (home to Exxon
staff).
September 23, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone; one lands near the US
Embassy.
October 30, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone, killing an Iraqi soldier.
November 8, 2019 – seventeen rockets target Q-West Airfield.
November 17, 2019 – rockets hit the Green Zone.
November 29, 2019 – a rocket hits the Green Zone.
December 3, 2019 – Al-Asad Airbase is "rocked" by five 122mms.
December 5, 2019 – five 107mms hit Balad Airbase (80 kilometers north of
Baghdad).
December 6, 2019 – a 240mm rocket lands near Baghdad Airport (then housing a US
base).
December 9, 2019 – four 240mms strike Baghdad Airport killing 2, and wounding 5,
Iraqi soldiers.
December 11, 2019 – two 240mms land outside Baghdad Airport.
December 27, 2019 – thirty-six 107mms hammer K1 Base (15 kilometers northwest of
Kirkuk); killing an American translator and wounding several US troops.
December 29, 2019 – four rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
December 29, 2019 – five rockets hit Al-Asad Airbase.
January 4, 2020 – two rockets hit Balad Airbase.
January 4, 2020 – several rockets hit the Green Zone. One lands near the US
Embassy; another closes a major street.
January 5, 2020 – six rockets are fired at the Green Zone; three hit the
target.
January 8, 2020 – two rockets hit the Green Zone.
January 12, 2020 – eight rockets hit Balad Airbase, wounding several Iraqi
soldiers.
January 14, 2020 – a five-rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
January 20, 2020 – three rockets hit Green Zone. They were fired from Al
Zafraniya (15 kilometers away).
Attacks are becoming more frequent and are trending toward bigger rockets and higher
volume salvos.
The insurgents' strategy is working. Katyusha attacks shuttered the US Basra Consulate in
September 2018. Attacks in May and June 2019 forced Exxon to evacuate much of its foreign
staff. Throughout 2019 the US State Department extracted personnel and the Defense Department
consolidated bases into more secure facilities. By late 2019 US authorities were begging
Iraqis for help whilst threatening retaliation.
The last straw came December 27 when the barrage onto K1 Base killed an American
translator. The US responded with airstrikes on five Kata'ib Hezbollah bases (90 casualties)
and with the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Soleimani. (The decision to
assassinate Soleimani – in the event of an American fatality – was made June 24,
2019 following a week of near daily Katyusha attacks.)
While Iran and Iran's Iraqi allies are blamed for these attacks; this is dubious.
Reportage following attacks invariably drops the phrase " no one claimed
responsibility " – which is notable because perpetrators often boast of such
achievements. Ten years ago, when Kata'ib Hezbollah targeted US facilities with "lob bombs"
(improvised rockets), they posted videos of their handiwork. They deny involvement in these
recent attacks as do other Iranian-linked militias.
The reportage often describes the attacks as " mysterious " or as a "
whodunit. " Authors relay US intelligence theories of Iranian involvement without
evidence.
On several occasions insurgents abandoned launchers and/or launch vehicles after the
attack, often with fail-to-launch rockets inside. Investigators also possess fragments of
successfully fired rockets. Tellingly, US officials, renowned for straining at gnats for
evidence of Iranian complicity, do not utilize this material to incriminate Tehran.
The launchers themselves are obviously manufactured by local artisans. Moreover, an
article from Kurdistan – 24 describes the rockets as " locally
made ." Even globalist-militarist instrumentalities like the Washington Institute, Long
War Journal, and Center for Strategic and International Studies concede some Katyushas are
manufactured in Iraq.
Iraq has a burgeoning steel industry and, due to the calamities of the past 20 years, an
enormous scrap metal industry. Katyushas' cardinal virtue is their simplicity.
Circa 2014 twelve countries hosted non-state armed groups that deployed Katyushas.
(Post-2014 Yemen's Houthis joined this list, then outdid the pack in innovation and
output.)
During the 2003-11 era Iraqi insurgents looted Katyushas from local arsenals. Other
Katyushas came from Iran (officially or via the black market) and possibly from any of 32
other countries manufacturing them. Experts bemoan the difficulty of determining a rocket's
origin.
Circa 2008 Iraqi artisans manufactured a variety of launchers. A 2009 raid in Maysan
Governorate discovered 107mm, 122mm and 220mm rail launchers; and 1,700 carjacks. (Jacks were
affixed to the bottoms of stationary tripods to permit changes in launch angle.) Insurgents
developed creative mobile launch platforms i.e. inside ice cream trucks or towed behind
motorcycles etc. They debuted remote control triggers and GPS reconnaissance.
Circa 2011 poor quality of locally acquired rockets compelled insurgents to continue to
rely on imports. The insurgents were, however, manufacturing "lob bomb" rockets and
anti-armor mines; although Iran stood accused of being their sole supplier.
Post-2011 insurgents honed their craft. Remember: Hamas, operating inside Gaza with a tiny
fraction of the resources of Iraq's insurgents, manufactures crude Katyushas.
Prime suspects in the Katyusha campaign are not pro-Iranian militias; but rather the
milieu around Mahdi Army successor, the Promise Day Brigades (PDB). This political tendency,
nominally led by Moqtada al-Sadr, is concentrated in Iraq's densely populated central and
southern regions, but boasts a militant contingent in Mosul. This milieu overlaps the Saairun
Alliance which includes Iraq's far left; who carry their own legacy of armed struggle.
The insurgency's Von Braun might be Jawad al-Tulaybani. An Iran-Iraq War veteran,
al-Tulaybani possesses 40 years of combat rocketry experience. A war wound left him partially
disabled. He appeared on US radar in 2008 after masterminding a barrage that wounded 15 US
soldiers.
The org-chart of the Saairun/PDB/al-Sadr movement remains obscured. Notably, on January 8,
2020 al-Sadr counseled refrain from military actions. Four Katyusha attacks happened
since.
What is clear is that this general political tendency is not particularly beholden to
Iran. They appear nonsectarian, if not secularist, and they advance a left-nationalist
agenda. Prior to the 2018 election (wherein Saairun emerged as the most popular bloc) Iran's
Foreign Minister warned Iran would never tolerate an Iraq run by " liberals and
communists " – meaning Saairun.
Then again, Trump's thrill kill of Soleimani (and Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units'
Deputy Commander) completely reshuffled the deck, creating unprecedented unity amongst
hitherto rivals.
As Katyushas veto pacification efforts, US forces return to square one. They must retreat
to sprawling, remotely situated camps equipped to suppress indirect fire. This, however,
means surrendering Iraq's political theater to adversaries who will marshal Iraqi Government
resources against them.
Katyushas are driving the Trump Administration's Iraq policy. Prisoners of groupthink they
react by doubling-down on the Big Lie that Iraq's national liberation movement consists only
of "Iranian terrorists." In reality, their most effective opponents are as indigenous and
legitimate as the French Resistance.
*Note on Sources
Data came from scanning 1,000 articles then parsing several dozen of them. Preference went
to state media: i.e. Voice of America, Al Jazeera, Xinhua et al; although Military Times and
Kurdistan-24 proved germane. Rogue Rocketeers: Artillery
Rockets and Armed Groups (Small Arms Survey, Geneva Switzerland, 2014) is a
must-read. Data on the first 7 Katyusha attacks was lifted without corroboration from Michael
Knights'
Responding to Iranian Harassment of U.S. Facilities in Iraq (Washington Institute,
May 21, 2019). As Knights is the only analyst to grasp the seriousness of the Katyusha
attacks. His reports are a trove. Being intimately connected to US and Israeli intelligence,
he slavishly relays the anti-Iran party line.
Major attacks generate scores of reports. Lesser attacks are mentioned only in passing.
Some articles tally the attacks but the numbers do not jibe. Certain attacks go unreported.
Probably, 50+ mortar and Katyusha attacks hit US facilities between September 8, 2018 and
January 14, 2020.
William Walter Kay is a researcher and writer from Canada. His most recent book is
From Malthus to Mifepristone: A Primer on the Population Control Movement.
I'd like to read some of the material documenting the fight against communism before WWII.
I've been pondering this for a while. I've entertained the notion that although the US,
Britain, and the Soviets were technically allies in the fight against Germany and the Axis,
that the bigger war was between the USA and the USSR.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it sort of seems like the UK and USA showed up in Europe just in time
to prevent the USSR from taking Berlin and all of Germany, perhaps into France. Almost as
though they wanted Germany to inflict as much damage as possible on the Soviets.
And then the US forces in the Pacific made a huge push to get Japan to surrender before
the Soviets could invade from Manchuria.
"... The definition of a diplomat being one who 'lies abroad for his country' should always be at the front of the mind of anyone seeking truth. Diplomats should always be assumed to be lying, honourably of course, until proven otherwise. ..."
Yesterday the UNSC held a special panel to discuss the reliability and impartiality of the OPCW, most specifically
regarding the alleged Douma "chemical attack". The expert panel reviewed and revealed some worrying evidence.
Most important was the testimony of Ian Henderson, former OPCW inspector and leader of the engineering sub-team
who visited Douma.
Ian Henderson, the source of the famous leaked "dissenting report" on the placement of gas cylinders at the Douma
site, was speaking via video link due to being denied a VISA by the US authorities (we don't know why this happened,
but I'm sure it was all honest and above board, and not just petty politicking).
He told the UNSC that findings of the experts on the ground were totally ignored by their OPCW bosses.
He said:
By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings
that a chemical attack had occurred."
And added that the final report was a "complete turnaround" on these findings, and authored by a separate group
who had
never visited the site
.
Unsurprisingly, efforts to smear Mr Henderson, or otherwise minimise his testimony, were quick to appear.
Thomas Phipps, a UK diplomat to the UN chimed in with some rather xenophobic snobbery:
Four Russians and one Syrian make up the 'expert' panel at Russia's
#UNSC
Arria meeting on
#Syria
Chemical Weapons. Four are
diplomats and one an academic whose credentials are unclear. These are not impartial actors without an agenda.
pic.twitter.com/y2PSv4QYOw
You'll notice he doesn't mention Henderson at all.
Plus, there were the usual non-arguments from the usual unqualified, NATO-backed mouth pieces:
Meanwhile, the Western press is simply keeping shtum, with the testimony of Henderson, and the UN panel in
general, not mentioned in any mainstream outlet we can find.
That seems unlikely to change.
Rhys Jaggar
,
The fact that Thomas Phipps calls himself a diplomat should alert all that he is 'lying for his country',
whether that be abroad or if he happened to be based in the UK when he uttered his smear.
The
definition of a diplomat being one who 'lies abroad for his country' should always be at the front of the
mind of anyone seeking truth. Diplomats should always be assumed to be lying, honourably of course, until
proven otherwise.
It is what diplomats do, after all.
JudyJ
,
That would be Thomas Phipps
MBE
. Having worked for over 5
years at Tate & Lyle he qualified for a 'desk officer' job at the FCO in 2009 as a diplomatic 'fast
streamer' (i.e. someone with 'recognised potential' to progress up the grades to the highest level).
After just over 2 years he transferred to the diplomatic service, working in Manila until 2016. It was
for that work that he was awarded his MBE in 2015.
When I was a civil servant many 'fast streamers who worked for the Foreign Office or diplomatic
service' unofficially earned themselves another job title w..kers! They really considered themselves
to be something special when they were anything but. And believe you me, I came across many in my
years of service. Once you had your foot in the door the only way was up as long as you were a 'yes'
man or woman. Phipps resoundingly meets this criterion. As I have commented previously, he is clearly
intended to be
Dame
Karen Pierce's replacement when she moves
on to spread her lies, xenophobia and arrogance elsewhere.
Yarkob
,
"last minute Visa waiver issues" caused Mr. Henderson to have to give evidence by video link instead of
in person as planned.
What were they, I wonder an ESTA lasts 2 years last time I checked. Did he forget to renew it before
coming to New York? Doesn't sound like something somebody as apparently meticulous as Mr. Henderson would
do
Many of us already knew that it was nothing but a false flag brought to you by George Clueless' favorite
group the White Helmets since it made no sense why Assad would desperately launch a chemical attack when
1) he was winning 2) he's never done so in the past even and 3)he doesn't have the means to do it even if
he wanted to .
Some of us tried to tell Trump this but it seems that his head was so far up Bibi's ass
he never listened to us and said damn the torpedos or the cruise missiles in this case and at that point
gave the finger to the base that elected him.
He's currently been impeached but like Clinton for the wrong high crimes and misdemeanors so his fat
lying ass won't be convicted.
Antonym
,
The CIA is not run from Jerusalem, or Washington for that matter. More from Langley or central New
York (not Trump!!).
Tallis Marsh
,
The truth will out, despite the propaganda-by-omission MSM!
On a different (yet also important) subject
of the Opposition Leadership Election good news!
Rebecca Long Bailey is showing her principles, steel, political astuteness, and a true sense of
democracy! 'Open Selections' will be immensely popular with the membership and is a game-changer which
will help her win. This will put the spanner in the works for Keir "Trilateral Commission" Agent Starmer.
Vote for Rebecca Long-Bailey for Leader and Richard Burgon for Deputy Leader!
Protect
,
After hundreds of years of murder and theft, Western Civilisation is now capable of propping its
relevance ONLY by resorting to Lies and Deceit to justify wanton violence against nations they dont like.
unknown drill
,
"Western Civilisation" that's a good one, that is ! I like the idea of that. When can we start,
then.
Jack_Garbo
,
You stole that one from Gandhi
Richard Le Sarc
,
The comment by that swine Higgins MUST win some prize for filthy hypocrisy, but at least they show,
emphatically, that the metastasis has NO interest in the truth, just ensuring his NATO pay-cheque keeps
on coming.
norman wisdom
,
the chap above mr henderson
should avoid country walks with friendly mi5 sas or oded yinon mossad types
and if invited for country supper he should not carry pocket knife
while walking in the country
arm in arm with mossadick henchmen on way 2 n snuff out event
like dr kelly
or mountain top romantick snuff walk like robin cook
henderson should avoid all suicided push jump trip thoughts while mountain high
or avoid suicided pocket knife wrist attacks upon himself
while being carried too the designated ritual killing zone
certainly avoid any khazar company on designated chabad holiday
already
Rhys Jaggar
,
Eliot Higgins discussing 'establishing ones credibility' has to go down as joke of the decade, and we
only in January 2020 ..
George Mc
,
Whatever the outcome of the planned challenge to OPCW officials by dissidents at a November 25th
conference, the burden will fall upon them to make a compelling case for a false flag.
No, the burden always falls on those who make the initial claim. And that intial claim is what
Henderson is disputing.
paul
,
I wouldn't take too much notice of Soros funded CIA Front NGOs if I were you. They'd swear that
the moon was made of green cheese for a few bucks from Soros.
There you go with your racist
dismissal of the head choppers again. They're not capable of making a hole in a roof or moving a
couple of canisters around. And apparently local people (if there are any left in the area) have
nothing better to do than scrutinise the activities of the head choppers to report on anything
they do that is not 100% kosher.
paul
,
As to where the corpses came from, there are 3 options.
-The plastic dummies they use in their "atrocity" videos.
The live "extras" who lie on sheets, pretending to be dead, until they get bored and start
yawning and scratching their noses.
Victims chosen at random from the hostages they have seized as human shields,
women and children driven round in cages on the backs of lorries. Or just villagers killed at
random as grisly props in their latest theatrical production.
You seem to have a touching
faith in the "reputation" of people who like to film themselves cannibalising corpses,
beheading children, and slitting the throats of prisoners.
lundiel
,
Yes. I saw such an underground machine shop come munitions factory in a video by Vanessa Beeley
filmed just after the liberation of Eastern Ghouta. It was full of European made precursors and
British mortar shells in various stages of dismantling. All in preparation for "the final
assault on Damascus" which was intercepted by the SAA.
paul
,
Luckily, the British special forces running the show managed to bug out through Israel after
donning the obligatory white helmets.
When General Mad Dog Mattis was the US Secretary of Defence he publicly asserted that the US had no
evidence that Assad had ever used chemical weapons. The corporate media largely ignored this admission.
After his gaffe, Mattis subsequently stated that he was certain that Assad had used chemical weapons
(although he offered nothing other than is certainty to support the assertion). The corporate media, of
course, gave this claim a completely acritical platform, reporting it as though it was an established
fact.
Richard Le Sarc
,
And isn' t it illuminating of the true nature of the Western Free Press and its presstitute denizens
that this stonking great story has had virtually NO coverage, and that which appears is proyectile
level disinfo and agit-prop for the child-killer salafists.
Should use quotes around "free". Unless your referring to its use as toilet paper, wrapping fish or
lining the bottom of a bird cage.
JudyJ
,
Ian Henderson has more dignity and integrity in his little finger than Phipps and Pierce put together.
They are either corrupt or seriously lacking in intellect. As a former UK HQ civil servant myself, I am
ashamed that we appear to have sunk to an all time low in what they stand for and their willing
subservience to the morally unscrupulous.
SO.
,
Henderson has probably forgotten more about chemical munitions design and deployment than a little
turd like Higgins would ever know.
The fact Higgins *didn't* know who he is just goes to show you how well he understands the subject
matter.
BAGHDAD, Jan. 23 (Xinhua) -- Iraq's paramilitary force Hashd Shaabi said on Thursday that
it opened fire at an unidentified drone flying over its bases near the border with Syria in
the western province of Anbar.
On Dec. 29, the Hashd Shaabi's 45th and 46th brigades belonging to Kata'ib Hezbollah in
Iraq were attacked by U.S. airstrikes, leaving more than 25 Hashd Shaabi members killed and
51 others injured.
Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a
tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But
it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?
The answer, of course, is the United States.
In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in
the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK
shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November
1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army
in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long
quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention
killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.
But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf.
For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever
– has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive
wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry
saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.
The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon
provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur
War. America
considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for
a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers
would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge
a workable settlement out of the rubble.
The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a
stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in
the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was
shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad
drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years
later.
Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the
Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added
a year later:
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries
worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be
used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese
influence in Central Asia."
What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global
phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle
of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military
jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven
major wars:
The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
The gulf war (1990-91).
The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).
Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush
democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the
list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."
Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever
higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that,
as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing
clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni
groups in the region."
Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness
even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has
brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing
to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both
military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.
The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But
Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved
the way.
Daniel Lazare January 8, 2020 | Security Who Created the Persian Gulf Tinderbox? Joe Biden's
statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by
assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an
all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?
The answer, of course, is the United States.
In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in
the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK
shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November
1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army
in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long
quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention
killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.
But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf.
For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever
– has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive
wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry
saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.
The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon
provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur
War. America
considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for
a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers
would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge
a workable settlement out of the rubble.
The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a
stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in
the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was
shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad
drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years
later.
Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the
Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added
a year later:
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries
worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be
used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese
influence in Central Asia."
What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global
phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle
of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military
jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven
major wars:
The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
The gulf war (1990-91).
The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).
Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush
democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the
list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."
Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever
higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that,
as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing
clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni
groups in the region."
Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness
even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has
brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing
to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both
military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.
The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But
Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved
the way.
In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in
the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK
shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November
1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army
in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long
quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention
killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.
But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf.
For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever
– has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive
wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry
saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.
The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon
provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur
War. America
considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for
a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers
would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge
a workable settlement out of the rubble.
The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a
stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in
the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was
shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad
drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years
later.
Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the
Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added
a year later:
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries
worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be
used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese
influence in Central Asia."
What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global
phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle
of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military
jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven
major wars:
The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
The gulf war (1990-91).
The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).
Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush
democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the
list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."
Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever
higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that,
as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing
clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni
groups in the region."
Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness
even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has
brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing
to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both
military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.
"... A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America ..."
"... But it was and is true. Indeed, when I visited Afghanistan back when U.S. troop levels were near their highest, "off camera," so to speak, military folks were quite skeptical of the war. So were Afghans, who had little good to say about their Washington-created and -supported government unless they were collecting a paycheck from it. An incoming president could be forgiven for suspecting that his predecessor had poured more troops into the conflict only to put off its failure until after he'd left office. ..."
"... Accounts like that from Rucker and Leonnig are beloved by the Blob. America's role is to dominate the globe, irrespective of cost. Those officials pursuing this objective, no matter how poorly, are lauded. Any politician challenging Washington's global mission is derided. ..."
"... President Trump has done much wrong. However, he deserves credit for challenging a failed foreign policy that's been paid for by so many while benefiting so few. It is "crazy" and "stupid," as he reportedly said. Why should Americans keep dying for causes that their leaders cannot adequately explain, let alone justify? Let us hope that one day Americans elect a president who will act and not just talk. ..."
fter three years of the Trump presidency, the Washington Post is breathlessly
reporting that Donald Trump is a boor who insults everyone, including generals used to respect
and even veneration. He's had the impertinence to ask critical questions of his military
briefers. For shame!
President Trump's limitations have been long evident. The Post 's discussion,
adapted by Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker from their upcoming book, A Very Stable
Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America , adds color, not substance, to this concern.
It seems that in the summer of 2017, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, and others were concerned about the president's international ignorance and
organized a briefing at the Pentagon to enlighten him.
Was that a worthwhile mission? Sure. Everyone in the policy world marvels at the president's
lack of curiosity, absent knowledge, bizarre assumptions, and perverse conclusions. He doesn't
get trade, bizarrely celebrates dictatorship, fixates on Iran, doesn't understand agreements,
acts on impulse, and exudes absolute certainty. Yet he also captures the essence of issues and
shares a set of inchoate beliefs held by millions of Americans, especially those who feel
ignored, insulted, disparaged, and dismissed. Most important, he was elected with a mandate to
move policy away from the bipartisan globalist conventional wisdom.
The latter was evidently the main concern of these briefers. The presentation as described
by the article exuded condescension. That attitude very likely was evident to Trump. The
briefing was intended to inform, but even more so to establish his aides' control over him.
While they bridled at Trump's manners, they were even more opposed to his substantive opinions.
And that made the briefing sound like a carefully choreographed attack on his worldview.
For instance, Mattis used charts with lots of dollar signs "to impress upon [the president]
the value of U.S. investments abroad. [Mattis] sought to explain why U.S. troops were deployed
in so many regions and why America's safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals, alliances,
and bases across the globe." Notably, Mattis "then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of
the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the United States safe."
No doubt Secretary Mattis sincerely believed all that. However, it was an argument more
appropriately made in 1950 or 1960. The world has since changed dramatically.
Of course, this is also the position of the Blob, Ben Rhodes' wonderful label for the
Washington foreign policymaking community. What has ever been must ever be, is the Blob's
informal mantra. America's lot in life, no matter how many average folks must die, is to litter
the globe with bases, ships, planes, and troops to fight endless wars, some big, some small, to
make the world safe for democracy, sometimes, and autocracy, otherwise. If America ever stops
fulfilling what seems to be the modern equivalent of Rudyard Kipling's infamous "white man's
burden," order will collapse, authoritarianism will advance, trade will disappear, conflict
will multiply, countries will be conquered, friends will become enemies, allies will defect,
terrorists will strike, liberal values will be discarded, all that is good and wonderful will
disappear, and a new dark age will envelope the earth.
Trump is remarkably ignorant of the facts, but he does possess a commonsensical skepticism
of the utter nonsense that gets promoted as unchallengeable conventional wisdom. As a result,
he understood that this weltanschauung, a word he would never use, was an absolute fantasy. And
he showed it by the questions he asked.
For instance, he challenged the defense guarantee for South Korea. "We should charge them
rent," he blurted out. "We should make them pay for our soldiers." Although treating American
military personnel like mercenaries is the wrong approach, he is right that there is no need to
protect the Republic of Korea. The Korean War ended 67 years ago. The South has twice the
population and, by the latest estimate, 54 times the economy of the North. Why is Seoul still
dependent on America?
If the Blob has its way, the U.S. will pay to defend the ROK forever. Analysts speak of the
need for Americans to stick around even after reunification. It seems there is no circumstance
under which they imagine Washington not garrisoning the peninsula. Why is America, born of
revolution, now acting like an imperial power that must impose its military might
everywhere?
Even more forcefully, it appeared, did Trump express his hostile views of Europe and NATO.
Sure, he appeared to mistakenly believe that there was an alliance budget that European
governments had failed to fund. But World War II ended 70 years ago. The Europeans recovered,
the Soviet Union collapsed, and Eastern Europeans joined NATO. Why is Washington expected to
subsidize a continent with a larger population than, and economy equivalent to, America's, and
far larger than Russia's? Mattis apparently offered the standard bromides, such as "This is
what keeps us safe."
How? Does he imagine that without Washington's European presence, Russia would roll its
tanks and march to the Atlantic Ocean? And from there launch a global pincer movement to invade
North America? How does adding such behemoths as Montenegro keep the U.S. "safe"? What does
initiating a military confrontation with Moscow over Ukraine, historically part of the Russian
Empire and Soviet Union, have to do with keeping Americans "safe"? The argument is
self-evidently not just false but ridiculous.
Justifying endless wars is even tougher. Rucker and Leonnig do not report what the president
said about Syria, which apparently was part of Mattis's brief. However, Trump's skepticism is
evident from his later policy gyrations. Why would any sane Washington policymaker insist that
America intervene militarily in a multi-sided civil war in a country of no significant security
interest to the U.S. on the side of jihadists and affiliates of al-Qaeda? And stick around
illegally as the conflict wound down? To call this policy stupid is too polite.
Even more explosive was the question of Afghanistan, to which the president did speak,
apparently quite dismissively. Unsurprisingly, he asked why the U.S. had not won after 16 years
-- which is longer than the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and the Korean War combined. He
also termed Afghanistan a "loser war." By Rucker's and Leonnig's telling, this did not go over
well: "That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military men and women in uniform
sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their
commander in chief's commands, and here he was calling the way they had been fighting a loser
war."
But it was and is true. Indeed, when I visited Afghanistan back when U.S. troop levels were
near their highest, "off camera," so to speak, military folks were quite skeptical of the war.
So were Afghans, who had little good to say about their Washington-created and -supported
government unless they were collecting a paycheck from it. An incoming president could be
forgiven for suspecting that his predecessor had poured more troops into the conflict only to
put off its failure until after he'd left office.
The fault does not belong to combat personnel, but to political leaders and complicit
generals, who have misled if not lied in presenting a fairy tale perspective on the conflict's
progress and prognosis. And for what? Central Asia is not and never will be a vital issue of
American security. Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism other than its having hosting
al-Qaeda two decades ago. Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. In recent years, it's Yemen
that's hosted the most dangerous national affiliate of al-Qaeda. So why are U.S. troops still
in Afghanistan?
Accounts like that from Rucker and Leonnig are beloved by the Blob. America's role is to
dominate the globe, irrespective of cost. Those officials pursuing this objective, no matter
how poorly, are lauded. Any politician challenging Washington's global mission is
derided.
President Trump has done much wrong. However, he deserves credit for challenging a
failed foreign policy that's been paid for by so many while benefiting so few. It is "crazy"
and "stupid," as he reportedly said. Why should Americans keep dying for causes that their
leaders cannot adequately explain, let alone justify? Let us hope that one day Americans elect
a president who will act and not just talk.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant
to President Ronald Reagan and author of several books, including Foreign Follies:
America's New Global Empire .
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, accusing the former
Secretary of State of defamation for remarks characterizing the Democratic presidential
candidate as
a Russian asset .
Filed on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Gabbard's attorneys allege that Clinton "smeared" Gabbard's "political and
personal reputation," according to
The Hill .
Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton and the first page of the filing is WILD AF
pic.twitter.com/DXHLPfy016
"Tulsi Gabbard is a loyal American civil servant who has also dedicated her life to
protecting the safety of all Americans," said Gabbard's attorney Brian Dunne in a
statement.
"Rep. Gabbard's presidential campaign continues to gain momentum, but she has seen her
political and personal reputation smeared and her candidacy intentionally damaged by Clinton's
malicious and demonstrably false remarks."
In a podcast released in October, Clinton said she thought Republicans were "grooming" a
Democratic presidential candidate for a third-party bid. She also described the candidate as
a favorite of the Russians.
Clinton did not name the candidate but it was clear she was speaking about Gabbard.
"They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've
got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to
be the third-party candidate ," Clinton said.
" She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways
of supporting her so far , and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might
not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They
know they can't win without a third party candidate," Clinton said. -
The Hill
"... The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the U.S.. ..."
"... The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. ..."
"... As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania and Poland. ..."
"... There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this "balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington's vaunted ABM systems. ..."
"... In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended. Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation. ..."
"... Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors. ..."
Starting from the presidency of George W. Bush to that of Trump, the U.S. has made some
missteps that not only reduce its influence in strategic regions of the world but also its
ability to project power and thus impose its will on those unwilling to genuflect appropriately
.
Some examples from the recent past will suffice to show how a series of strategic errors
have only accelerated the U.S.'s hegemonic decline.
ABM + INF = Hypersonic Supremacy
The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while
declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and
budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant
strategic problems besetting the U.S..
The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on
supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both
sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the
purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. This
argument held little water as the Iranians had neither the capability nor intent to launch such
missiles.
As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such
offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the
Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in
the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania
and Poland.
Following from Trump's momentous decision to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), it is also likely
that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will also be abandoned, creating more
global insecurity with regard to nuclear proliferation.
Moscow was forced to pull out all stops to develop new weapons that would restore the
strategic balance, Putin revealing to the world in a speech in 2018 the introduction of
hypersonic weapons and other technological breakthroughs that would serve to disabuse
Washington of its first-strike fantasies.
Even as Washington's propaganda refuses to acknowledge the tectonic shifts on the global
chessboard occasioned by these technological breakthroughs, sober
military assessments acknowledge that the game has fundamentally changed.
There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide
vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD),
which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this
"balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing
that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for
Washington's vaunted ABM systems.
In addition to ensuring its nuclear second-strike capability, Russia has been forced to
develop the most advanced ABM system in the world to fend off Washington's aggression. This ABM
system is integrated into a defensive network that includes the Pantsir, Tor, Buk, S-400 and
shortly the devastating S-500 and A-235 missile systems. This combined system is designed to
intercept ICBMs as well as any future U.S. hypersonic weapons
The wars of aggression prosecuted by George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only ended up
leaving the U.S. in a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis Russia and China. Moscow has
obviously shared some of its technological innovations with its strategic partner, allowing
Beijing to also have hypersonic weapons together with ABM systems like the Russian S-400.
No
JCPOA? Here Comes Nuclear Iran
In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the
most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all
options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do
not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is
prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to
follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S.
aggression.
While this suggestion of mine may not correspond with the intentions of leaders of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the protection North Korea enjoys from U.S. aggression as a result of
its deterrence capacity may oblige the Iranian leadership to carefully consider the pros and
cons of following suit, perhaps choosing to adopt the Israeli stance of nuclear ambiguity or
nuclear opacity, where the possession of nuclear weapons is neither confirmed nor denied. While
a world free of nuclear weapons would be ideal, their deterrence value cannot be denied, as
North Korea's experience attests.
While Iran does not want war, any pursuit of a nuclear arsenal may guarantee a conflagration
in the Middle East. But I have long maintained that the risk of a nuclear war (once nuclear
weapons have been acquired)
does not exist , with them having a
stabilizing rather than destabilizing effect, particularly in a multipolar environment.
Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently
encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended.
Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA,
has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation.
Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W.
Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and
Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain
critical areas relative to its competitors.
The death of Soleimani punctures the myth
of the U.S. invincibility
I wrote a couple of articles in the wake of General Soleimani's death that
examined the incident and then
considered the profound ramifications of the event in the region.
What seems evident is that Washington appears incapable of appreciating the consequences of
its reckless actions. Killing Soleimani was bound to invite an Iranian response; and even if we
assume that Trump was not looking for war (I
explained why some months ago), it was obvious to any observer that there would be a
response from Iran to the U.S.'s terrorist actions.
The response came a few nights later where, for the first time since the Second World War, a
U.S. military base was subjected to a rain of missiles (22 missiles each with a 700kg payload).
Tehran thereby showed that it possessed the necessary technical, operational and strategic
means to obliterate thousands of U.S. and allied personnel within the space of a few minutes if
it so wished, with the U.S. would be powerless to stop it.
U.S. Patriot air-defense systems yet again failed to do their job, reprising their failure
to defend Saudi oil and gas facilities against a missile attack conducted by Houthis a few
months ago.
We thus have confirmation, within the space of a few months, of the inability of the U.S. to
protect its troops or allies from Houthi, Hezbollah and Iranian missiles. Trump and his
generals would have been reluctant to respond to the Iranian missile attack knowing that any
Iranian response would bring about uncontrollable regional conflagration that would devastate
U.S. bases as well as oil infrastructure and such cities of U.S. allies as Tel Aviv, Haifa and
Dubai.
After demonstrating to the world that U.S. allies in the region are defenseless against
missile attacks from even the likes of the Houthis, Iran drove home the point by conducting
surgical strikes on two U.S. bases that only highlights the disconnect between the perception
of U.S. military invincibility and the reality that would come in the form of a multilayered
missile conflict.
Conclusion
Washington's diplomatic and military decisions in recent years have only brought about a
world world that is more hostile to Washington and less inclined to accept its diktats, often
being driven instead to acquire the military means to counter Washington's bullying. Even as
the U.S. remains the paramount military power, its ineptitude has resulted in Russia and China
surpassing it in some critical areas, such that the U.S. has no chance of defending itself
against a nuclear second strike, with even Iran having the means to successfully retaliate
against the U.S. in the region.
As I continue to say, Washington's power largely rests on perception management helped by
the make-believe world of Hollywood. The recent missile attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabia's
oil facilities and the Iranian missile attack a few days ago on U.S. military bases in Iraq
(none of which were intercepted) are like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal Washington's
military vulnerability. No amount of entreaties by Washington to pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain will help.
The more aggressive the U.S. becomes, the more it reveals its tactical, operational and
strategic limits, which in turn only serves to accelerate its loss of hegemony.
If the U.S. could deliver a nuclear first strike without having to worry about a retaliatory
second strike thanks to its ABM systems, then its quest for perpetual unipolarity could
possibly be realistic. But Washington's peer competitors have shown that they have the means to
defend themselves against a nuclear first strike by being able to deliver an unstoppable second
strike, thereby communicating that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is here
to stay. With that, Washington's efforts to maintain its status as uncontested global hegemon
are futile.
In a region
vital to U.S. interests , Washington does not have the operational capacity to stand in the
way of Syria's liberation. When it has attempted to directly impose its will militarily, it has
seen as many as 80% of its cruise missiles
knocked down or deflected , once again highlighting the divergence between Washington's
Hollywood propaganda and the harsh military reality.
The actions of George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only served to inadvertently accelerate
the world's transition away from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. As Trump follows in the
steps of his predecessors by being aggressive towards Iran, he only serves to weaken the U.S.
global position and strengthen that of his opponents.
Up to the election of our current President, I agree that we were bullying for the
personal gain of a few and our military was being used as a mercenary force. The current
administration is working on getting us out of long term conflicts. What do you think "drain
the swamp" means? It is a huge undertaking and need to understand what the "deep state" is
all about and their goals.
The death of Soleimani was needed and made the world a safer place. Dr. Janda / Freedom
Operation has had several very intriguing presentations on this issue. It is my firm belief
that there is a worldwide coalition to make the world a better and safer place. If you want
to know about the "deep state" try watching: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU
All mostly true, but the constant drone of this type of article gets old, as the comments
below attest. We really don't need more forensic analysis by the SCF, what we need is an
answer to America's dollar Imperialism problem. But we'll never get it, just as England never
got an answer to it's pound Imperialism problem.
I like Tulsi Gabbard, but she can never truly reveal the magnitude of the dollar
Imperialism behind her "stop these endless wars" sloganism. Besides, she doesn't have the
billions required to mount any real successful campaign. Only billionaires like Bloomberg
need apply these days.
The Truth is that NO ONE will stand up to Wall Street and it's system of global dollar
corporatism (from which Bloomberg acquired his billions, and to which the USG is bound). It's
suicide to speak the truth to the masses. The dollar must die of its own disease.
Trump is America's Chemo. The cure nearly as bad as the cancer, but the makers of it have
a vested interest in its acceptance.
General Bonespur murders a genuine military man from the comfort of his golf course.
America is still dangerous, Pinky might be tired but the (((Brain))) is working feverishly on
solutions for the jaded .
There has been a perception in the last 25 years that the US could win a nuclear war. This
perception is extremely dangerous as it invites the US armed forces to commit atrocities and
think they can get away with it (they are for now). The world opinion has turned, but the
citizens of the United States of America are not listening.
If the US keeps going down the path they are currently on, they are ensuring that war will
eventually reach its coast.
To challenge the US Empire the new Multipolar World is focused on a two-pronged
strategy:
1. Nullifying the US nuclear first strike (at will) as part of the current US military
doctrine - accomplished (for a decade maybe).
2. Outmaneuvering the US petrodollar in trade, the tool to control the global fossil fuel
resources on the planet - in progress.
What makes 2.) decisive is that the petrodollar as reserve currency is the key to recycle
the US federal budget deficit via foreign investment in U.S. Treasury Bonds (IOUs) by the
central banks, thus enabling the global military presence and power projection of the US
military empire.
All their little plots and schemes failed, as corrupt arsehole after corrupt arsehole
stole the funding from those plots and schemes to fill their own pockets. They also put the
most corrupt individuals they could find into power, so as much as possible could be stolen
and voila, everywhere they went, everything collapsed, every single time.
Totally and utterly ludicrous decades, of not punishing failure after failure has resulted
in nothing but more failure, like, surprise, surprise, surprise.
Routine failures have forced other nation to go multipolar or just rush straight to global
economic collapse as a result of out of control US corruption. Russia and China did not
outsmart the USA, the USA did it entirely to itself by not prosecuting corruption at high
levels, even when it failed time and time again, focusing more on how much they could steal,
then on bringing what ever plot or scheme to a successful conclusion.
The use of the terms "Unintended Consequences", shortsightedness, mistakes, stupidity, or
ignorance provides the avenue to transfer or divert the blame. It excuses it away as bad
decisions so that the truth and those responsible are never really exposed and held
accountable. The fact is, these actions were not mistakes or acts of shortsightedness...they
were deliberate and planned and the so-called "unintended consequences" were actually
intended and part of their plan. Looking back and linking the elites favorite process to
drive change (problem, reaction, solution)...one can quickly make the connection to many of
the so-called "unintended consequences" as they are very predictable results their actions.
It becomes very clear that much of what has occurred over the last few decades has been
deliberate with planned/intended outcomes.
I think the biggest advantage USA used to have was that they claimed to stand for Freedom
and Democracy. And for a time, many people believed them. That's partly why the USSR fell
apart, and for a time USA had a lot of goodwill among ordinary Russians.
But US political leaders squandered this goodwill when they used NATO to attack Yugoslavia
against Russia's objections and expanded NATO towards Russia's borders. This has been long
forgotten in USA. But many ordinary Russians still seethe about these events. This was the
turning point for them that motivated them to support Putin and his rebuilding of Russia's
military.
When you have goodwill among your potential competitors, then they don't have much
motivation to increase their capabilities against you. This was the situation USA was in
after the USSR fell apart. But USA squandered all of this goodwill and motivated the Russians
to do what they did.
And now, USA under Trump has done something like this with China. USA used to have a lot
of goodwill among the ordinary Chinese. But now this is gone as a result of US tariffs,
sanctions, and its support for separatism in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Now, the Chinese will be
as motivated as the Russians to do their best at promoting their interests at the expense of
USA. And together with Russia, they have enough people and enough natural resources to do
more than well against USA and its allies.
I think USA could've maintained a lot more influence around the world through goodwill
with ordinary people, than through sanctions, threats, and military attacks. If USA had left
Iraq under Saddam Hussein alone, then Iran wouldn't have had much influence in there. And if
USA had left Iran alone, then the young people there might've already rebelled against their
strict Islamic rule and made their government more friendly with USA.
Doing nothing, except business and trade, would've left USA in a much better position,
than the one USA is in now.
Now USA is bankrupting itself with unsustainable military spending and still falling
behind its competitors. USA might still have the biggest economy in the world in US Dollar
terms. But this doesn't take into account the cost of living and purchasing parity. With
purchasing parity taken into account, China now has a bigger economy than that of USA.
Because internally, they can manufacture and buy a lot more for the same amount of money than
USA can. A lot of US military spending is on salaries, pensions, and healthcare of its
personnel. While such costs in Russia and China are comparatively small. They are spending
most of their money on improving and building their military technology. That's why in the
long run, USA will probably fall behind even more.
The Anglos in the U.S. are not from there and are imposters who are claiming
characteristics and a culture that doesn't belong to them. They're using it as a way
to hide from scrutiny, so you blame "Americans", when its really them. That's why
there's such a huge disconnect between stated values and actions. The values belong to
another group of people, TRUE Americans, while the actions belong to Anglos, who have a
history of aggressive and forced, irrational violence upon innocents.
It's true that ordinary people are often different from their government, including in
Russia, in China, in Iran, in USA, and even in Nazi Germany in the past.
But the people in such a situation are usually powerless and unable to influence their
government. So, their difference is irrelevant in the way their government behaves and
alienates people around the world.
USA is nominally a democracy, where the government is controlled by the people. But in
reality, the people are only a ceremonial figurehead, and the real power is a small minority
of rich companies and individuals, who fund election campaigns of politicians.
That's why for example most Americans want to have universal healthcare, just like all
other developed countries have. But most elected politicians from both major parties won't
even consider this idea, because their financial donors are against it. And if the people are
powerless even within their own country, then outside with foreigners, they have even less
influence.
1. Nation Building? It worked with Germany and Japan, rinse and repeat. So what if it's
comparing apples to antimatter?
2. US won the Cold War? So make the same types of moves made during Reagan adm? The real
reason the Soviet Empire collapsed was because it was a money losing empire while the US was
a money making empire. Just review the money pits they invested in.
3. Corruption? That was your grandfather's time. The US has been restructured. Crime
Syndicate and Feudal templates are the closest. Stagnation and decline economically and
technologically are inevitable.
4. Evaluating the competition is problematic. However perhaps the most backward and
regressive elements in this society are branding themselves as progressive and getting away
with it. That can't work.
I do agree with Robert that the visa difficulties would suggest that the UN needs to find a
new home in a country that would not bring such matters to that unhelpful conclusion.
Establishing the UN in one country was fine in the days of poor speed telecommunications.
The entire Un should be a multi national establishment and distributed across the globe where
technical and administrative mechanisms suit. There is no reason for Un to be centralised in
USA in these day of excellent communications systems. Multinational corporations and vast
states like Russia that span half the planet can achieve these things.
The blatant hoax of the OPCW Douma exercise is simply an insult to the common sense of
humanity. The fact that so many children were sacrificed to give gravity to this hoax is
simply macabre beyond belief. The OPCW is complicit in a crime against humanity and refuses
to acknowledge it. Each and every one of the scientists that participated should give
recorded testimony of what they know of the origins and fate of those children. THAT is an
absolute priority evidence collection.
I entirely agree. The really shocking thing was to denial of a visa for Henderson. That
undermines the entire functioning of the UN as an entity at least to an extent independent of
the US. The UN cannot function like that. It can only be a puppet of the US - and an open
puppet, not concealed control (as many here have accused over the years).
Trump is not very subtle, he has wrecked many US policies, by exposing them in the open -
for example, the treatment of the EU as a prime enemy. Nobody knew (though they guessed) how
much the US treated the EU as a competitor. Now it's declared in the open.
Unprecedented hubris is drawing a global blowback that will leave America in a very
dangerous place.
Sorin Alb/Shutterstock
January 2, 2020
|
12:01 am
Doug
Bandow Economic sanctions are an important foreign policy tool going back to America's founding.
President Thomas Jefferson banned trade with Great Britain and France, which left U.S. seamen
unemployed while failing to prevent military conflict with both.
Economic warfare tends to be equally ineffective today. The Trump administration made Cuba,
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and North Korea special sanctions targets. So this strategy has failed
in every case. In fact, "maximum pressure" on both Iran, which has become more threatening, and
North Korea, which appears to be preparing a tougher military response, has dramatically
backfired.
The big difference between then and now is Washington's shift from primary to secondary
sanctions. Trade embargoes, such as first applied to Cuba in 1960, once only prevented
Americans from dealing with the target state. Today Washington attempts to conscript the entire
world to fight its economic wars.
This shift was heralded by the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which extended Cuban penalties to
foreign companies, a highly controversial move at the time. Sudan was another early target of
secondary sanctions, which barred anyone who used the U.S. financial system from dealing with
Khartoum. Europeans and others grumbled about Washington's arrogance, but were not willing to
confront the globe's unipower over such minor markets.
However, sanctions have become much bigger business in Washington. One form is a mix of
legislative and executive initiatives applied against governments in disfavor. There were five
countries under sanction when George W. Bush took office in 2001. The Office of Foreign Assets
Control currently lists penalties against the Balkans, Belarus, Burundi, Central African
Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua,
North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine-Russia, Venezuela, Yemen, and
Zimbabwe. In addition are special programs: countering America's adversaries,
counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, cyber warfare, foreign election interference, Global
Magnitsky, Magnitsky, proliferation, diamond trade, and transnational crime.
Among today's more notable targets are Cuba for being communist, Venezuela for being crazy
communist, Iran for having once sought nuclear weapons and currently challenging Saudi and U.S.
regional hegemony, Russia for beating up on Ukraine and meddling in America's 2016 election,
Syria for opposing Israel and brutally suppressing U.S.-supported insurgents, and North Korea
for developing nuclear weapons. Once on Washington's naughty list, countries rarely get
off.
The second penalty tier affects agencies, companies, and people who have offended someone in
Washington for doing something considered evil, inappropriate, or simply inconvenient.
Individual miscreants often are easy to dislike. Penalizing a few dubious characters or
enterprises creates less opposition than sanctioning a country.
However, some targets merely offended congressional priorities. For instance, as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act Congress authorized sanctions against Western companies,
most notably the Swiss-Dutch pipe-laying venture Allseas Group, involved in the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline project. GOP Senators Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson threatened Allseas:
"continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after the president signs the sanctions
legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and potentially fatal legal and economic
sanctions."
Penalizing what OFAC calls "Specially Designated Nationals" and "blocked persons" has become
Washington sport. Their number hit 8000 last year. The Economist noted that the Trump
administration alone added 3100 names during its first three years, almost as many as George W.
Bush included in eight years. Today's target list runs an incredible 1358 pages.
The process has run wildly out of control. Policymakers' first response to a person,
organization, or government doing something of which they disapprove now seems to be to impose
sanctions -- on anyone or anything on earth dealing with the target. Unfortunately, reliance on
economic warfare, and sanctions traditionally are treated as an act of war, has greatly
inflated U.S. officials' geopolitical ambitions. Once they accepted that the world was a messy,
imperfect place. Today they intervene in the slightest foreign controversy. Even allies and
friends, most notably Europe, Japan, South Korea, and India, are threatened with economic
warfare unless they accept Washington's self-serving priorities and mind-numbing fantasies.
At the same time the utility of sanctions is falling. Unilateral penalties usually fail,
which enrages advocates, who respond by escalating sanctions, again without success. Of course,
embargoes and bans often inflict substantial economic pain, which sometimes lead proponents to
claim victory. However, the cost is supposed to be the means to another end. Yet the
Trump administration has failed everywhere: Cuba maintains communist party rule, Iran has grown
more truculent, North Korea has refused to disarm, Russia has not given back Crimea, and
Venezuela has not defenestrated Nicolas Maduro.
Much the same goes for penalties applied to individuals, firms, and other entities. Those
targeted often are hurt, and most of them deserve to be hurt. But they usually persist in their
behavior or others replace them. What dictator has been deposed, policy has been changed,
threat has been countered, or wrong has been righted as a result of economic warfare? There is
little evidence that U.S. sanctions achieve much of anything, other than encourage
sanctimonious moral preening.
Noted the Economist , "If they do not change behavior, sanctions risk becoming less a
tool of coercion than an expensive and rather arbitrary extraterritorial form of punishment."
One that some day might be turned against Americans.
Contra apparent assumptions in Washington, it is not easy to turn countries into America's
image. Raw nationalism usually triumphs. Americans should reflect on how they would react if
the situation was reversed. No one wants to comply with unpopular foreign dictates.
In fact, economic warfare often exacerbates underlying conflicts. Rather than negotiate with
Washington from a position of weakness, Iran has threatened maritime traffic in the Persian
Gulf, shut down Saudi oil exports, and loosed affiliates and irregulars on American and allied
forces. Russia has challenged against multiple Washington policy priorities. Cuba has shifted
power to the post-revolutionary generation and extended its authority private businesses as the
Trump administration's policies have stymied growth and undermined entrepreneurs.
The almost endless expansion of sanctions also punishes American firms and foreign companies
active in America. Compliance is costly. Violating one rule, even inadvertently, is even more
so. Chary companies preemptively forego legal business in a process called "de-risking."
Even humanitarian traffic suffers: Who wants to risk an expensive mistake in handling
relatively low value transactions? Such effects might not bother smug U.S. policymakers, but
should weigh heavily on the rest of us.
Perhaps most important, Washington's overreliance on secondary sanctions is building
resistance to American financial dominance. Warned Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in 2016: "The
more we condition use of the dollar and our financial system on adherence to U.S. foreign
policy, the more the risk of migration to other currencies and other financial systems in the
medium-term grows."
Overthrowing the almighty dollar will be no mean feat. Nevertheless, arrogant U.S. attempts
to regulate the globe have united much of the world, including Europe, Russia, and China,
against American extraterritoriality. Noted attorney Bruce Zagaris, Washington is
"inadvertently mobilizing a club of countries and international organizations, including U.S.
allies, to develop ways to circumvent U.S. sanctions."
Merchant ships and oil tankers turn off transponders. Vessels transfer cargoes at sea. Firms
arrange cash and barter deals. Major powers such as China aid and abet violations and dare
Washington to wreck much larger bilateral economic relationships. The European Union passed
"Blocking Legislation" to allow recovery of damages from U.S. sanctions and limit Europeans'
compliance with such rules. The EU also developed a barter facility, known as Instex, to allow
trade with Iran without reliance on U.S. financial institution.
Russia has pushed to de-dollarize international payments and worked with China to settle
bilateral trade in rubles and renminbi. Foreign central banks have increased their purchases of
gold. At the recent Islamic summit Malaysia proposed using gold and barter for trade to thwart
future sanctions. Venezuela has been selling gold for euros. These measures do not as yet
threaten America's predominant financial role but foreshadow likely future changes.
Indeed, Washington's attack on plans by Germany to import natural gas from Russia might
ignite something much greater. Berlin is not just an incidental victim of U.S. policy. Rather,
Germany is the target. Complained Foreign Minister Heiko Maas "European energy policy is
decided in Europe, not in the U.S." Alas, Congress thinks differently.
However, Europeans are ever less willing to accept this kind of indignity. Washington is
penalizing even close allies for no obvious purpose other than demonstrating its power. In Nord
Stream 2's case, Gazprom likely will complete the project if necessary. Germany's Deputy
Foreign Minister Niels Annen argued that "Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend
itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions."
Commercial penalties have a role to play in foreign policy, but economic warfare is warfare.
It can trigger real conflicts -- consider Imperial Japan's response to the Roosevelt
administration's cut-off of oil exports. And economic warfare can kill innocents. When UN
Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked about the deaths of a half million Iraqi babies from
U.S. sanctions, her response was chilling: "We think the price is worth it." Yet most of the
time economic war fails, especially if a unilateral effort by one power applied against the
rest of the world.
Washington policymakers need to relearn the meaning of humility. Incompetent and arrogant
sanctions policies hurt Americans as well as others. Unfortunately, the resulting blowback will
only increase.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
Under the official Full Spectrum Dominance policy of national security, the goal is that
all other nations will be satrapies under U.S. jurisdiction. There are both punishments for
using the U.S. dollar, and punishments for not using it.
I'm afraid it will be the U.S. that suffers. Other countries will no longer subordinate
their interests to those of the U.S. I think the U.S. will have to fight all future wars,
and accept all blow-back, on her own.
It's a waste of time trying to appeal to the commonsense of the Washington Elites. They are
too arrogant and sociopathic to care, and lack anything that remotely resembles a moral
compass.
Sanctions are ineffective because the effects don't fall on those making decisions that are
adverse to the US. After fifty years of sanctions, Fidel died in bed in great comfort.
Sanctions on top of the crazy Juche policies make life hard for the ordinary North Korean,
but Kim doesn't appear to have lost any weight. Our officials pat themselves on the back
for their militancy without checking for effectiveness.
Would it be correct to say that the US embargo on oil exports to Japan in August 1941 led
to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a few months later (Dec. 7)? Was FDR trying to
provoke a war with Japan at the time?
Discuss 10021. Yes. I used to study East Asia and even reading standard collections of
articles, on the article announcing the embargo of steel and oil, and from British
controlled territories in East Asia, one's reaction would be, "This means war." (In like,
Pres. Carter said if Saudi Arabia refused to sell oil to the US we would invade and take
over oil fields.) Se our reaction was similar to that of Japan, though we would blame them
and us doing the same would be good. The US military assessment was, I have forgotten
exactly, but that Japan would be without heat, power, lighting, factories closed (no oil or
steel) and they would be on the point of starvation within, I have forgotten, 9 months to 1
1/2 years. So they "had to do something".. Their war plan was not to invade the US but
start a surprise war and strike quickly hoping to get forward bases in the Pacific and we
would need to negotiate and turn on the spigot. Japanese assessment was if they did not
achieve this by the end of 1942 they were finished. Interestingly, Hitler's assessment of
Germany's war was if they had not defeated USSR and gone after United Kingdom by the end of
1942, they, also, were finished. If I recall the report, Eleanor Roosevelt had told on US
writer the day the attack occurred, something like, "We thought they were going to attack,
but we thought it would be in the Philippines, not Hawaii."
The hubris is overwhelming. All empires fall, and the USA certainly seems headed for a
fall. However, we still have a choice. We could reject empire, stop all our illegal foreign
wars, close all our foreign military bases, drastically reduce our military budget (it is
NOT a "defense" budget; it is an offense military budget), end our campaigns of economic
sanctions, and stop being the Big Bully of the world. The result would be to free enormous
resources for our own country which ranks behind almost all other affluent nations - and
sometimes many not-so-affluent nations - in almost all indicators of ecnomic and social
well being. Replacing the military sector of our economy with civilian alternatives would
be a big boon. Weapons are notable for not continuing in the economic cycle as civilian
products do. There are many more jobs per dollars spent in the civilian sector than the
military sector. Empire is killing our country even as it is killing other countries.
Agreed, but the elites make BILLIONS from Empire & the associated militarism.
Psychopaths don't care about the damage they inflict on others, even their own countrymen,
and they won't willingly surrender the machinery that generates their wealth and privilege.
Russia's participation in the UN is governed by an interlocking series of concepts,
starting with Russia's definition of international law, narrowly based on the UN Charter
and Security Council resolutions, as opposed to a "rules-based order" that Russia defines
as expansive and promoting the interests of Western powers. This division enables Russia to
reject on principle commitments regarding human rights and democratic governance. A second
concept, multipolarity, asserts that an oligarchic group of states must take collective
action on the basis of equality and consensus. At the UN, this plays out among the
permanent members of the UNSC as an alliance with China against Western interests.
The concept of a multipolar oligarchy leads to the Russian concept that true sovereignty
is possessed by only a few great powers; the sovereignty of states it views as dependent on
great powers is limited. The territory of true sovereigns and those states under Russian
protection is sacrosanct and can be defended by force; for the others, it is impermissible
to regain territory that is "in dispute" by force. As an example of the former, consider
the lengths to which Russia has gone to protect Syria's use of armed force against its own
population, whereas the sovereignty of former Soviet states such as Azerbaijan, Moldova,
Georgia, and Ukraine must be negotiated.
Russia's defense of Syria demonstrates another concept that flows from sovereignty:
legitimacy. In Russian practice, the legitimacy of recognized governments is absolute
regardless of their origins, governance, human rights record, or any other external norm.
This concept echoes Russian domestic preoccupations in the era of color revolutions, the
Arab Spring, and domestic unrest.
The rejection of all external norms has led to the breakdown of the modus vivendi at the
UN since the days of the Korean War: deferring issues involving great power interests while
engaging elsewhere in peacekeeping, mediation, and humanitarian relief. Neutral powers that
share democratic values are best placed to defend against the legitimation of autocratic
governance.
....
The record of the great powers of the West -- of colonialism in previous centuries and
of neoconservative proselytization for spreading democracy by force more recently -- has
seriously compromised their ability to debate Russia on these issues in the UN. It falls to
other states that share the values of democratic governance and universal human rights to
step up to the responsibility of promoting those values to member states that waver between
traditionalist, militarist, and absolutist values on the one side and those of a humanist
and democratic world on the other.
It sounds like they are taking the "external rule based order" off the table.
That's right. I used to know the guys at Gannet in a major US city. Nice people, but not
technically aware, and politically-philosophically innocent. Naifs. Put on nice parties where
they chatted about their pasts in foreign places entirely unaware of the objective and
obvious exploitation going on right before their eyes.
I might add that the engineering students dread, as a rule, English 1-A, and do,
generally, quite poorly. (My wife used to teach that class)
The result is a nice antipodal bar-bell shaped arrangement whereby neither group sees
reality, but only a simulacrum of one part or another.
In this regard, Yasha Levine > " Weaponizing Fascism for Democracy: The Beginning "
Begins in the DP camps...
I've said before that the plans to nuke USSR were being drawn prior to the Trinity test.
Levine's essay buttresses this quite well, though essentially in background...he says nothing
about the bomb. He doen't have to...
This is a relevant quote from a commentary in NYT, March 26, 2018 by Kadri Liik (@KadriLiik)
is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and the former
director of the International Center for Defense Studies in Estonia.
"The world does not yet know the full details of the Skripal poisoning, but it does not
feel like waiting, as the expulsions make clear. Too often in the past, Moscow has denied its
involvement in cases that later end up being traced to the Kremlin or its proxies. The result
is that its denials lack credibility. Now, the successful use of "plausible deniability" in
all the previous cases collides with the Kremlin's current interests and contributes to the
verdict: guilty until proven innocent."
Punishment before the proof, if you reverse the order you [do what Putin wants|make Putin
happy], the outcome so ghastly that we cannot risk it. The truth has to be declared, and
then, optionally, proven. Another option is to just repeat that, say, Qassim Suleimani was a
terrorist. And punish.
Bombing of Barzeh as a punishment for un-investigated crime follows the template, duly
approved by the sophisticated Europeans from a myriad of outfits like International Center
for Defense Studies in Estonia. I would move all of them to Tiksi (check accuweather), a
quiet and somewhat depopulated city on the shore of beautiful Arctic ocean, with an airport,
a few thousand of empty apartments should accommodate them (if not, there are also former
mining towns in the interior, although the may be colder). Cold Warriors should embrace the
cold.
"... Many of those who sneaked out to Argentina and concealed themselves would have done better to have waited for Canada and the States to invite them to come and 'do their thing' in Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and Edmonton, Alberta. ..."
"... Which leads me to the point I came here to make: the astonishing thing about the OPCW hearing is that Henderson was denied a visa. That really is shocking and a measure of how brutal, intellectually and actually, the US government has become. ..."
"... Not to mention the imposition of semi colonial hegemony over Europe. ..."
somebody@94
Don't underestimate the transformation of residual 'blood and soil' themes in fascism into
foundations of the Green movements. They were not simply dissenters within the communist
tradition but rabid anti-communists. It was the intellectual traditions and the residual
popular support among generations schooled in fascism-often literally schooled- which were
preserved and amplified by the wave of anti-communism which came in from America. Like the
legendary 'cavalry' rescuing the embattled settlers the US swooped into Europe, when all
seemed lost, and turned the remnants of fascism into heroes.
Many of those who sneaked out to Argentina and concealed themselves would have done
better to have waited for Canada and the States to invite them to come and 'do their thing'
in Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and Edmonton, Alberta.
Which leads me to the point I came here to make: the astonishing thing about the OPCW
hearing is that Henderson was denied a visa. That really is shocking and a measure of how
brutal, intellectually and actually, the US government has become. It has long been bad
but things have reached the stage now where it has become clear that the likes Of Al Capone
and the models for The Godfather movies, were babes in arms compared with the likes of Bolton
or Pompeo.
When we consider Trump and the key, almost impossibly apt, fact that Roy Cohn was his mentor
it is easy to forget that, in a sense, Roy Cohn was America's mentor. Cohn, who got the job
of McCarthy's counsel, in competition with Bobby Kennedy, turned the Wisconsin Senator from a
loose cannon into a guided missile against the residual American left and, a much easier
target, the Intelligentsia.
And Cohn and McCarthy and the forces that they represented- the primordial forces of
Capitalism- put the fear of poverty into them. It is impossible to understand the USA today,
and its role in the world, without understanding that its intellectuals were intimidated into
exile, silence, compromise, retreat and impotence as the new Imperialism set about its
ruthless work. Look at the late forties, from Taft Hartley (and the crushing of the Unions)to
such forgotten but signatory interventions as that in Guyana against Cheddi Jagan (repeated
by JFK in 1960) Guatemala and Iran. Not to mention the imposition of semi colonial
hegemony over Europe.
All these things have lasted. And Cohn's role in producing them was crucial-it was the
bipartisanship of bigotry and brutality and Tammany gangsterism. (An old alliance that,
between Jim Crow and the Machines.)
Trump is one of Cohn's kids but much more representative of them is Hillary Clinton,
daughter of a John Bircher, a Goldwater girl, a 'feminist'-of the thoroughly sickening
variety- and imbued with a hatred of Russia.
The Soviet Union won the war, the United States won the peace... That didn't happen by
accident.
The Outlaw US Empire immediately initiated the Cold War as soon as V-E day happened by
collecting SS and Gestapo for redeployment into Eastern Europe to commit acts of terrorism, a
preplanned exercise. It later held the farcical trials at Nuremburg. Walter's provided lots
of nice insight into the aims of the Manhattan Project and real reason for murdering hundreds
of thousands of innocent Japanese. The Great Evil that's today's USA got its start during
WW2, but its philosophical underpinnings are as old as the Republic.
If History is going to be remembered correctly, then ALL of that History must be
revealed--true and raw, just as Putin and the Russians propose to do with their historical
memory project.
another benefit for the u.s., all those german scientists via operation paperclip. helped
keep the mic running after it would normally ramp down postwar.
pretzelattack , Jan 22 2020 18:01 utc |
115karlof1 , Jan 22 2020 19:02 utc |
116
bevin @103--
Yes, Standing Ovation!! So much of that's now swept under the rug. Henry Wallace was all
too correct about US Fascism in his 1944 essay. During WW2, Charles Beard wrote a book that
was initially serialized in Life magazine beginning on 17 Jan 1944, The Republic:
Conversations on Fundamentals , which was read by and sold more copies than any of his
works--ever--and was the last major book he produced. Yet, when you look at the short
bibliography at Wikipedia or the one provided by its link to the American History
Association, it is omitted--WHY? I used it as a teaching tool for both history and polisci
because of its brilliant construction--the way in which Beard composed it as a series of
conversations. This link provides a hint , or
you can join the
archive and "borrow" it as there's no open downloading of this book available--WHY? Lots
of his other works are feely available. It's not hard to find used first editions for under
$4, which attests to the number published. But it certainly seems like we're not supposed to
know of this work as its airbrushing from his AHA bibliography suggests.
Maybe what Beard wrote about was too contrary to The Plan. Aha!! Beard wrote that it was
his rebuttal to Henry Luce--the owner/publisher of Life and Time magazines--and
his idea of an American Century meaning American Empire a la Rome/Britain--Pax Americana. The
mystery gets deeper upon reading the introduction at the first link above. I wish I could
copy/paste, but I'm barred from doing that, so you'll need to read it yourself. One can
envision Bradbury's Firemen rushing out to eliminate just such a book with its heretical
ideas about how the US federal government's supposed to operate and for whom.
But back to bevin and his recounting of a critical historical chapter that's also being
airbrushed. Some of us barflies are akin to Bradbury's "Train People" from Fahrenheit
451 , but how confident are we that the stories we have to tell are being heard AND
remembered so they don't vanish with us?
This is more for Bubbles @71, but applies to all.
This is from 2017 upon the release of UN Holocaust files held back on request by the
Outlaw US Empire and its vassal Britain as reported in an excellent article by Finnian
Cunningham:
"In other words, the Cold War which the US and Britain embarked on after 1945 was but a
continuation of hostile policy towards Moscow that was already underway well before the
Second World War erupted in 1939 in the form of a build up of Nazi Germany. For various
reasons, it became expedient for the Western powers to liquidate the Nazi war machine, along
with the Soviet Union. But as can be seen, the Western assets residing in the Nazi machine
were recycled into American and British Cold War posture against the Soviet Union. It is a
truly damning legacy that American and British military intelligence agencies were
consolidated and financed by Nazi crimes.
"The recent release of UN Holocaust files – in spite of American and British
prevarication over many years – add more evidence to the historical analysis that these
Western powers were deeply complicit in the monumental crimes of the Nazi Third Reich. They
knew about these crimes because they had helped facilitate them. And the complicity stemmed
from Western hostility towards Russia as a perceived geopolitical rival.
" This is not a mere historical academic exercise . Western complicity with Nazi
Germany also finds a corollary in the present-day ongoing hostility from Washington, Britain
and their NATO allies towards Moscow. The relentless build up of NATO offensive forces around
Russia's borders, the endless Russophobia in Western propagandistic news media, the economic
blockade in the form of sanctions based on tenuous claims, are all deeply rooted in history.
[My Emphasis]
"The West's Cold War towards Moscow preceded the Second World War, continued after the defeat
of Nazi Germany and persists to this day regardless of the fact that the Soviet Union no
longer exists. Why? Because Russia is a perceived rival to Anglo-American capitalist
hegemony, as is China or any other emerging power that undermines that desired unipolar
hegemony.
"American-British collusion with Nazi Germany finds its modern-day manifestation in NATO
collusion with the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine and jihadist terror groups dispatched in proxy
wars against Russian interests in Syria and elsewhere. The players may change over time, but
the root pathology is American-British capitalism and its hegemonic addiction.
"The never-ending Cold War will only end when Anglo-American capitalism is finally
defeated and replaced by a genuinely more democratic system."
The picture becomes clearer as we begin to realize that today's monsters--Pompeo, Pence,
Bolton, Abrams, Rove, and others--are the same as yesterday's monsters, although they've
moved from one side of the Atlantic to the other. What's currently happening ought to make
informed people think again about who the Arc of Resistance is actually defending and what
message Trump's murder of Soleimani is meant to convey--it's TINA once again: Neoliberal
Fascism. It should also be noted that the release occurred soon after Trump became POTUS,
giving a strong secondary motive for Russiagate and the Skripals shortly afterward.
Thanks for your reply. Are you aware of Operation Unthinkable , Operation
Sunrise from which the former sprang, and Allen Dulles's activities in Italy and Germany
during 1945?
AntiSpin @121--
Good to hear from you! I had a hard time digging up a copy of Life to read Luce's
screed on the American Century which I photocopied. Today, a quick search now finds it
online here (PDF), while here's a
dissection that sets up the conflicting outlooks of Beard and Luce that IMO's useful.
Indeed, Luce's views are quite the read given what the USA's become--do note the political
party that feared and predicted such an outcome. It's a great misfortune that a discussion of
the two doesn't even enter into graduate seminars about WW2; at least my undergrads got some
exposure and learned of the two essay's existence.
@ Russ | Jan 22 2020 8:33 utc | 86 (about the gas cylinder(s).
Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some calculus
can tell you, give you, a range of terminal velocities in air at that elevation. You have to
assume that the thing fell in the "best" attitude, and also the "worst" attitude - a matter
of aerodynamic drag. Obviously there's a terminal velocity - somewhere about 200 feet per
second. There's a minimum altitude above which it doesn't fall any faster because of
drag...and it has a krappy drag coefficient. You have to work with the numbers to get a fine
understanding...but it's the sort of question you'd see in a university engineering exam.
The mass is assumed to be something like 100 pounds. Do the math.
Then there's the question of concrete quality...it's highly heterogeneous..but you can
assume it's top quality, and estimate the rebar density and thickness from the pretty
pictures.
And you can assume zero projectile deformation (not even straps torn off!!?) and the
hole's not big enough.
somebody @96: "But Western main stream media does not report on it."
Of course not. The western corporate mass media does not have among their workforce
"Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some
calculus..." that Walter @95 points out as being a prerequisite to see how bogus is the
narrative they are tasked with amplifying. The workforce chose to major in Journalism
specifically because they had difficulties with basic arithmetic, with such heartless and
unyielding topics as addition and subtraction being forever beyond them in the absence of a
calculator.
Many think I exaggerate or am joking, but this is literal truth. These individuals of
which the corporate mass media are composed get their conception of physics from crappy syfy
movies in which spaceship blasters make "Pew-pew!!" noises in the vacuum of space. If
it is necessary for the plot that a flimsy canister is able to punch through steel rebar
reinforced concrete with barely a scratch, then they are fine with it. If these new age
journalists' "contact" in Langley (what we know to be their "handler" or
"operator" ) says it is believable, they won't pause for an instant to question.
After all, earnest delusion and ignorance serves the Mockingbird mass media's
handlers in the CIA far better than does cynical and deliberate deception, though that last
does have a sizable role to play as well. Deliberate deception is difficult and requires some
skill, while any American can do stupidity with the greatest of ease.
"... with little more than a month before the extradition hearing for imprisoned ..."
"... publisher Julian Assange begins. This is the sixth in a series that is looking back on the major works of the publication that has altered the world since its founding in 2006. The series is an effort to counter mainstream media coverage, which is ignoring ..."
"... work, and is instead focusing on Julian Assange's personality. It is ..."
"... uncovering of governments' crimes and corruption that set the U.S. after Assange, ultimately leading to his arrest on April 11 last year and indictment under the U.S. Espionage Act. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... Der Spiegel ..."
"... to the Winter Fund Drive. ..."
"... World Socialist Website ..."
"... Foreign Policy ..."
"... The Guardian ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Green Left ..."
"... The Green Left Weekly ..."
"... The Guardian ..."
"... CORRECTION: CableDrum is an independent Twitter feed and is not associated with ..."
WikiLeaks ' publication of "Cablegate" in late 2010 dwarfed previous releases in both
size and impact and helped cause what one news outlet called a political meltdown for United
States foreign policy.
Today we resume our series The Revelations of WikiLeaks with little more than a
month before the extradition hearing for imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange
begins. This is the sixth in a series that is looking back on the major works of the
publication that has altered the world since its founding in 2006. The series is an effort to
counter mainstream media coverage, which is ignoring WikiLeaks' work, and is instead
focusing on Julian Assange's personality. It is WikiLeaks' uncovering of governments'
crimes and corruption that set the U.S. after Assange, ultimately leading to his arrest on
April 11 last year and indictment under the U.S. Espionage Act.
O f all WikiLeaks' releases, probably the most globally significant have been the
more than a quarter of a million U.S. State Department diplomatic cables leaked in 2010, the
publication of which helped spark a revolt in Tunisia that spread into the so-called Arab
Spring, revealed Saudi intentions towards Iran and exposed spying on the UN secretary general
and other diplomats.
The releases were surrounded by a significant controversy (to be covered in a separate
installment of this series) alleging that WikiLeaks purposely endangered U.S.
informants by deliberately revealing their names. That allegation formed a major part of the
U.S. indictment on May 23 of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange under the Espionage
Act, though revealing informants' names is not a crime, nor is there evidence that any of them
were ever harmed.
WikiLeaks ' publication of "Cablegate," beginning on Nov. 28, 2010, dwarfed
previous WikiLeaks releases, in both size and impact. The publication amounted to 251,287 leaked
American diplomatic cables that, at the time of publication, Der Spiegel described
as"no less than a political meltdown for United States foreign policy."
Cablegate revealed a previously unknown history of diplomatic relations between the United
States and the rest of the world, and in doing so, exposed U.S. views of both allies and
adversaries. As a result of such revelations, Cablegate's release was widely condemned by the
U.S. political class and especially by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Twitter handle Cable Drum, called it,
" The largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public
domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into U.S.
Government foreign activities. The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February
2010, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the
world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified
Secret."
Among the historic documents that
were grouped with Cablegate in WikiLeaks ' Public Library of U.S. Diplomacy are 1.7
million that involve Henry Kissinger, national security adviser and secretary of state under
President Richard Nixon; and 1.4 million related to the Jimmy Carter administration.
Der
Spiegel reported that the majority were "composed by ambassadors, consuls or their
staff. Most contain assessments of the political situation in the individual countries,
interview protocols and background information about personnel decisions and events. In many
cases, they also provide political and personal profiles of individual politicians and
leaders."
Cablegate rounded out WikiLeaks' output in 2010, which had seen the explosive
publication of previous leaks also from Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning including "
Collateral Murder ," the "
Afghan War Diaries " and "
Iraq War Logs ," the subject of earlier installments in this series. As in the case of the
two prior releases, WikiLeaks published Cablegate in partnerships with establishment
media outlets.
The impact of "Cablegate" is impossible to fully encapsulate, and should be the subject of
historical study for decades to come. In September 2015 Verso published " The WikiLeaks Files: The World
According to U.S. Empire ," with a foreword by Assange. It is a compendium of chapters
written by various regional experts and historians giving a broader and more in-depth
geopolitical analysis of U.S. foreign policy as revealed by the cables.
"The internal communications of the US Department of State are the logistical by-product of
its activities: their publication is the vivisection of a living empire, showing what substance
flowed from which state organ and when. Only by approaching this corpus holistically –
over and above the documentation of each individual abuse, each localized atrocity – does
the true human cost of empire heave into view," Assange wrote in the foreword.
' WikiLeaks Revolt' in Tunisia
The release of "Cablegate" provided the spark that many argue
heralded the Arab Spring, earning the late-November publication the moniker of the " WikiLeaks Winter
."
Eventually, many would also
creditWikiLeaks' publication of the diplomatic cables with initiating a
chain-reaction that spread from the Middle East ( specifically
from Egypt) to the global Occupy Wall Street movement by late 2011.
The first of the Arab uprisings was Tunisia's 28-day so-called Jasmine Revolution,
stretching from Dec. 17, 2010, to Jan. 14, 2011, described as the "first WikiLeaks
revolution."
Cables published by WikiLeaks revealed the extent of the Tunisian ruling family's
corruption, and were widely accessible in Tunisia thanks to the advent of social media
platforms like Twitter. Then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had been in power for over two
decades at the time of the cables' publication.
"President Ben Ali's extended family is often cited as the nexus of Tunisian corruption.
Often referred to as a quasi-mafia, an oblique mention of 'the Family' is enough to indicate
which family you mean. Seemingly half of the Tunisian business community can claim a Ben Ali
connection through marriage, and many of these relations are reported to have made the most of
their lineage."
A June 2008 cable said: "Whether it's cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your
yacht, President [Zine el Abidine] Ben Ali's family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets
what it wants."
Symbolic middle finger gesture representing the Tunisian Revolution and its influences in
the Arab world. From left to right, fingers are painted as flags of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia,
Sudan and Algeria. (Khalid from Doha, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The cables revealed that Ben Ali's extended family controlled nearly the entire Tunisian
economy, from banking to media to property development, while 30 percent of Tunisians were
unemployed. They showed that state-owned property was expropriated to be passed on to private
ownership by family members.
"Lax oversight makes the banking sector an excellent target of opportunity, with multiple
stories of 'First Family' schemes," one cable read. ""With real estate development booming and
land prices on the rise, owning property or land in the right location can either be a windfall
or a one-way ticket to expropriation," said another.
The revolt was facilitated once the U.S. abandoned Ali. Counterpunch reported that:
"The U.S. campaign of unwavering public support for President Ali led to a widespread belief
among the Tunisian people that it would be very difficult to dislodge the autocratic regime
from power. This view was shattered when leaked cables exposed the U.S. government's private
assessment: that the U.S. would not support the regime in the event of a popular uprising."
The internet and large social media platforms played a crucial role in the spread of public
awareness of the cables and their content amongst the Tunisian public. "Thousands of home-made
videos of police repression and popular resistance have been posted on the web. The Tunisian
people have used Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites to organize and direct the
mobilizations against the regime," the World Socialist Website
wrote.
"WikiLeaks acted as a catalyst: both a trigger and a tool for political outcry. Which is
probably the best compliment one could give the whistle-blower site." The magazine added:
"The people of Tunisia shouldn't have had to wait for Wikileaks to learn that the U.S. saw
their country just as they did. It's time that the gulf between what American diplomats know
and what they say got smaller."
The
Guardian published an account in January 2011 by a young Tunisian, Sami Ben Hassine,
who wrote: "The internet is blocked, and censored pages are referred to as pages "not found"
– as if they had never existed. And then, WikiLeaks reveals what everyone was whispering.
And then, a young man [Mohamed Bouazizi] immolates himself. And then, 20 Tunisians are killed
in one day. And for the first time, we see the opportunity to rebel, to take revenge on the
'royal' family who has taken everything, to overturn the established order that has accompanied
our youth."
Protester in Tunis, Jan. 14, 2011, holding sign. Translation from French: "Ben Ali out."
(Skotch 79, CC0, Wikimedia Commons)
On the first day of Chelsea Manning's pretrial in December 2011, Daniel Ellsberg told Democracy Now:
"The combination of the WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning exposures in Tunis and the
exemplification of that by Mohamed Bouazizi led to the protests, the nonviolent protests,
that drove Ben Ali out of power, our ally there who we supported up 'til that moment, and in
turn sparked the uprising in Egypt, in Tahrir Square occupation, which immediately stimulated
the Occupy Wall Street and the other occupations in the Middle East and elsewhere. I hope
[Manning and Assange] will have the effect in liberating us from the lawlessness that we have
seen and the corruption -- the corruption -- that we have seen in this country in the last 10
years and more, which has been no less than that of Tunis and Egypt."
Clinton Told US Diplomats to Spy at UN
The cables' revelation that the U.S. State Department under then-Secretary-of-State Clinton
had demanded officials act as spies on officials at the United Nations -- including the
Secretary General -- was particularly embarrassing for the United States.
El Pais summarized the
bombshell: "The State Department sent officials of 38 embassies and diplomatic missions a
detailed account of the personal and other information they must obtain about the United
Nations, including its secretary general, and especially about officials and representatives
linked to Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran and North Korea.
El
Pais continued: "Several dispatches, signed 'Clinton' and probably made by the office
of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, contain precise instructions about the myriad of
inquiries to be developed in conflict zones, in the world of deserters and asylum seekers, in
the engine room of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or about the United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Russia and China to know their plans regarding the nuclear threat in Tehran."
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton & UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in 2012.
(Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Flickr)
CNN
described the information diplomats were ordered to gather: "In the July 2009 document, Clinton
directs her envoys at the United Nations and embassies around the world to collect information
ranging from basic biographical data on foreign diplomats to their frequent flyer and credit
card numbers and even 'biometric information on ranking North Korean diplomats.' Typical
biometric information can include fingerprints, signatures and iris recognition data."
Der Spiegel reported that
Clinton justified the espionage orders by emphasizing that "a large share of the information
that the US intelligence agencies works with comes from the reports put together by State
Department staff around the world."
Der Spiegel added: "The US State Department also wanted to obtain information on
the plans and intentions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his secretariat relating to
issues like Iran, according to the detailed wish list in the directive. The instructions were
sent to 30 US embassies around the world, including the one in Berlin."
Philip J. Crowley as assistant secretary of state for public affairs in 2010. (State
Department)
The State Department responded to the revelations, with then- State-Department-spokesman
P.J. Crowley reportedly disputing that American
diplomats had assumed a new role overseas.
"Our diplomats are just that, diplomats," he said. "They represent our country around the
world and engage openly and transparently with representatives of foreign governments and civil
society. Through this process, they collect information that shapes our policies and actions.
This is what diplomats, from our country and other countries, have done for hundreds of
years."
In December 2010, just after the cables' publication, Assange told Time : "She should resign if it can be shown that she
was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United
Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up."
Saudis & Iran
A diplomatic cable dated April 20, 2008, made
clear Saudi Arabia's pressure on the United States to take action against its enemy Iran,
including not ruling out military action against Teheran:
"[Then Saudi ambassador to the US Abbdel] Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent
exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. 'He
told you to cut off the head of the snake,' he recalled to the Charge', adding that working
with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and
his government. 11. (S) The Foreign Minister, on the other hand, called instead for much more
severe US and international sanctions on Iran, including a travel ban and further
restrictions on bank lending. Prince Muqrin echoed these views, emphasizing that some
sanctions could be implemented without UN approval. The Foreign Minister also stated that the
use of military pressure against Iran should not be ruled out."
Dyncorp & the 'Dancing Boys' of Afghanistan
The cables indicate that Afghan authorities asked the United States government to quash U.S. reporting on a scandal stemming from the
actions of Dyncorp employees in Afghanistan in 2009.
Employees of Dyncorp, a paramilitary group with an infamous track-record of alleged involvement in sex trafficking
and other human rights abuses in multiple countries, were revealed by Cablegate to have been
involved with illegal drug use and hiring the services of a "bacha bazi," or underage dancing
boy.
A 2009 cable published by WikiLeaks described an event where Dyncorp had purchased
the service of a "bacha bazi." The writer of the cable does not specify what happened during
the event, describing it only as "purchasing a service from a child," and he tries to convince
a journalist not to cover the story in order to not "risk lives."
Although Dyncorp was no stranger to controversy by the time of the cables' publication, the
revelation of the mercenary force's continued involvement in bacha bazi provoked further
questions as to why the company continued to receive tax-payer funded contracts from the United
States.
Sexual abuse allegations were not the only issue haunting Dyncorp. The State Department
admitted in 2017 that it "could not account for" more than $1 billion paid to the company, as
reported by Foreign Policy .
The New York Times later
reported that U.S. soldiers had been told to turn a blind eye to the abuse of minors by those
in positions of power: "Soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of
weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as
the commanders of villages -- and doing little when they began abusing children."
Australia Lied About Troop Withdrawal
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, left, with U.S. President Barack Obama, in the Oval
Office, Nov. 30, 2009, to discuss a range of issues including Afghanistan and climate change.
(White House/Pete Souza)
The Green
Left related that the cables exposed Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's double
talk about withdrawing troops. "Despite government spin about withdrawing all 'combat forces,'
the cables said some of these forces could be deployed in combat roles. One cable said,
"[d]espite the withdrawal of combat forces, Rudd agreed to allow Australian forces embedded or
seconded to units of other countries including the U.S. to deploy to Iraq in combat and combat
support roles with those units."
US Meddling in Latin America
Cables revealed that U.S. ambassadors to Ecuador had opposed the presidential candidacy of
Raphael Correa despite their pretense of neutrality, as observed by The Green Left Weekly .
Additional cables revealed the Vatican attempted to increase its
influence in Latin America with the aid of the U.S. Further cables illustrated the history of Pope Francis while he was a cardinal
in Argentina, with the U.S. appearing to have a positive outlook on the future
pontiff.
Illegal Dealings Between US & Sweden
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wrote in his affidavit :
"Through the diplomatic cables I also learned of secret, informal arrangements between
Sweden and the United States. The cables revealed that Swedish intelligence services have a
pattern of lawless conduct where US interests are concerned. The US diplomatic cables
revealed that the Swedish Justice Department had deliberately hidden particular intelligence
information exchanges with the United States from the Parliament of Sweden because the
exchanges were likely unlawful."
Military Reaction
On Nov. 30, 2010, the State Department declared it would remove the diplomatic cables from
its secure network in order to prevent additional leaks. Antiwar.com added: "The cables had previously been
accessible through SIPRNet, an ostensibly secure network which is accessible by millions of
officials and soldiers. It is presumably through this network that the cables were obtained and
leaked to WikiLeaks ."
The
Guardian described SIPRNet as a "worldwide US military internet system, kept separate
from the ordinary civilian internet and run by the Defence Department in Washington."
Political Fury
On Nov. 29, 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of the "Cablegate" release:
"This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy; it is an attack on the
international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations
that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity."
The next day, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called for Chelsea Manning's execution,
according to Politico .
Some political figures did express support for Assange, including U.K. Labor leader Jeremy
Corbyn, who wrote via Twitter days after
Cablegate was published: "USA and others don't like any scrutiny via wikileaks and they are
leaning on everybody to pillory Assange. What happened to free speech?"
Other notable revelations from the diplomatic cables included multiple instances of U.S.
meddling in Latin America, the demand by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that
diplomatic staff act as spies , the
documentation of misconduct by U.S. paramilitary forces, the fallout of the 2008 financial
crisis in Iceland, the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany and other European
countries, that the Vatican attempted to increase its
influence in Latin America with the aid of the U.S. , that U.S. diplomats had essentially spied on German Chancellor Angele
Merkel, and much more.
Der Spiegel reported on
Hillary Clinton's demand that U.S. diplomats act as spies:
"As justification for the espionage orders, Clinton emphasized that a large share of the
information that the U.S. intelligence agencies works with comes from the reports put together
by State Department staff around the world. The information to be collected included personal
credit card information, frequent flyer customer numbers, as well as e-mail and telephone
accounts. In many cases the State Department also requested 'biometric information,'
'passwords' and 'personal encryption keys.' "
Der Spiegel added: "The U.S. State Department also wanted to obtain information on
the plans and intentions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his secretariat relating to
issues like Iran, according to the detailed wish list in the directive. The instructions were
sent to 30 U.S. embassies around the world, including the one in Berlin."
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter and co-host of CN Live.
CORRECTION: CableDrum is an independent Twitter feed and is not associated with
WikiLeaks as was incorrectly reported here.
jmg , January 15, 2020 at 09:53
A truly great series, thank you.
The Revelations of WikiLeaks -- Consortium News Series
1. The Video that Put Assange in US Crosshairs -- April 23, 2019
2. The Leak That 'Exposed the True Afghan War' -- May 9, 2019
3. The Most Extensive Classified Leak in History -- May 16, 2019
4. The Haunting Case of a Belgian Child Killer and How WikiLeaks Helped Crack It -- July 11,
2019
5. Busting the Myth WikiLeaks Never Published Damaging Material on Russia -- September 23,
2019
6. US Diplomatic Cables Spark 'Arab Spring,' Expose Spying at UN & Elsewhere -- January
14, 2020
For an updated list with links to the articles, a Google search is:
"The Revelations of WikiLeaks" site:consortiumnews.com For an updated list with links to
the articles, a Google search is:
"The Revelations of WikiLeaks" site:consortiumnews.com
– – –
Consortium News wrote:
> Today we resume our series The Revelations of WikiLeaks with little more than a month
before the extradition hearing for imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange begins.
Yes and, shockingly, Julian has been allowed only 2 hours with his lawyers in the last
month, crucial to prepare the extradition hearings. See:
Summary from Assange hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court this morning -- Tareq Haddad
-- Thread Reader -- Jan 13th 2020
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its
ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for
all the good it did.
A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a
post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as
a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do.
Let's turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are
running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered
a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad's international airport on Thursday.
Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:
"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star
with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You
know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC
today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv
It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald
Trump.
The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing"
-- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property,
and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the
nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international
terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake
news "alternative fact."
Here's another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for
president.
Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq
become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government.
You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ
Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean
thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq
and Iran were crossing the border -- later drawn up by invading Brits and French -- in
pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can't expect an arrogant
sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram,
and events dating back to 680 AD.
Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra,
Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis).
Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions
(including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural
sites, which Trump said he will bomb.
Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52
hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran's revolution against the
US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists.
Pompeo said Trump won't destroy Iran's cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated
Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it
did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian
infrastructure -- hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of
worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?
POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully
S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?
Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet
in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:
Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment
– treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump
asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then
assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD
Trump should be impeached -- tried and imprisoned -- not in response to some dreamed-up and
ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father's
position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible
for killing women and children.
As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq,
USA Today reports:
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal
of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required "for the sake of our national
sovereignty." About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.
The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation
https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc
No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen
without a fight. However, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000
brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago
by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant.
Never mind Schumer's pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York
didn't go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary
Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans.
I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another
endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.
Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their
platforms being used to argue against Trump's latest Zionist-directed insanity.
It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this
"No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock
their account.
This is complete and utter bullshit, but I'm sure the American people will gobble it down
without question. Trump's advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of
promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder.
Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out.
"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and
other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using
sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "
Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates
General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now
imagine the response by the "exceptional nation."
We can't leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe
Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for
mass murder.
Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission
Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9
Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda -- in part responsible for the death of well
over a million Iraqis -- The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy.
In Opinion
The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like
Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep
America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg
Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading
neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America -- or
rather the United States (the government) -- is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war.
This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war
waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats.
Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war
against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in
America, and the chattering pro-war class of "journalists," and "foreign policy experts" (most
former Pentagon employees).
Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander
now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue
checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to
the political wilderness.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this
article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
As'ad AbuKhalil analyzes the Trump administration's decision
to escalate hostilities with Iran and its regional allies.
By As`ad AbuKhalil
January 21, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - S omething big
and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran's
top commanders, Qasim Suleimani.
The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian
"resistance-axis" in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence
presence in the Middle East. Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented
Israel in the past from killing Suleimani. But with the top commander's death, the Trump
administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East
has been removed.
The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hizbullah and Iran did not retaliate against previous
assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad
Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in
Syria.
The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to
U.S. interests. Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel
and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.
For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and
officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders
or commanders of Iran. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided
directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would
unleash a series of tit-for-tat.
But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for
operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.
Different Level of Escalation
The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation.
In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd
forces in Iraq. Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS.
(Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted
a finger in the fight against ISIS.)
On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump. Here is a man who pledged
to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil -- turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear
the primary responsibility. And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee
intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S.
forces.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war
empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus. There is not much a president -- even a
popular president like Barack Obama in his second term -- can do to change the course of
empire. It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to
retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from
the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress
and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry. The pressures to preserve
the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future.
But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors -- until this strike.
Trump's Obama Obsession
Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama. He decided to
violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its
adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher
than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint.
Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his
name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the
second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment
that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the
U.S.
Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani. On the one
hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only
invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.
On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or
diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside
Iran. Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have
been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside
Iran.
Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made
life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and
weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to
exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not
real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).
Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this
would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.
Iran Sending Messages
In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through
attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it
take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future
conflict would not spare their territories.
That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which
suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and
secretively) with the Iranian government. Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi regimes -- which
constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals -- are also eager to distance
themselves from U.S. military action against
Iran . And Kuwait quickly
denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while
Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death
of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S.
attack).
The Iranian response was very measured and very specific. It was purposefully intended to
avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile
capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.
Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically
implied that it would be left to Iran's allies to engineer military responses. He also
declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to
stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/6yyC897UliI
Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the
assassination. The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah
although Nasrallah -- due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his
party in the July 2006 war -- may have attained a higher status.
It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking
Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and
self-restraint. But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East
war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S.
is yet to complete.
As'ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California
State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the "Historical Dictionary of Lebanon"
(1998), "Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War on Terrorism (2002), and "The Battle for
Saudi Arabia" (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke with his Iranian
counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif over the phone on Friday to discuss the killing of Iran's
military chief Qassem Soleimani, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.
"Lavrov expressed his condolences over the killing," the statement said. "The ministers
stressed that such actions by the United States grossly violate the norms of international
law."
Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman Seyyed Abbas Mousavi said that Tehran
continues to adhere to the 2015 nuclear deal, adding that the European powers' claims about
Iran violating the deal were unfounded.
Moscow warns Tehran against making 'reckless steps' to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said. He added that Russia urges
Iran to comply with its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, giving those who oppose the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) further reasons for escalation is
"counterproductive".
Is there a friend anywhere? Kim or Khan of Pakistan to ship one in.
Alternative, Moscow could declare its nuclear capabilities are extended to Iran. Just can't
leave Iran hanging on a twig.
Posted by: Likklemore | Jan 20 2020 21:41 utc | 36
Maybe it's because trump has a history with Russian mobsters and money laundering?
Or maybe it's just smart to say that? What's to be gained by setting off man child trump and
spurring yet another temper tantrum via twitter?
trump did lotsa bidnezz with the International cabal that plundered Russia after the
disillusion of the USSR. They stole from the Russian people, and laundered their ill begotten
gains with chumps, like trump.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Supporters of Donald Trump often make the point that he has not started any new wars. One
might observe that it has not been for lack of trying, as his cruise missile attacks on Syria
based on fabricated evidence and his recent assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
have been indisputably acts of war. Trump also has enhanced troop levels both in the Middle
East and in Afghanistan while also increasing the frequency and lethality of armed drone
attacks worldwide.
Congress has been somewhat unseriously toying around with a tightening of the war powers act
of 1973 to make it more difficult for a president to carry out acts of war without any
deliberation by or authorization from the legislature. But perhaps the definition of war itself
should be expanded. The one area where Trump and his team of narcissistic sociopaths have been
most active has been in the imposition of sanctions with lethal intent. Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo has been explicit in his explanations that the assertion of "extreme pressure" on
countries like Iran and Venezuela is intended to make the people suffer to such an extent that
they rise up against their governments and bring about "regime change." In Pompeo's twisted
reckoning that is how places that Washington disapproves of will again become "normal
countries."
The sanctions can kill. Those imposed by the United States are backed up by the U.S.
Treasury which is able to block cash transfers going through the dollar denominated
international banking system. Banks that do not comply with America's imposed rules can
themselves be sanctioned, meaning that U.S. sanctions are de facto globally
applicable, even if foreign banks and governments do not agree with the policies that drive
them. It is well documented how sanctions that have an impact on the importation of medicines
have killed thousands of Iranians. In Venezuela, the effect of sanctions has been starvation as
food imports have been blocked, forcing a large part of the population to flee the country just
to survive.
The latest exercise of United States economic warfare has been directed against Iraq. In the
space of one week from December 29 th to January 3 rd , the American
military, which operates out of two major bases in Iraq, killed 25 Iraqi militiamen who were
part of the Popular Mobilization Units of the Iraqi Army. The militiamen had most recently been
engaged in the successful fight against ISIS. It followed up on that attack by killing
Soleimani, Iraqi militia general Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and eight other Iraqis in a drone
strike near Baghdad International Airport. As the attacks were not approved in any way by the
Iraqi government, it was no surprise that rioting followed and the Iraqi Parliament voted to
remove all foreign troops from its soil. The decree was signed off on by Prime Minister Adel
Abdul Mahdi, based on the fact that the U.S. military was in Iraq at the invitation of the
country's government and that invitation had just been revoked by parliament.
That Iraq is to say the least unstable is attributable to the ill-advised U.S. invasion of
2003. The persistence of U.S. forces in the country is ostensibly to aid in the fight against
ISIS, but the real reason is to serve as a check on Iranian influence in Iraq, which is a
strategic demand made by Israel and not responsive to any actual American interest. Indeed, the
Iraqi government is probably closer politically to Tehran than to Washington, though the neocon
line that the country is dominated by the Iranians is far from true.
Washington's response to the legitimate Iraqi demand that its troops should be removed
consisted of threats. When Prime Minister Mahdi spoke with Pompeo on the phone and asked for
discussions and a time table to create a "withdrawal mechanism" the Secretary of State made it
clear that there would be no negotiations. A State Department written response entitled "The
U.S. Continued Partnership with Iraq" asserted that American troops are in Iraq to serve as a
"force for good" in the Middle East and that it is "our right" to maintain "appropriate force
posture" in the region.
The Iraqi position also immediately produced presidential threats and tweets about
"sanctions like they have never seen," with the implication that the U.S. was more than willing
to wreck the Iraqi economy if it did not get its way. The latest threat to emerge involves
blocking Iraq access to its New York federal reserve bank account, where international oil
sale revenue is kept, creating a devastating cash crunch in Iraq's financial system that might
indeed destroy the Iraqi economy. If taking steps to ruin a country economically is not
considered warfare by other means it is difficult to discern what might fit that
description.
After dealing with Iraq, the Trump Administration turned its guns on one of its oldest and
closest allies. Great Britain, like most of the other European signatories to the 2015 Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reluctant to withdraw from the agreement over
concern that Iran will as a result decide to develop nuclear weapons. According to the
Guardian , a United States representative from the National Security Council named
Richard Goldberg,
had visited London recently to make clear to the British government that if it does not
follow the American lead and withdraw from the JCPOA and reapply sanctions it just might be
difficult to work out a trade agreement with Washington post-Brexit. It is a significant threat
as part of the pro-Brexit vote clearly was derived from a Trump pledge to make up for some of
the anticipated decline in European trade by increasing U.K. access to the U.S. market. Now the
quid pro quo is clear: Britain, which normally does in fact follow the Washington lead
in foreign policy, will now be expected to be completely on board all of the time and
everywhere, particularly in the Middle East.
During his visit, Goldberg told the BBC: "The question for prime minister Johnson is: 'As
you are moving towards Brexit what are you going to do post-31 January as you come to
Washington to negotiate a free-trade agreement with the United States?' It's absolutely in
[your] interests and the people of Great Britain's interests to join with President Trump, with
the United States, to realign your foreign policy away from Brussels, and to join the maximum
pressure campaign to keep all of us safe."
And there is an interesting back story on Richard Goldberg, a John Bolton
protégé anti-Iran hardliner, who threatened the British on behalf of Trump. James
Carden, writing at The
Nation , posits "Consider the following scenario: A Washington, DC–based,
tax-exempt organization that bills itself as a think tank dedicated to the enhancement of a
foreign country's reputation within the United States, funded by billionaires closely aligned
with said foreign country, has one of its high-ranking operatives (often referred to as
'fellows') embedded within the White House national security staff in order to further the
oft-stated agenda of his home organization, which, as it happens, is also paying his salary
during his year-long stint there. As it happens, this is exactly what the pro-Israel think tank
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) reportedly achieved in an arrangement
brokered by former Trump national security adviser John Bolton."
The FDD senior adviser in question, who was placed on the National Security Council, was
Richard Goldberg. FDD is largely funded by Jewish American billionaires including vulture fund
capitalist Paul Singer and Home Depot partner Bernard Marcus. Its officers meet regularly with
Israeli government officials and the organization is best known for its unrelenting effort to
bring about war with Iran. It has relentlessly pushed for a recklessly militaristic U.S. policy
directed against Iran and also more generally in the Middle East. It is a reliable mouthpiece
for Israel and, inevitably, it has never been required to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938.
To be sure, Trump also has other neocons advising him on Iran,
including David Wurmser, another Bolton associate, who has the president's ear and is a
consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser has recently submitted a series of memos
to the White House advocating a policy of "regime disruption" with the Islamic Republic that
will destabilize it and eventually lead to a change of government. He may have played a key
role in giving the green light to the assassination of Soleimani.
The good news, if there is any, is that Goldberg
resigned on January 3rd, allegedly because the war against Iran was not developing fast
enough to suit him and FDD, but he is symptomatic of the many neoconservative hawks who have
infiltrated the Trump Administration at secondary and tertiary levels, where much of the
development and implementation of policy actually takes place. It also explains that when it
comes to Iran and the irrational continuation of a significant U.S. military presence in the
Middle East, it is Israel and its Lobby that are steering the ship of state.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
2] "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed"or "improved",simply because of
their innate criminal nature." onebornfree http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
Therefor, if you have [always criminal] governments in the first place, then, as night
follows day, you must have [always criminal] government-made wars .
US President Donald Trump chose as the deputy chairwoman [also appointed by Trump, the
current chairman is Steve Feinberg] of the intelligence advisory board a Jewish national
security expert who is well known in the pro-Israel national security community.
Ravich, a former deputy national security adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, is a
senior adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential hawkish
pro-Israel think tank. She is also a senior adviser to the Chertoff Group, founded by Michael
Chertoff, a homeland security secretary in the George W. Bush administration, and has worked
with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
She has also worked with the pro-Israel community helping to raise money for Israel
Bonds.
It is evident that Trump will win re-election and go to war with Iran afterwards. All this
Impeachment mania is simply theatre created by Jews from both sides of the political spectrum
in order to prepare Trump for the Zionist vs. Iran war.
The Greater Israel Project has always been the main objective of American foreign policy.
Now, Israel hacked the 2016 election and selected Trump as he attains the required
personality, theatre and following in order to deepen the control towards the masses.
@Reality
Check Trump destroyed the Republican contenders in the 2016 Primaries, easily. At the
time, there was minimal Zionist influence over the Trump campaign – the Jewish factor
was heavily focused on the other Republican rivals. Trump won the Primaries in a generic and
motivational fashion. Afterwards, the Zionists took over Trump and related entities. The real
MAGA Trump factor ended once the Primaries were won – enter the Zionists.
Israel rigged the election by fixing the actual voting numbers.
Robert Mercer and Zuckerberg rigged the election by compromising the masses on Facebook.
For the government of one country to designate another country's armed forces as a "terrorist
organization" is essentially a declaration of war. When in April of 2019 Netanyahu claimed
credit for Trump's designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, he created the
pseudo-law framework which became part of the justification for the Israeli-US war crime of 2
Jan. 2020.
Now the pressure is being placed squarely on the NATO countries, but especially Canada, to
follow the Netanyahu-Trump lead by designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The
Canadian branch of the ADL has even gone as far as giving an ultimatum to Justin Trudeau, an
ultimatum to make the designation within a month or else. Is the agenda to get NATO ensnared
in a US war against Iran to serve Israel?
Ever since the misrepresentation of the events of 9/11 we have been engulfed in a massive
propaganda campaign aimed at giving the appearance of legitimacy to pseudo-laws founded in
major war crimes extending from Sept. of 2001 until today. The continuing reign of the
ongoing lies and crimes of 9/11 has brought us to this point where the Axis of Deception,
whose mascot of human degradation is Jeffrey Epstein, stands against the Axis of Resistance.
In recent days a guiding spirit of the Axis of Resistance has become the martyred holy
warrior, Qassem Soleimani.
Sanctions can kill and cause great human suffering. Sanctions are presented as a humane
alternative to war, cheaper and means to avoid military action with uncertain consequences.
But history warns that sanctions aimed at bringing about capitulation or regime change lead
to full-scale conflict. If they are too effective or ineffective one side must escalate. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Right TG, traditionally, as you said up there first, and legally too, under the supreme law
of the land. Economic sanctions are subject to the same UNSC supervision as forcible
coercion.
UN Charter Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or
partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio,
and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
US "sanctions" require UNSC authorization. Unilateral sanctions are nothing but illegal
coercive intervention, as the non-intervention principle is customary international law,
which is US federal common law.
The G-192, that is, the entire world, has affirmed this law. That's why the US is trying
to defund UNCTAD as redundant with the WTO (UNCTAD is the G-192's primary forum.) In any
case, now that the SCO is in a position to enforce this law at gunpoint with its
overwhelmingly superior missile technology, the US is going to get stomped and tased until it
complies and stops resisting.
Sanctions are the modern day equivalent of laying a siege on the enemy's castle. Such tactic
has been an integral part of warfare ever since the first castles were built by man.
This 21st century crusade against the muslim world is fast approaching its final climax.
Everything is going as planned by the ruler-wannabes and the whole of middle earth seems
destined to be theirs for once and for all.
We are all contemporary witnesses to the war campaign of the MILLENNIUM that was
prescribed by the bible and the tora and few recognize the historic significance.
Will we get to see which of the New Testament and the Tora prevails, not that we want to,
but because we have no choice but to see? Or will there be a rarest of rare black swan event
that will produce an unanticipated course of history?
The war on Iran is in the formative stage with sanctions and the murder of Soleimani who was
helping defeat the AL CIADA aka ISIS terrorists who were created and funded and armed by the
US and Israel and Britain and NATO and for that reason he was murdered...
Terrific article, but I would not use the word "infiltrate" when speaking of theneocons in
the Trump administration. They are there by open invitation by the biggest neo-con of them
all – Trump.
If you review newspaper articles concerning Iran from 2003 onward, you see very clearly the
slow escalation to war and that that war with Iran is inevitable no matter who is in office.
In my opinion, that is why Trump is in office. Maybe they thought there would be too much lag
time with theother Republican or Democrat candidates when he was running in 2016, but if he
gets re-elected, we will see war with Iran. That is thepurpose of the sanctions. To provoke
not only thepeople to war against the gov't, but to provoke the government to war. We did it
to the Japanese, we did it to Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time, and we are doing it now.
It is pretty obvious that they wish to keep the mid east in a state of complete and utter
chaos,. That is what Israel wants, and that is exactly what they are going to get. Israel has
been trying to help themselves to the land of other countries for many years. You cannot do
that with a vialbe and unified country. You have to break it all up first – turn it
tribal.
But when it is all over, and the Shia Muslims who hate us now, hate us more after their
countries have been all bombedto smithereens, and when China and Russia, who are biding their
time, are strong enough, we will eventually get a taste our just desserts.
I hope that if any Iranian or English people are reading this, that they know that none of
this was the idea of the average American. That we have actually lost our nation and have no
control over it anymore. And that the only Americans left supporting this foreign "policy"
are Evangelical holy rollers from the South and Midwest, dinosaur Baby Boomers who still
think it is civil defense, dupes and suckers who buy into the "support the troops" cult of
military, and the slowly decreasing number of misinformed and brainwashed Americans who get
their "news" from the (((corporate media))).
@anastasia
Agree that "It is pretty obvious that they wish to keep the mid east in a state of complete
and utter chaos ." In "Greater Israel and the Balkanization of the Middle East : Oded Yinon's
Strategy for
Israel " globalresearch.ca ,
Adeyinke Makinde argues that balkanization has always formed a part of the rationalization of
political Zionism stating "After the establishment of Israel in 1948 , a national policy of
weakening Arab and Muslim states , balkanising them, or keeping them under a neo-colonial
state of affairs has persisted . The prevailing logic was and always has been that any stable
, nationalist government in the Arab world poses an existential threat to Israel ."
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV
and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.
Whoever replaces outgoing BBC Director General Tony Hall, be sure that establishment
interests will be in safe hands. But multiple scandals the broadcaster has been involved in
damaged it quite possibly beyond repair.
... ... ...
Corbyn had to be destroyed at almost ANY cost. Their news and current affairs output (and
appointments) over the Corbyn era of 2015-2019 was as crude, and crudely effective, as any
screaming, screeching Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Perhaps they were worried the ghost of Sir
Alasdair Milne would return to haunt them in the form of his son Seumas Milne, Corbyn's
director of communications and strategy and right-hand man. The junior Milne – also
Winchester and Oxford – is a considerably harder nut to crack than anyone the BBC had
ever had to deal with before
"... "disinformation and the cost of fake news." ..."
"... "how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information environment," ..."
"... To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote. ..."
"... "HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention [Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," ..."
If you were making a documentary on fake news and wanted to get journalists involved behind
the scenes, there are a few people you may want to avoid. One of those is CNN host Brian
Stelter. The HBO network is rightly being mocked for putting Stelter – the host of a CNN
show ironically named 'Reliable Sources' – on the team for an upcoming documentary on
fake news.
According to Stelter himself, the documentary will investigate "disinformation and the
cost of fake news." The film, for which Stelter was executive producer, will dive into
"how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information
environment," according to WarnerMedia.
HBO just announced something I've been working on for a couple of years: A documentary
titled "AFTER TRUTH: DISINFORMATION AND THE COST OF FAKE NEWS." The film will premiere on TV
and online this March. Directed by @a_rossi !
To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an
understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer
and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote.
"HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie
Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention
[Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," radio host Mark Simone added.
UN Security Council Hears OPCW Inspector Testimony About The Manipulation Of 'Chemical
Attack' Reportspretzelattack , Jan 21 2020 14:07 utc |
4
We have
long maintained that the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, on April 7 2018 was
faked by Jihadists shortly before they were evicted from that Damascus suburb.
By the end of last year leaked documents and a whistle blower from the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had proven that the OPCW managers had manipulated the report their staff had written
about the incident. The OPCW inspectors who had investigated the case on the ground in Douma
found that there was evidence that a chemical attack had happened. The murdered people seem
in videos from the alleged attack must have died of other causes. The yellow canisters found
at the locations of the alleged attack were not dropped from helicopters but clearly manually
placed.
Using the
Arria-formula , a procedure to have witnesses testify to the UN Security Council, Russia
and China invited other UN
members to listen to the testimony of OPCW inspector Ian Henderson. He denounced the
false final report the OPCW management had published. Henderson, a South African engineer,
was a team leader at the OPCW where he had worked for more than twelve years.
Posted by b at
13:34 UTC |
Comments (58) the u.s. can veto any proposed action, but at least the representatives had
to sit still and listen. they'll probably look hard for some way to kneecap him like the
first head of the opcw ("we know where your kids are") or julian assange.
The Arria meeting at UNSC was skimpily reported. RT and some other sources focused on Russian
accusations. Google hits only one western report, The Times of London. I skip here little:
Western nations accused Russia of sowing misinformation ...
Yesterday Russia convened an "Arria" meeting, in which the Security Council hears from
civilians and experts outside the United Nations. Alexander Shulgin, Russia's ambassador to
the OPCW, said that the gas cylinders had been placed on the scene by Syrian opposition
groups "for provocative purposes".
Showing the council a series of slides, he claimed that a hole in a roof did not
correspond to the shape of one of the gas cylinders and questioned how one of them had come
to rest on a bed. "Now, I weigh about 90kg," he said. "If I incautiously throw myself down on
the bed I always break something, the strut falls out, the slat falls out or something else."
Yet here, he said, was a gas cylinder, apparently filled with chlorine, that had rebounded
"at a wild angle" and came to rest "like a light swan".
Russia presented a video featuring Ian Henderson, who worked with the fact-finding team
but differed with the OPCW's conclusions in internal emails that were leaked last year. It
also presented Maxim Grigoriev, director of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy, who
claimed that his group's research on the ground showed that no chemical attack had taken
place.
The German ambassador, Christoph Heusgen, said that the Russian intelligence service
itself had conducted a cyber attack on the OPCW last year, adding that this "shows how far
Russia is prepared to go" in its efforts to discredit the organisation.
Mr Heusgen also questioned the expertise of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy,
saying that its experts "belong to the school of Russian scientists that believes Ukraine
invaded Russia".
Mr Heusgen said that, listening to the presentation, "I was thinking of Alice in
Wonderland. This belongs in literature to the genre of fantasy and absurdity. While Alice in
Wonderland is a great fiction, what we heard today is a very sad fiction."
Karen Pierce, Britain's representative at the United Nations, said that Russia had shut
down an investigative body that assigned responsibility for chemical attacks after it showed
that the Syrian Arab Republic was responsible for a sarin gas attack in Syria in 2017.
Mr Henderson's challenge to the conclusions of the report reflected "any scientific
process" in which "there are bound to be robust exchanges of views" before a conclusion was
reached. She added: "Someone in Russia is a fan of English literature, specifically they are
very fond of Lewis Carrol."
We should remember that the US, UK, and France (sort of - they missed the launch sequence)
attacked without even waiting for this fake report/excuse. And the western media applauded
widely. It is sad. https://www.georgemjames.com/blog/what-is-the-us-military-legacy-since-2003
I never thought that I would write such things. GMJ
/div> Time to sue the hell out of these liars and drag them to ICC by Syria.
Let them prove their innocence there and it will also solve visa problem when these liars will
feel the heat and stop travelling to other countries for the fear of being arrested. State
sponsored terror by those who are pretending to fight the terror!
Time to sue the hell out of these liars and drag them to ICC by Syria. Let them prove their
innocence there and it will also solve visa problem when these liars will feel the heat and
stop travelling to other countries for the fear of being arrested. State sponsored terror by
those who are pretending to fight the terror!
A War Crimes Tribunal is awaiting America, Britain, France, and their allies.
The Douma scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of the American Axis' lies
regarding not only Syria but many other nations (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) that these
war criminal "democracies" have attacked.
Waging wars of aggression based on deceptions like "Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction"
cannot go unpunished.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 21 2020 14:37 utc | 8
Just checked. It is outside of the reporting of German main stream media. Same as
wikileaks - they don't mention their leaks any longer.
According to opinion polls most Germans are against German military involvement in
Syria.
If you ask people in Germany about "disinformation, misrepresentation and absurdities"
most would connect it to Trump not Putin. The German government took the extraordinary step
to confirm that they had been blackmailed versus Iran by Trump threatening tariffs for the
car industry. There is also the case of Nord Stream II which will be built though the US
threw everything they had at it.
There is a German-Russian community and they watch Russian media. There used to be a push
by Russia to "protect" "our Russians" against immigrants in Germany but after some stern
talks this has stopped. I guess Russian support for AFD has also stopped.
It is obvious that Germany will insist on trade with Russia and China. All Putin has to do
is wait for Trump (and Boris Johnson) to cut the last Atlantic bridge.
There is a German version of RT, I just had a look, they sound pretty mainstream and
relaxed on the disinformation front. Actually most of the non-Western stuff nowadays looks
like this - Press TV, Xinhua. I guess they feel they can be a contrast to Donald Trump's post
fact era - which Bush's "truthiness" for invading Iraq has started.
A War Crimes Tribunal is awaiting America, Britain, France, and their allies
in 2011 the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found former US president George W Bush and
former British prime minister Tony Blair guilty
of crimes against humanity, so they have a head start, but yeah, you just know that these
criminal fuckers are shaking in their boots, what with the way things are trending and all.
it'll be psychologically devastating for masses of Americans, though perhaps by that time the
worst effects will have been ameliorated by all the writing on the wall.
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found Bush and Blair guilty ... and subsequently
Malaysia seems to have been forced to pay a heavy price, namely MH370 and MH17.
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found Bush and Blair guilty ... and subsequently
Malaysia seems to have been forced to pay a heavy price, namely MH370 and MH17.
Posted by: BM | Jan 21 2020 16:33 utc | 18
Yes, apparently the final straw was when the President refused to accept US aid,
rebellions ensued and a S compliant and apparently quite corrupt govt is now in place.
As described by Times of London - an extremely poor response by western representatives at
the UNSC, all ad hominem attacks and incredulity. This story has been brewing for months,
with a fair amount of established detail on the process used to arrive at the published
report. To attempt to use the OPCW's own weak retort that it was merely a "robust exchange of
views" rather than conscious manipulation, a line of argument long superseded by the
collected facts, shows the western representatives are feigning ignorance, and they do so
confident that most news "consumers" are in fact ignorant of these matters because they are
simply not reported.
"Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible
things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always
did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!"
Corruption and manipulation in western influenced and controlled institutions has become the
norm in the West. The public has been normalized to blindly accepting lies by the political
and corporate elites. The people are easily kept under control by narratives of fear and
hate.
Truth and honesty from anything the western elites touch is now rare and precious.
A quick note about the chlorine "bombs" that were seen in Douma: Those are 100#
propane tanks. ASME, DOT, and UN standards only require they have a burst pressure of up to
400psi (ASME is only 275psi). In normal operation propane only pressurizes the tanks to
around 100psi. Because of this the tank walls are usually made of 10 or 11 gauge mild
steel... about .125" thick.
For comparison SCUBA tanks operate up to 3000psi and have wall thicknesses of over .25"...
twice as thick as a 100# propane tank. They are also made from higher grade steels and not
plain old cold rolled.
Large high pressure gas cylinders are fairly rugged items, but even so I have a difficult
time imagining one punching through steel reinforced concrete and remaining largely
undamaged.
Propane gas tanks are NOT high pressure gas cylinders. They are flimsy in
comparison. It is not surprising that the OPCW team that actually visited the site of the
supposed bombing dismissed the terrorists' narrative. What is surprising is the number
of supposedly non-stupid people who believe that the tanks were dropped from helicopters,
punched through steel reinforced concrete, and came to rest in the condition seen in the
photographs. It takes habituated suspension of disbelief of a population perpetually plugged
into the boob tube to accept that nonsense.
In addition to the falsification of the report, now presented as undeniable fact to the
Security Council, b takes note of two other atrocities - first:
"...Videos from Douma at the time of the incident showed some 30 bodies of dead persons.
Most were children. It is up to day unknown who they were and who had murdered them. The OPCW
manipulation of the original reports of its inspectors' findings is a cover up for that huge
crime..."
There should be a thorough investigation of the identities of these victims. I am guessing
the atrocities were perpetrated in a school, if most of the victims were children. Was it in
this very building? Had some sort of hostage situation been taking place?
Secondly, the building totally destroyed and seen in b's coverage was one which researched
medical and agricultural concerns for Syria - a huge loss in itself, not to mention if there
were people within. I don't remember seeing news of that, would appreciate a link if anyone
has it.
Thanks b, for your coverage here; it is most important. I had mentioned an argument with
an anti-Assad person a while back. (Told him to come here and read; I hope he did.) His main
point was the lie that Assad had 'gassed his own people.' Maybe I'll encounter him again.
I further think if the UN Security Council ignores this it will take on the same shade of
black currently shrouding the USA. It's currently grey in my book.
As I see it the real problem is the UN based in the US. Not mentioned is that the OPCW
inspector's testimony had to be given by Tele conference because he could not get a visa to
attend. Remember too that the Iranian foreign minister has been refused a visa to attend the
UN. Remember that Bustani was forced to resign as the head of OPCW because of vile,naked
threats against his family.
"What is surprising is the number of supposedly non-stupid people who believe that the tanks
were dropped from helicopters, punched through steel reinforced concrete, and came to rest in
the condition seen in the photographs."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 21 2020 18:21 utc | 31
Agreed. I've never understood why the Russians haven't filmed the dropping of a few
similar cylinders from helicopters at various heights....onto flat roofs of concrete
apartment blocks.....so that everyone can see the result for comparison instead of endless
theorising. You'd have thought the OPCW inspectors would have done this....but no mention of
it.
Having watched the UNSC meeting concerning the OPCW perfidious economy with fact, the British
permanent envoy to the UN's 'performance' made it hard to not think the 'woman' would make
the perfect character to fill the part of the lead concubine for Star Wars Jabba the
Hutt, the demeanour, the ethics (doubtlessly supplied by Integrity Initiative), the
appearance.
Wondrous things are made on that small island just off the coast of Europe, and some should
be best kept there. Poor Europe, so far from heaven, so close to Britain.
Based on other online news I have seen in the past, I think it is likely that the dead
children shown in the videos had been kidnapped by the takfiris in various villages and other
communities, targeted for being Orthodox Christian or Alawite believers, over the years. If
the videos have no time stamps on them, then we have no way of knowing how long these
children have been dead; they could have been dead for years and the videos themselves of
equal vintage before the takfiris decided to make them public. The children may not all be
from the same community or school; they could have been grouped together before they were
killed or their bodies removed from where they were murdered and then grouped together.
The children may not even have been killed by CWs. I have seen some online photos of
Syrian children said to have died from CW suffocation and in some of those photos, there was
evidence of blunt force trauma around the hairline near the foreheads and ears.
The only way we'd know the identities of the children is if their families and communities
are able to come forward and see the videos and other visual evidence. That's if the
relatives are still alive or still in Syria.
Mother Agnes Mariam el Sahib , speaking to RT, on the video footage purporting to show
dead victims of CW attacks (August 2013) in East Ghouta:
"... I have carefully studied the footage, and I will present a written analysis on it a
bit later. I maintain that the whole affair was a frame-up. It had been staged and prepared
in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator.
The key evidence is that Reuters made these files public at 6.05 in the morning. The
chemical attack is said to have been launched between 3 and 5 o'clock in the morning in
Guta. How is it even possible to collect a dozen different pieces of footage, get more than
200 kids and 300 young people together in one place, give them first aid and interview them
on camera, and all that in less than three hours? Is that realistic at all? As someone who
works in the news industry, you know how long all of it would take.
The bodies of children and teenagers we see in that footage – who were they? What
happened to them? Were they killed for real? And how could that happen ahead of the gas
attack? Or, if they were not killed, where did they come from? Where are their parents? How
come we don't see any female bodies among all those supposedly dead children?
I am not saying that no chemical agent was used in the area – it certainly was.
But I insist that the footage that is now being peddled as evidence had been fabricated in
advance. I have studied it meticulously, and I will submit my report to the UN Human Rights
Commission based in Geneva ..."
The girls may have been separated from other hostages to be married off to takfiris or
used in sex trafficking schemes; or if dead, their bodies disposed of somehow. The extreme
religious beliefs of ISIS, al Nusra and other takfiris probably don't allow them to touch the
bodies of dead women and girls.
"... "We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week's] protest ," ..."
"... they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests ..."
US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/20/2020 - 21:55 0
SHARES
After major protests hit multiple cities across Iran in November following a drastic
government slash in gasoline subsidies which quickly turned anti-regime, broad internet outages
were reported -- some lasting as long as a week or more nationwide --
following Tehran authorities ordering the blockage of external access.
And during smaller January protests over downed Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752,
more widespread internet outages were reported recently, likely as Iranian security
services fear protest "crackdown" videos would fuel outrage in western media , and after months
ago Mike Pompeo
expressly urged Iranians in the streets to send the State Department damning videos that
would implicate Tehran's leaders and police.
But now Washington appears to have initiated the
"Syria option" inside Iran: covertly fueling and driving "popular protests " to eventually
create conditions for large-scale confrontation on the ground geared toward regime
change.
Financial Times reports Washington's 'covert' efforts are now increasing, and are
more out in the open :
US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of
circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian
anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging .
The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that
supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America's policy of "maximum
pressure" over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since
protests in Iran in 2018 -- at the time the largest in almost a decade -- Washington had
accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other
and the outside world .
Similar efforts had long been in place with anti-Assad groups prior to the outbreak of
conflict in Syria in 2011,
WikiLeaks cables previously revealed.
The US State Department is now openly boasting it's enacted this program for Iran , which
includes "providing apps, servers and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned
websites, install anti-tracking software and navigate data shutdowns," according to FT .
Confirmed: Drop in internet connectivity registered at #Sharif University,
Tehran from 11:50 UTC where students are protesting for colleagues and alumni killed on
flight #PS752 ; national
connectivity remains stable despite sporadic disruptions on third day of #Iran
protests📉 pic.twitter.com/LjaNNd4Ut2
And dangerously, many Iranians may not even realize they could be in some instances relying
on such US-funded countermeasures to circumvent domestic internet blockages:
"Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) that receive US funding or are
beamed in with US support , not knowing they are relying on Washington-backed tools."
Iran is on occasion
known to round of citizen-journalists and accuse them of being CIA assets -- thus
the State Department's open boasting about its program, which is further connected to a broader
$65.5 million "Internet Freedom program" in troubled spots throughout the world --
could only serve to increase this trend.
"We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide
circumvention tools that helped in [last week's] protest ," one US state department
official told the FT. "We are able to sponsor VPNs -- and that allows Iranians to use the
internet."
So there it is: US officials explicitly admitting they were actively assisting in
organizing recent protests which followed Soleimani's killing and the Ukrainian airliner
shoot down.
I have asked the Iranian protestors to send us their videos, photos, and information
documenting the regime's crackdown on protestors. The U.S. will expose and sanction the
abuses. https://t.co/korr5p0woA
At least one circumvention software is actually identified in the report as being produced
by Canada-based Psiphon, which receives American government funds. Of course the company sees
its role more as facilitating "free flow of information" and less as essentially a willing
asset in pursuing covert regime change in Tehran.
Interestingly, the revelation comes just as other US-funded propaganda campaigns related to
Iran are coming to light:
One of the most viral videos about Iran last week -- and a reason #IraniansDetestSoleimani
was trending -- was made by a lobbyist who had worked for a militia group in Libya https://t.co/fN7v6Vztyo
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false" - Wm. Casey, former Director of the CIA under President (and Iranian arms
dealer) Ronald Reagan(R).
So, when does Trump send ISIS to Iran? Oh, MEK is already there.
I remember when Trump supporters pointed out how Hillary supported a coup in Honduras.
Well, Trump has Bolivia.
Then Obama created ISIS. Well, ISIS has been around since about 2000. And Trump signed
NDAA's that sent money to "freedom fighters" in Syria.. .guess who...
Obama is a loser in Afghanistan and so are the Generals. Well, there was Bush. And now?
Trump... going on 4 years of losing in Afghanistan with his own Generals.
Hillary and Libya. Trump and Libya.
Obama and NK? Trump and NK.
Obama and Venezuela? Trump and Venezuela. And what threat does Venezuela pose to The US?
No one can answer that question.
Trump says "no more wars", is engaged in wars and trying to start one with Iran.
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME.
"The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that
supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America's policy of "maximum
pressure" over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since
protests in Iran in 2018 -- at the time the largest in almost a decade -- Washington had
accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other
and the outside world ."...
VOA LIVE$...
Sure wish somebody in our government could have alerted Bobby McIIlvaine ( https://www.ae911truth.org/get-involved/bobby-mcilvaine-act
) with "emergency" internet services to his phone nearly 18 1/2 years ago to what his own
government was about to do to him before he went into the office that day along with the
other 2,976 victims?!!!
One thing I'll say for the American government since the banker bailouts, they "don't hide
what they are doing" when it comes to subverting governments for looting purposes (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
)!... At least the Iranian leadership knows what is coming before it happens these
days!...
The Iranian people are not stupid to commit suicide , they have seen the us handy work in
1953 when Iran had the first democracy in the middle east to be bamboozled by the cia who
removed their elected prime minister and installed the shah.
of course some university students want a sexual revolution like in the us are revolting
but they are a handful and they are being subdued .
The Iranian people lived through CIA/MOSSAD style "Democracy" from 1953-1980 and will
fight "Tooth and nail" not to return to those Horrific days of the Shah!
How naive do you have to be to think the US is just giving out free internet for the sake
of the Iranian people? even after they've done the same thing all throughout the middle east
to cause mass riots and civil unrest.
The last thing you will ever get from the US government is the truth.
Here is the cardinal rule about government -- everything it says through its
spokespersons, hired guns, public relations adepts, and the mockingbird corporate media should
be considered a self-serving lie, or at best a distortion hammered into shape to fit a
predefined agenda.
For instance, we should question who is ultimately responsible for the shootdown of the
Ukrainian airliner in Tehran following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.
Former CIA military intelligence officer
Philip Giraldi believes there is a possibility Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752
was a false flag designed to put further pressure on the government of Iran and feed the USAID
"opposition" to the mullahs.
Giraldi writes "there just might be considerably more to the story involving cyberwarfare
carried out by the U.S. and possibly Israeli governments."
False Flag? Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran
Shootdown https://t.co/DHpDjGrIGf
What seems to have been a case of bad judgements and human error does, however, include
some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly
experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped
transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with
the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
Giraldi explains the
SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or
"spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The
United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy
radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means
fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States
military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and
targeting of Iran's available missiles.
Naturally, this possibility is not even mentioned by the corporate war propaganda media,
with the notable exception of The Guardian. Instead, we are pelted with tweets and news
articles purporting to show just how angry the Iranian people supposedly are over the
shootdown, accidental or otherwise.
Kimia Alizadeh, the only Iranian woman to win an Olympic medal, announced that she had
defected. She is part of growing public outrage in Iran after the military admitted to
shooting down a Ukraine International Airlines jet. https://t.co/NkwtCTP0yw
The establishment media, long-serving as war propagandists, would have you believe the
people of Iran care more about the shootdown of an passenger airliner than the four-decade long
economic war against them waged by the USG, Israel, and Saudia Arabia -- a war that has the
possibility of breaking out into a conflict that will kill far more than the 176 who died when
two missiles hit flight PS752.
This reminds me of a murderous trick pulled by the Israelis. In September 2018, Syrian
anti-aircraft defenses shot
down a Russian military plane near the Hmeimim airbase where the Russians stage military
operations against USG supported terrorists in Syria (and invited, along with Iran and
Hezbollah, to do so by Syria, unlike the illegal American occupation and the apparently endless
Israeli air raids).
"A Russian military spokesman said Israeli F-16 pilots were using the Russian plane as a
shield while carrying out missile strikes against targets in Syria's Latakia province and put
it in the line of fire from Syrian anti-aircraft batteries," The
Guardian reported at the time.
Russia's defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, told a senior Israeli official that Israel bore
"full responsibility" for the incident and the death of the Russian crew, a military
spokesman said later on Tuesday. Israel's ambassador in Moscow was summoned to the Russian
foreign ministry over the incident.
Putin let it go, however, realizing that pushing the issue too far would worsen the conflict
and possibly result in further Russian casualities.
Such caution, however, cannot be attributed to the USG and certainly not Israel. Bibi
Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, said Bashar al-Assad and the Syrians were solely responsible for the
attack.
No such caution or diplomacy can be expected from the USG and its current loudmouth
know-nothing president, Donald Trump. The death of nearly two hundred people is simply an
excuse to whip up hysteria and push forward the covert war against Iran.
First and foremost, when you read the "news" dispensed by the war propaganda media, you
should assume, unless otherwise proven and verified independently, that what they say about
Iran and the Middle East is nothing less than a carelessly and hastily assembled pack of lies,
distortion, and omissions, all designed to destroy Iran and kill thousands, possibly millions
of innocent men, women, and children.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was
originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"The accidental and most regrettable downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight
PS-752, may involve more than human error under incredibly tense conditions. With the plane's
IFF transponder switched off, the Tor missile defense system, which had reverted to manual
operation because of an unknown source jamming communications, would have automatically
identified the plane as "hostile". The Iranian missile operator, unable to contact higher-ups
for verification due to the disrupted communications and given the high level of alert, had
little basis to question the hostile tag applied by Tor to the aircraft.
Given that the US military has known capabilities to alter or mask IFF transponder
signals, as does the Israeli regime, it is entirely possible that this tragedy, which led
some protesters to blame the Iranian government, may have been deliberately caused by the US
in collusion with its Zionist ally in hopes of triggering their goal of regime change.
While no clear evidence of tampering with the transponder has surfaced as yet, it is known
that the 737-800, whose registration or "tail number" was UR-PSR, was photographed at the
Israeli entity's Ben Gurion Airport five times since March of 2017, the last time being on
October 18, 2019 at approximately 2:40 in the afternoon."
Smith@36 - PressTV: "..With the plane's IFF transponder switched off,..."
Civilian aircraft have ATC SSR radar transponders, not military IFF
transponders.
IFF aircraft interrogations are ALWAYS military only and ALWAYS encrypted. Their only job,
if used by the TOR, is to confirm that a radar target was an Iranian military aircraft. PS752
1) couldn't understand encrypted TOR IFF interrogations, 2) wouldn't be able to provide
encrypted replies to any TOR IFF interrogations, and 3) would still be considered "not an
Iranian military aircraft" by the TOR. PS752's transponder would need a military IFF
encoder/decoder which it does not have.
Likewise, TORs and their acquisition radars DO NOT have civilian ATC SSR radar
capabilities to identify civilian aircraft. They do NOT interrogate civilian aircraft for ID,
altitude, GPS or any other information, nor do they listen for civilian aircraft ADS-B
broadcasts which also provide that information.
Surveillance radars higher up in the air defense network may have civilian aircraft ID
capability and can assign appropriate IDs to radar targets BEFORE they appear on the TORs
radar screen, but that requires a good data link to the network. That encrypted data link
(also used for voice communications) was down at the time, and any ID information that may
have been assigned by higher layers of the Iranian AD network wouldn't have appeared on the
TOR or been considered by its classification and targeting software.
Sorry - I don't know how else to explain this. PressTV doesn't understand the distinction,
nor does it understand the TORs capabilities.
Putin “needs to keep his commie hands” off of the sovereign Independent Baptist church’s affairs
According to sources, local man Clarence Williams has urged his church’s lead pastor as well as local law enforcement to move
forward with an investigation into Russian hacking, claiming that there was ample evidence to support the theory that malicious
foreign agents infiltrated and influenced the outcome of a vote on the date for next month’s potluck at Second Baptist Church.
In law courts, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. In politics, too.
The problem
with what President Vladimir Putin announced
in his
Federal Assembly address this week, and what he did immediately after, is that
things don't look the way he says they should.
The difference was written on Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's face.
He thinks Putin has destroyed the political forces of the candidate with the best chance of winning the
presidential election of 2024 -- himself. The businessmen and government officials who have depended on Medvedev
are acknowledging this realization on the telephone.
An hour after this picture was taken, at a meeting with Putin of the assembled ministers at Government
House (Kremlin term for White House), Medvedev
announced
: "as the
Government of the Russian Federation we must give the President of this country an opportunity to make all the
necessary decisions for this. Under the circumstances, it would be correct for the entire Government of the
Russian Federation to resign in accordance with Article 117 of the Constitution."
He looked and sounded unconvinced that his exit was "correct".
The constitutional provision to which Medvedev referred is a notorious relic. Article 117 was created by
President Boris Yeltsin after he used the military to crush parliament's opposition in October 1993. Several
hundred people inside the White House were killed.
The new constitution was voted two months later by the disputable margin of 58% in a disputable turnout of
54%.
Article 117
then gave the
president the power to block a prime minister's resignation
; veto a vote of no-confidence in the
government by the State Duma; and the power to decide whether and when to dissolve parliament and hold new
elections.
In Putin's
speech
on
Wednesday, he began his proposals for a constitutional amendment with the announcement: "We have overcome the
situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans." Usurpation of
power by Yeltsin at the expense of the Congress of People's Deputies in 1993 was not explained then, nor since,
by the operations of the oligarchs. They came later. In Russian public opinion, the oligarchs continue to be
extra-constitutionally powerful today. The polls show Putin's claim is not believed.
The proposals Putin has announced change the balance of power between the presidency and the parliament. But
they also change the balance of power between the houses of parliament, and also between the central power in
Moscow and the regions.
The State Duma, according to Putin, will have the new power to appoint "the
Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the
Prime Minister's recommendation. At the same time the President will have to appoint them, so he will have no
right to turn down the candidates approved by the Parliament." This
implies
the State Duma will be able to exercise a veto over ministers' performance with votes of no-confidence the
president cannot override.
This is not yet certain.
Also unclear is who would prevail if the president decides to dismiss the
government which holds the confidence of parliament.
Putin said he proposes to keep "the right to
dismiss the prime minister, his deputies and federal ministers in case of improper execution of duties or due
to loss of trust."
The constitution is silent on the terms, improper
execution and loss of trust. They are powder the president aims to keep dry for himself.
The Kremlin has immediately convened what it calls a "working group on drafting proposals for amendments to
the Constitution". No elected constitutional convention; no constitutional assembly provided for in
Chapter
9
of the present charter; no principle of representation; no decision or voting rules for the novel body.
It was hand-picked by the President's staff -- "75 politicians, legislators,
scholars and public figures". The Kremlin has published photographs, but no list of the names yet.
The oligarch class, as Putin calls them, is
represented
by Alexander Shokhin (centre picture above, left); the working class to whom no one refers
is represented by the man seated by the Kremlin next to Shokhin, Mikhail Shmakov, head of the trade union
federation.
Noone in uniform is seated at the Kremlin table. The military appears to have one seat; that's occupied by
retired Army General Boris Gromov (above right), 76, now
titled
"Chairman
of the Brothers in Arms National Veteran Public Organisation". Gromov's political career after the Army rules
him out as representing the General Staff or the Defence Ministry.
Putin's proposals create a fork in the balance of power by assigning
domestic policy-making, including the budget, to the parliament's appointees to government; while reserving
defence, military, and security powers, and their budgets, to the executive. "The president also exercises
direct command over the Armed Forces and the entire law enforcement system.
In this regard, I believe
another step is necessary to provide a greater balance between the branches of power. In this connection, point
six: I propose that the president should appoint heads of all security agencies following consultations with
the Federation Council."
This preserves the imbalance Putin's terminology -- let's say concentration of policy-making and
enforcement powers in the Kremlin; it also guards the incumbent president during the transition between now and
2024, as well as afterwards. "I believe," said Putin, "this approach will make the work of security and law
enforcement agencies more transparent and accountable to citizens." The Russian public opinion polls are very
sceptical.
The first test of what this step will mean in practice will be the names
of the new ministers of defence, internal affairs, foreign affairs, the Federal Security Service, the
intelligence agencies,
and the two state law enforcement organs, the Prosecutor-General and the
Investigative Committee.
In the small print of Putin's speech, he proposes
to centralize authority even more than the present
by reducing the power of regional authorities to
control their prosecutors. "I am confident that a greater independence of prosecution agencies from local
authorities would be beneficial for citizens regardless of the region," Putin said. Public distrust of both
federal and regional prosecutors, recorded in the polls, suggests otherwise.
The Putin scheme also creates a competing source of legislative power by
expanding the
State
Council
,
hitherto a talking shop;
and by expanding the powers
of the Constitutional Court
to rule, on the Kremlin's application, against parliament, as well as
against regional governors and regional parliaments.
The State Council in its last Kremlin session, December 26, 2019.
In
his speech on Wednesday Putin proposed to "cardinally increase the role of governors in decision-making at
the federal level
. As you know, back in 2000 the State Council was restored at my initiative, where
the heads of all regions participate. Over the past period the State Council has proven its high
effectiveness; its working groups provide for the professional, comprehensive and qualified examination of
issues that are most important for people and Russia. I believe it would be appropriate to fix the status
and role of the State Council in the Russian Constitution."
On Thursday
he ignored the State Council by appointing a different group to consider the constitutional amendments.
No Russian commentator has published the question, why
In theory, Putin is creating more checks and balances than have existed
before
. Differences of view and interest between experts, parties, factions, the military, and classes
Putin's term are inevitable and natural.
The vote to adopt the proposals
will, however, be an all-or-nothing one.
"I believe it necessary to hold a vote of Russian citizens on
the entire package of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The final decision
must be made only on the basis of its results," the president concluded in his speech.
This looks like a referendum, but
Article
136
of the current Constitution is ambiguous. The 2008 amendments to the Constitution were
adopted
,
not by referendum but by votes of the State Duma and the Federation Council. There has been no referendum under
the present constitution.
How much of the proposed scheme is a fine distinction of powers without a change in their division? Putin
told Medvedev at the
meeting
with
the outgoing ministers:
"There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues, and there is a Government block of issues, even
though the President, of course, is responsible for everything, but
the
presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence and the like.
Mr Medvedev has
always been in charge of these matters. From the point of view of increasing our defence capability and
security,
I consider it possible and have asked him to deal with these
matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near future, introduce the position of Deputy
Chairman of the Security Council.
As you are aware, the
President is its Chairman.
If we need to amend the applicable law, I will do so soon and I want
State Duma deputies to support this as well. We just need the lawyers to provide assessments on this
account."
Sources in Russian business and government interpret Medvedev's new job
as a gold-plated watch -- consolation prize for losing the presidential succession race. Sources are unanimous
in judging what has happened to be the liquidation of the Medvedev faction.
Politically, the rationale is obvious. Public disapproval of the government's performance, and the stress
which the ongoing US war is inflicting on Russia's domestic growth, have been showing a consistent trend.
It is equally clear that the Medvedev faction, and also the pro-American
supporters behind Alexei Kudrin at the Accounting Chamber, German Gref at Sberbank, and Anatoly Chubais at the
state high-technology conglomerate Rusnano, are the short-term losers of the reorganisation
Putin has
proposed. The short-term gainers are not so obvious. Sources among them ask why the Kremlin staff calculated
that a renovation of the government ministers should be dressed up as a constitutional reform.
These sources suggest that on the sincerity test, Putin's proposals will not be believed for what he says
they are. They add they are encouraged, also hopeful, that
he is acting now
to restrict the damage that faction-fighting over the succession can do over the next three years. Liquidating
one of the factions has been an option advocated by many for some time.
On the other hand, the sources
point out that if Putin were sincere in his commitment to enhanced power-sharing with the parliamentary
political parties, why sack the present prime minister now, and not wait for the State Duma to vote its
approval for the new man under the new rules? This is a question which answers itself, most Russians think.
By the war test -- how the proposals will affect the regime-change strategy of the US and NATO the
combination of constitutional plans and the replacement of Medvedev by Mikhail Mishustin (lead image, in car
next to Putin) is judged to be no gain, no concession to the other side. Not yet.
That leaves the poll test.
To choose Mishustin to become the prime
minister is the biggest surprise of the week
, and a curious selection to win public approval. If Gogol
were to use the name, he would be tagging its possessor with something like the caricature, "busy baker", since
to the Russian ear, the roots of the word suggest someone who makes his living mixing things, like a baker;
and who is visibly busy at that work. Mishustin himself likes to identify his recreation as ice-hockey. On
the rink he plays forward and back, but not goalie.
Left: Mikhail Mishustin makes his nomination speech at the State Duma, his debut as a national political
figure.
Watch the speech
,
which was read from a paper script and lacked direct eye or any other personal contact with the deputies.
They responded to the speech with brief, tepid applause. Right: Mishustin in his hockey uniform
The Russian biographic record for Mishustin, records his long technocratic training in computer science and
economics; his PhD was on tax administration. He first started in state tax agency in 1998.
A 53-year old native of Moscow, Mishustin is reported to be part-Armenian
by origin
; his Soviet birth certificate may indicate that at birth one of his parents held Armenian
nationality. If so, he would automatically hold
Armenian
citizenship
. According to Putin's constitutional proposals, the prime minister and other senior officials
may "have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other document that allows them to live permanently
in a foreign state."
A protg of Boris Fyodorov in the Yeltsin-era finance administration, Mishustin spent a brief period,
2008-2010, working in the Moscow investment banking business of UFG Partners, first established by Fyodorov. By
the time Mishustin arrived, the company was owned by Deutsche Bank and run by Charles Ryan, an American;
Fyodorov died of a stroke a few months into Mishustin's term at UFG. In April 2010, Mishustin returned to run
the tax agency, and he has
remained
there
for a decade. Tax evasion and embezzlement of value added tax (VAT) fill the kompromat records which have
been
published
about Mishustin
over this period.
Mishustin
told
the
State Duma yesterday he is in favour of reducing the regulatory burden on Russian business.
The Communist Party faction announced it would abstain from voting to
confirm the prime minister because it was impossible to know what policies he stands for.
Suspicion
that Mishustin will try to cut social welfare benefits is widespread. The confirmation vote was 383 in favour;
41 abstentions; no one opposed. For the record of the Duma vote, read
this
.
One oligarch vote of confidence in Mishustin has been announced.
Vladimir
Lisin
, head of the Novolipetsk steel and coal-mining group,
told
a
Moscow newspaper: "We evaluate Mikhail Mishustin's work as head of the Federal Tax Service positively. Under
his leadership, the service increased tax collection, virtually eliminated schemes used by unscrupulous
businesses in competition, and reduced the number of on-site inspections several times by introducing a
risk-based approach. Despite the fact that we had quite difficult debates, we always found a common
civilized solution."
Mishustin has appeared only once before this week in Putin's Kremlin office. That was on November 21, 2016,
Tax Workers' Day. In their meeting Mishustin's recital of his agency's performance was unexceptional. Putin
said
nothing out of the ordinary.
In the Russian photo archive for Mishustin, not
one picture shows a smile on his face.
A reluctant grin he managed for his last birthday, March 3,
2019,
according
to the Russian Ice
Hockey Federation.
Putin has selected factotums before, men whose technical expertise was
their asset, along with their lack of political constituency and electoral ambition.
Mikhail Fradkov
was the first, between 2004 and 2008;
Victor
Zubkov
the second, between 2007 and 2008.
When Putin appointed them,
they made no changes to the power ministries.
Mishustin is the third in this line.
If he announces the end of the long terms in office of Sergei Shoigu and
Sergei Lavrov, and General Valery Gerasimov is replaced at the General Staff, then Putin is deciding much more
than he has admitted so far.
"... In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from Israel" (p.6). ..."
"... This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be compelled to take. ..."
"... So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better! ..."
Let's be clear, there is a difference between substituting geopolitical power calculations
for a universal perspective on the good of humanity, and, on the other hand, recognizing that
the existing layout of the world has to be taken into account in attempts to open up a true
politics. (My larger perspective on the problem of "opening" is presented in the long essay,
"The Fourth Hypothesis," at counterpunch.org.)
Personally, I find the geopolitical analyses of George Friedman very much worthwhile to
consider, especially when he is looking at things long-range, as in his books The Next 100
Years and The Next Decade. The latter was published at the beginning of 2012, and so we are
coming to the close of the ten-year period that Friedman discusses.
One of the major arguments that Friedman makes in The Next Decade is that the
United States will have to reach some sort of accommodation with Iran and its regional
ambitions. The key to this, Friedman argues, is to bring about some kind of balance of power
again, such as existed before Iraq was torn apart.
This is the key in general to continued U.S. hegemony in the world, in Friedman's view --
regional balances that keep regional powers tied up and unable to rise on the world stage. (An
especially interesting example here is that Friedman says that Poland will be built up as a
bulwark between Russia and Germany.)
In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary
world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first
and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and
Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from
Israel" (p.6).
This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world,
including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter
of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be
compelled to take.
(As the founder, CEO, and "Chief Intelligence Officer" of Stratfor, Friedman aimed to
provide "non-ideological" strategic intelligence. My understanding of "non-ideological" is that
the analysis was not formulated to suit the agendas of the two mainstream political parties in
the U.S. However, my sense is that Friedman does believe that U.S. global hegemony is on the
whole good for the world.)
In his book that came out before The Next Decade (2011), The Next 100
Years (2009), Friedman makes the case that the U.S. will not be seriously challenged
globally for decades to come -- in fact, all the way until about 2080!
Just to give a different spin to something I said earlier, and that I've tried to emphasize
in my articles since March 2016: questions of mere power are not questions of politics.
Geopolitics is not politics, either -- in my terminology, it is "anti-politics."
For my part, I am not interested in supporting U.S. hegemony, not in the present and not in
the future, and for the most part not in the past, either.
For the moment, let us simply say that the historical periods of the U.S. that are more
supportable -- because they make some contribution, however flawed, to the greater, universal,
human project -- are either from before the U.S. entered the road of seeking to compete with
other "great powers" on the world stage, or quite apart from this road.
In my view, the end of U.S. global hegemony and, for that matter, the end of any "great
nation-state" global hegemony, is a condition sine qua non of a human future that is just and
sustainable. So, again, the brilliance that George Friedman often brings to geopolitical
analysis is to be understood in terms of a coldly-realistic perspective, not a warmly-normative
one.)
Of course, this continued U.S. hegemony depends on certain "wise" courses of action being
taken by U.S. leaders (Friedman doesn't really get into the question of what might be behind
these leaders), including a "subtle" approach to the aforementioned questions of Israel and
Iran.
Obviously, anything associated with Donald Trump is not going to be overly subtle! On the
other hand, here we are almost at the end of Friedman's decade, so perhaps the time for
subtlety has passed, and the U.S. is compelled to be a bit heavy-handed if there is to be any
chance of extricating itself from the endless quagmire.
However, there's a certain fly, a rather large one, in the ointment that seems to have
eluded Friedman's calculations: "the rise of China."
It isn't that Friedman avoids the China question, not at all; Friedman argues, however, that
by 2020 China will not only not be contending with the United States to have the largest
economy in the world, but instead that China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil
war, because of deep inequalities between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and
the rural interior.
Certainly I know from study, and many conversations with people in China, this was a real
concern going into the 2010s and in the first half of the decade.
The chapter dealing with all this in The Next 100 Years (Ch. 5) is titled, "China
2020: Paper Tiger," the latter term being one that Chairman Mao used regarding U.S.
imperialism. Friedman writes of another "figure like Mao emerg[ing] to close the country
off from the outside, [to] equalize the wealth -- or poverty " (p.7).
Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy, I certainly believe anything can happen in social
matters, but it seems as though President Xi Jinping and the current leadership of the
Communist Party of China have, at least for the time being, managed to head off fragmentation
at the pass, so to speak.
Friedman argued that the "pass" that China especially had to deal with is unsustainable
growth rates; but it appears that China has accomplished this, by purposely slowing its economy
down.
One of the things that Friedman is especially helpful with, in his larger geopolitical
analysis, is understanding the role that naval power plays in sustaining U.S. hegemony. (In
global terms, such power is what keeps the neoliberal "free market" running, and this power is
far from free.)
*
... ... ...
Two of the best supporters of Trump's stated agenda are Tucker Carlson and Steve Hilton.
Neither of them pull any punches on this issue when it comes to Republicans, and both of them
go some distance beyond Trump in stating an explicitly anti-war agenda.
They perhaps do not entirely fit the mold of leftist anti-imperialism as it existed from the
1890s through the Sixties (as in the political decade, perhaps 1964-1974 or so) and 1970s, but
they do in fact fit this mold vastly better than almost any major figure of the Democratic
Party, with the possible exceptions of Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang. (But
none of them has gone as far as Trump on this question!)
Certainly Elizabeth Warren is no exception, and at the moment of this writing she has made
the crucial turn toward sticking the knife back into Bernie's back. That is her job, in my
view, and part of it is to seem close to Bernie's positions (whatever their defects, which I'll
discuss elsewhere), at least the ones that are more directly "economic," while winking at the
ruling class.
There are a few things Carlson and Hilton say on the Iran situation and the Middle East in
general that I don't agree with. But in the main I think both are right on where these issues
are concerned.
As I've quoted Carlson a number of times previously, and as I also want to put forward
Hilton as an important voice for a politics subservient to neither the liberal nor the
conservative establishments, here let me quote what Hilton said in the midst of the Iran
crisis, on January 5, 2020:
The best thing America can do to put the Middle East on a path
that leads to more democracy, less terrorism, human rights and economic growth is to get the
hell out of there while showing an absolute crystal clear determination to defend American
interests with force whenever they are threatened.
That doesn't mean not doing anything, it means intervening only in ways that help
America.
It means responding only to attacks on Americans disproportionately as a deterrent, just as
we saw this week and it means finally accepting that it's not our job to fix the Middle East
from afar.
The only part of this I take exception to is the "intervening only in ways that help
America"-bit -- that opens the door to exactly the kinds of problems that Hilton wants the U.S.
to avoid, besides the (to me, more important) fact that it is just morally wrong to think it is
acceptable to intervene if it is in one's "interests."
My guess is that Hilton thinks that there is some built-in utilitarian or pragmatic calculus
that means the morally-problematic interventions will not occur. I do not see where this has
ever worked, but more importantly, this is where philosophy is important, theoretical work and
abstract thinking are important.
It used to be that the Left was pretty good at this sort of thing, and there were some
thoughtful conservatives who weren't bad, either. (A decent number of the latter,
significantly, come from the Catholic intellectual tradition.) Now there are still a few of the
latter, and there are ordinary people who are "thoughtful conservatives" in their "unschooled
way" -- which is often better! -- but the Left has sold its intellectual soul along with its
political soul.
That's a story for elsewhere (I have told parts of it in previous articles in this series);
the point here is that the utilitarianism and "pragmatism" of merely calculating interests is
not nearly going to cut it. (I have partly gone into this here because Hilton also advocates
"pragmatism" in his very worthwhile book, Positive Populism -- it is the "affirmative" other
side to Tucker Carlson's critical, "negative" expose, Ship of Fools.)
The wonderful philosophical pragmatism of William James is another matter; this is important
because James, along with his friend Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), were leading figures of the
Anti-Imperialist League back in the 1890s, when the U.S. establishment was beating the drums
loudly to get into the race with Europeans for colonies.
They were for never getting "in" -- and of course they were not successful, which is why
"get the hell out" is as important as anything people can say today.
What an insane world when the U.S. president says this and the political establishment
opposes him, and "progressives" and "the Left" join in with the denunciations!
It has often been argued that the major utilitarian philosophers, from Bentham and Mill to
Peter Singer, have implicit principles that go beyond the utilitarian calculus; I agree with
this, and I think this is true of Steve Hilton as well.
In this light, allow me to quote a little more from the important statement he made on his
Fox News Channel program, "The Next Revolution," on January 5; all of this is stuff I entirely
agree with, and that expresses some very good principles:
The West's involvement in the
Middle East has been a disaster from the start and finally, with President Trump, America is in
a position to bring it to an end. We don't need their oil and we don't need their problems.
Finally, we have a U.S. president who gets that and wants to get out. There are no prospects
for Middle East peace as long as we are there.
We're never going to defeat the ideology of Islamist terror as long as these countries are
basket cases and one of the reasons they are basket cases is that our preposterous foreign
policy establishment with monumental arrogance have treated the middle east like some chess
game played out in the board rooms in Washington and London.
– [foxnews.com, transcribed by Yael Halon]
So then there is the usual tittering about this and that regarding Carlson and Hilton from
liberal and progressive Democrats and leftists who support the Democrats, and it seems to me
that there is one major reason why there is this foolish tittering: It is because these
liberals and leftists really don't care about, for example, the destruction of Libya, or the
murder of Berta Caceres.
Or, maybe they do care, but they have convinced themselves that these things have to swept
under the rug in the name of defeating the pure evil of Trump. What this amounts to, in the
"nationalist" discourse, is that Trump is some kind of nationalist (as he has said numerous
times), perhaps of an "isolationist" sort, while the Democrats are in fact what can be called
"nationalists of the neoliberal/neoconservative compact."
My liberal and leftist friends (some of them Maoists and post-Maoists and Trotskyists or
some other kinds of Marxists or purported radicals -- feminists or antifa or whatever) just
cannot see, it simply appears to be completely beyond the realm of their imaginations, that the
latter kind of nationalism is much worse and qualitatively worse than what Trump represents,
and it completely lacks the substantial good elements of Trump's agenda.
But hey, don't worry my liberal and leftist friends, it is hard to imagine that Joe Biden's
"return to normalcy" won't happen at some point -- it will take not only an immense movement to
even have a chance of things working out otherwise, but a movement that likes of which is
beyond everyone's imagination at this point -- a movement of a revolutionary politics that
remains to be invented, as all real politics are, by the masses.
Liberals and leftists have little to worry about here, they're okay with a Deep State
society with a bullshit-democratic veneer and a neoliberal world order; this set-up doesn't
really affect them all that much, not negatively at any rate, and the deplorables can just go
to hell.
*
The Left I grew up with was the Sixties Left, and they used to be a great source of
historical memory, and of anti-imperialism, civil rights, and ordinary working-people
empowerment.
The current Left, and whatever array of Democratic-Party supporters, have received their
marching orders, finally, from commander Pelosi (in reality, something more like a lieutenant),
so the two weeks or so of "immense concern" about Iran has given way again to the
extraordinarily-important and solemn work of impeachment.
But then, impeachment is about derailing the three main aspects of Trump's agenda, so you
see how that works. Indeed, perhaps the way this is working is that Trump did in fact head off,
whatever one thinks of the methods, a war with Iran (at this time! – and I do think this
is but a temporary respite), or more accurately, a war between Iran and Israel that the U.S.
would almost certainly be sucked into immediately.
So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if
it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on
track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more
spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better!
Bill Martin is a
philosopher and musician, retired from DePaul University. He is completing a book with the
title, "The Trump Clarification: Disruption at the Edge of the System (toward a theory)." His
most recent albums are "Raga Chaturanga" (Bill Martin + Zugzwang; Avant-Bass 3) and "Emptiness,
Garden: String Quartets nos. 1 and 2 (Ryokucha Bass Guitar Quartet; Avant-Bass 4). He lives in
Salina, Kansas, and plays bass guitar with The Radicles.
Dungroanin ,
I have read through finally. And comments too.
My opinion is Bill Martin is on the ball except for one personage- Hilton. If he is
Camerons Hilton and architect of the Brexit referendum – for which he is rewarded with
a 'seat at the table' of the crumbling Empire. The Strafor man too is just as complicit in
the Empires wickedness.
But I'll let Bill off with that because he mentioned the Anti-Imperialist Mark Twain
– always a joy to be reminded of Americas Dickens.
On Trump – he didn't use the Nuclear codes 10 minutes after getting them as warned
by EVERYONE. Nor start a war with RocketMan, or Russia in Syria, or in Ukraine or with the
Chinese using the proxy Uighars, or push through with attempted Bay of Pigs in Venezuela or
just now Hong Kong. The Wall is not built and the ineffectual ripoff Obamacare version of a
NHS is still there.
Judge by deeds not words.
Soleimani aside – He may have stopped the drive for war. Trumps direct contact with
fellow world leaders HAS largely bypassed the war mongering State Department and also the
Trillion dollar tax free Foundations set up last century to deliver the world Empire, that
has so abused the American peoples and environment. He probably wasn't able to stop
Bolivia.
The appointments of various players were not necessarily in his hands as Assad identified-
the modern potus is merely a CEO/Chair of a board of directors who are put into place by the
special interests who pour billions, 10's of billions into getting their politicians elected.
They determine 'National Interests'. All he can do is accept their appointment and give them
enough rope to hang themselves – which most have done!
These are that fight clubs rules.
On the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – after 20 full years of working towards
cohesion- they have succeeded. Iran is due to become a full member – once it is free of
UN sanctions, which is why Trump was forced into pulling the treaty with them, so that
technicality could stop that membership. China is not having it nor is Russia – Putins
clear statement re the 'international rules' not being mandatory for them dovetails with the
US position of Exceptionality. Checkmate.
As for the Old Robber Baron Banker Pirates idea that they should be allowed a Maritime
Empire as consolation- ha ha ha, pull the other one.
The ancient sea trading routes from Africa to China were active for thousands of years
before the Europeans turned up and used unequal power to disrupt and pillage at their hearts
content.
What made that possible was of course explained in the brilliant Guns, Germs and
Steel.
These ancients have ALL these and are equal or advanced in all else including Space, Comms
and AI. A navy is not so vital when even nuclear subs are visible from low orbit satellites
except in the deepest trenches – not a safe place to hide for months and also pretty
crowded with all the other subs trying to hide there. As for Aircraft carrier groups –
just build an island! Diego Garcia has a rival.
Double Checkmate.
The Empire is Dead. Long live the Empire.
Dungroanin ,
And this is hilarious about potus turning the tables on the brass who tried to drag him into
the 'tank'.
'Grab the damn fainting couch. Trump told the assembled military leaders who had presided
over a military stalemate in Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS as "losers." Not a one of them
had the balls to stand up, tell him to his face he was wrong and offer their resignation.
Nope. They preferred to endure such abuse in order to keep their jobs. Pathetic.
This excerpt in the Washington Post tells the reader more about the corruption of the Deep
State and their mindset than it does about Trump's so-called mental state. Trump acted no
differently in front of these senior officers and diplomats than he did on the campaign
trail. He was honest. That is something the liars in Washington cannot stomach. '
Rhys Jaggar ,
I am not an expert on US Constitutional Law, but is there any legal mechanism for a US
President to hold a Referendum in the way that the UK held a 'Brexit Referendum' and Scotland
held an 'Independence Referendum'?
How would a US Referendum in 'Getting the hell out of the Middle East, bringing our boys
and girls home before the year is out' play out, I wonder?
That takes the argument away from arch hawks like Bolton et al and puts it firmly in the
ambit of Joe Schmo of Main Street, Oshkosh
wardropper ,
Great idea.
Main problem is that most Americans are brought up to think their government is separate from
themselves, and should not be seriously criticized.
By "criticized", I mean, taken to task in a way which actually puts them on a playing field
where they are confronted by real people.
Shouting insults at the government from the rooftops is simply greeted with indulgent smiles
from the guilty elite.
Richard Le Sarc ,
George Friedman is a bog standard Zionist, therefore, out of fear, a virulent Sinophobe,
because the Zionists will never control China as they do the Western slave regimes. China
surpassed the USA as the world' s largest economy in 2014, on the PPP calculus that the
CIA,IMF and just about everyone uses. It' s growing three times as fast as the USA, too. The
chance of China fragmenting by 2020 is minuscule, certainly far less than that of the USA.
The Chinese have almost totally eliminated poverty, and will raise the living standard of all
to a ' middle income' by 2049. It is, however, the genocidal policy of the USA, on which it
expend billions EVERY year, to do its diabolical worst to attempt to foment and foster such a
hideous fate inside China, by supporting vermin like the Hong Kong fascist thugs, the Uighur
salafist terrorist butchers, the medieval theocrats of the Dalai clique and separatist
movements in Inner Mongolia, ' Manchuria', Taiwan, even Guandong and Guangxi. It takes a real
Western thug to look forward to the ghastly suffering that these villainous ambitions would
unleash.
Antonym ,
In RlS's nut shell: China can annex area but Israel: no way!
Dungroanin ,
Which area is China looking to annex?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Ant is a pathological Zionist liar, but you can see his loyalty to ' Eretz Yisrael' , '
..from the Nile to the Euphrates', and ' cleansed' of non-Jews, can' t you.
alsdkjf ,
I'm surprised that this author can even remember the counter culture of the 60s given his
Trump love.
Yet more Trumpism from Off Guardian. One doesn't have to buy into the politics of post DLC
corporate owned DNC to know Trump for what he is. A fascist.
It's just amazing this Trump "left". Pathetic.
Antonym ,
Trump .. better than HRC but the guy is totally hypnotized by the level of the New York stock
exchanges: even his foreign policy is improvised around that. He simply thinks higher is
a proof of better forgetting that 90% of Americans don't own serious quantity of stock
and that levels are manipulated by big players and the FED. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.html
Look at his dealing with China: tough as much as the US stock market stays benign in the
short term. Same for Iran etc.
Sure, he is crippled by Pelosi & the FBI / CIA, but he is also by his own stock
dependent mind. Might be the reason he is still alive ???
alsdkjf ,
Trump crippled by the CIA? Trump?
I mean the fascist jerk appointed ex CIA torture loving Pompeo to replace swamp creature
oil tycoon as Secretary of State, no?
He appointed torture queen within the CIA to become CIA Director, no?
He went to the CIA headquarters on day one of his Administration to lavish praise, no?
He took on ex CIA Director Woolsey as advisor on foreign policy during his campaign,
no?
I tell ya that Trump is a real adversary of the CIA!
Roger that. Trump appoints a dominatrix as DCI. Only a masochist or a sadist would Dream of
Gina..you know the head of the torture squad under Bush. Otherwise nice girl. PompAss is a
total clown but a dangerous one who even makes John Bolton look sane. Now that's scary!
This guy is Hilary Clinton in drag. The only thing missing is the evil triumphalist cackle
after whacking Soleimani. Maybe it wasn't recorded.
So much for "draining the swamp". The Whitehouse has become an even bigger swamp.
my take from this article:
There are, among the murderers and assassins in Washington, a couple of characters who appear
to have 2% of human DNA.
They author may confirm.
two ,
"israel is right in the cen "
sorry, the muderous regime israel has repeatedly proven, it's never never right . please
avoid this usage.
three ,
There are 53 or 54 'I's in the article, including his partner's Is. The author may confirm.
Dungroanin ,
Phew!
That is a lot of words mate. Fingers must be sore. I won't comment more until trying to
re-read again except quote this:
"Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy,.."
I must say i had a wtf moment at that point see ya later.
paul ,
The idea that Trump's recent actions in the Middle East were part of some incredibly cunning
plan to avoid war with Iran, strikes me as somewhat implausible, to put it (very) charitably.
Even Hitler didn't want war. He wanted to achieve his objectives without fighting. When
that didn't work, war was Plan B. Trump probably has very little actual control over foreign
policy. He is surrounded by people who have been plotting and scheming against him from long
before he was elected. He heads a chaotic and dysfunctional administration of billionaires,
chancers, grifters, conmen, superannuated generals, religious nut jobs, swamp creatures,
halfwits and outright criminals, lurching from one crisis and one fiasco to the next. Some of
these people like Bolton were foisted upon him by Adelson and various other backers and wire
pullers, but that is not to absolve Trump of personal responsibility.
Competing agencies which are a law unto themselves have been free to pursue their own turf
wars at the expense of anything remotely resembling a rational and coherent strategy. So have
quite low level bureaucrats, formulating and implementing their own policies with little
regard for the White House. In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department went
their own way, each supporting competing and mutually antagonistic factions and terrorist
groups. Agreements that were reached with Russia over Syria, for example, were deliberately
sabotaged by Ashton Carter in 24 hours. Likewise, Bolton did everything he could to wreck
Trump's delicate negotiations with N. Korea.
paul ,
Seen in this light, US policy (or the absence of any coherent policy) is more understandable.
What passes for US leadership is the worst in its history, even given a very low bar.
Arrogant, venal, corrupt, delusional, irredeemably ignorant, and ideologically driven. The
only positive thing that can be said is that the alternative (Clinton) would probably have
been even worse, if that is possible.
That may also be the key to understanding the current situation. For all his pandering to
Israel, Trump is more of a self serving unprincipled opportunist than a true Neocon/ Zionist
believer in the mould of Pence, Bolton and Pompeo. For that reason he is not trusted by the
Zionist Power Elite. He is too much of a loose cannon. They will take all his Gives, like
Jerusalem and the JCPOA, but without any gratitude.
It has taken them a century of plotting, scheming and manoeuvring to achieve their
political, financial, and media stranglehold over the US. but America is a wasting asset and
they are under time pressure. It is visibly declining and losing its influence. And the
parasite will find it difficult to find a similar host. Who else is going to give Israel
billions a year in tribute, unlimited free weaponry and diplomatic cover? Russia? Are Chinese
troops "happy to die for Israel" asUS ones are (according to their general)?
paul ,
And they are way behind schedule. Assad was supposed to be dead by now, and Syria another
defenceless failed state, broken up into feuding little cantons, with Israel expanding into
the south of the country. The main event, the war with Iran, should have started lond ago.
That is the reason for the impeachment circus. This is not intended to be resolved one way
or the other. It is intended to drag on indefinitely, for months and years, to distract and
weaken Trump and make it possible to extract what they want. One of the reasons Trump agreed
to the murder of Soleimani and his Iraqi opposite number was to appease some Republican
senators like Graham whose support is essential to survive impeachment. They were the ones
who wanted it, along with Bolton and Netanyahu.
paul ,
It is instructive that all the main players in the impeachment circus are Jews, under
Sanhedrin Chief Priests Schiff and Nadler, apart from a few token goys thrown in to make up
the numbers. That even goes for those defending Trump.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Don' t forget that Lebanon up to the Litani is the patrimony of the Jewish tribes of Asher
and Naphtali, and, as Smotrich, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, said on Israeli TV a few years
ago, ' Damascus belongs to the Jews'.
bevin ,
" China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil war, because of deep inequalities
between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and the rural interior."
This is not Bill, but Bill's mate the Stratcor geopolitical theorist for hire.
What is happening in the world is that the only empire the globe, as a whole, has ever
seen- the pirate kingdom that the Dutch, then the British and finally the US, leveraged out
of the plunder and conquest of America -the maritime empire, of sea routes and navies is
under challenge by a revival of the Eurasian proto-empires that preceded it and drove its
merchants and princes on the Atlantic coast, to sea.
We know who the neo-liberals are the current iteration of the gloomy philosophies of the
Scots Enlightenment, (Cobbett's 'Scotch Feelosophy') utilitarianism in its crudest form and
the principles of necessary inequalities, from the Austrian School back to the various crude
racisms which became characteristic of the C19th.
The neo-cons are the latest expression of the maritime powers' fear of Eurasia and its
interior lines of communication. Besides which the importance of navies and of maritime
agility crumble.
Bill mentions that China has not got much of a navy. I'm not so sure about that, but isn't it
becoming clear that navies-except to shipyards, prostitutes and arms contractors- are no
longer of sovereign importance? There must be missile commanders in China drooling over the
prospect of catching a US Fleet in all its glory within 500 miles of the mainland. Not to
mention on the east coast of the Persian Gulf.
The neo-cons are the last in a long line of strategists, ideologists and, for the most part,
mercenary publicists defying the logic of Halford Mackinder's geo-strategy for a lot more
than a penny a line. And what they urge, is all that they can without crossing the line from
deceitfulness to complete dishonesty: chaos and destabilisation within Eurasia, surrounding
Russia, subverting Sinkiang and Tibet, employing sectarian guerrillas, fabricating
nationalists and nationalisms.. recreate the land piracy, the raiding and the ethnic
explosions that drove trade from the land to the sea and crippled the Qing empire.
The clash is between war, necessary to the Maritime Empire and Peace, vital to the
consolidation and flowering of Eurasia.
As to Israel, and perhaps we can go into this later: it looms much larger in the US
imagination (and the imaginations the 'west' borrows from the US) than anywhere else. It is a
tiny sliver of a country. Far from being an elephant in any room, it is simply a highly
perfumed lapdog which also serves as its master's ventriloquist's dummy. Its danger lies in
the fact that after decades of neglect by its idiotic self indulgent masters, it has become
an openly fascist regime, which was definitely not meant to happen, and, misled by its own
exotic theories of race, has come to believe that it can do what it wants. It can't-and this
is one reason why Bill misjudges the reasoning behind the Soleimani killing- but it likes to
act, or rather threaten to act, as if it could.
(By the way-note to morons across the web-Bill's partner quotes Adorno and writes about
him too: cue rants about Cultural Marxism.)
Hugh O'Neill ,
Thanks, Bevin. The article was so long, I had quite forgotten that he laid too much emphasis
on the Stratcor Unspeakable. Clever he may be, but not much use without a moral compass.
Talking of geo-strategists, you will doubtless be aware of the work of A.T. Mahan whose
blueprint for acquisition of inspired Teddy Roosevelt and leaders throughout Europe, Russia,
Japan.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Friedman is a snake oil peddler. He tells the ruling psychopaths what they want to hear, like
' China crumbling', their favourite wet-dream.
bevin ,
I agree about Mahan's importance. He understood what lay behind the Empire on which the sun
never set but he had enough brains to have been able to realise that current conditions make
those fleets obsolete. In fact the Germans in the last War realised that too- their strategy
was Eurasian, it broke down over the small matter of devouring the USSR. The expiry date on
the tin of Empire has been obvious for a long time- there is simply too much money to be made
by ignoring it.
Russia has always been the problem, either real (very occasionally) or latent for the
Dutch/British/US Empire because it is just so clear that the quickest and most efficient
communications between Shanghai and Lisbon do not go through the Straits of Malacca, the Suez
Canal, or round the cape . Russia never had to do a thing to earn the enmity of the Empire,
simply existing was a challenge. And that remains the case- for centuries the Empire
denounced the Russians because of the Autocracy, then it was the anarchism of the Bolsheviks,
then it was the autocracy again, this time featuring Stalin, then it was the chaos of the
oligarchs and now we are back with the Tsar/Stalin Putin.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Phenomenal diagnosis, Bevin. However, one suspects that there is still too much profit to be
made by the MIC in pursuing useless strategies. I imagine Mahan turning in his grave in his
final geo-strategic twist.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-Zionist hubris will get Israel into a whole world of sorrow.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing
as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain't.
Any article with mention of mother-'Tucker' Carlson is one that is pure propagandistic
tripe in the extreme. Off-G is a UK blog yet this Americanism & worn out aged propaganda
still prevails in the minds of US centric myopics writ large across all states in the
disunity equally divided from cities to rural towns all.
MOU
johny conspiranoid ,
"More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing
as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain'"
Is this even a sentence?
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
It was a sentence when I was smoking marijuana yesterday, Johnny C. Today it is still a
sentence IMHO, but you transcribed it incorrectly, and forgot the end of the sentence.
NOTE: When I smoke marijuana I am allowed to write uncoordinated sentences. These are the
rules in CANADA. If you don't like it write to your local politician and complain
bitterly.
MOU
Charlotte Russe ,
Bush, Obama, and Clinton are despicable. In fact, they're particularly disgusting, inasmuch,
as they were much more "cognizant" than Trump of how their actions would lead to very
specific insidious consequences. In addition, they were more able to cleverly conceal their
malevolent deeds from the public. And that's why Trump is now sitting in the Oval
Office–he won because of public disgust for lying politicians.
However, Trump is "dangerous" because he's a "misinformed idiot," and as such is extremely
malleable. Of course, ignorance is no excuse when the future of humanity is on the line
In any event, Trump is often not aware of the outcome of his actions. And when you're
surrounded and misinformed by warmongering neoconservative nutcases, especially ones who
donated to your campaign chances are you'll do stupid things. And that's what they're
counting on.
alsdkfj ,
Trump is some virtuous example of a truth teller? Trump?
The biggest liar to every occupy the White House and that is saying a lot.
Swamp Monster fascist Trump. So much to love, right?
He could murder one of your friends and you'd still apologize for him, is my guess.
Hugh O'Neill ,
It was a long read, but I got there. In essence, I agreed with 99%, but I hesitate to share
too much praise for Trump's qualities as a Human Being – though he may be marginally
more Human than the entire US body politic. I was walking our new puppy yesterday when he did
his usual attempt to leap all over other walkers. I pleaded their forgiveness and explained
that his big heart was in inverse proportion to his small brain. It occurred to me later that
the opposite would be pure evil i.e. a small heart but big brain. Capitalism as is now
infects the Human Experiment, has reduced both brains and hearts: propagandists believe their
own lies, and too few trust their own instincts and innate compassion, ground down by the
relentless distractions of lies and 'entertainment' (at least the Romas gave you free
bread!).
I get the impression that Trump's world view hasn't altered much since he was about 11 years
old. I do not intend to insult all eleven-year-olds, but his naivety is not a redeeming
feature of his spoilt brat bully personality. He has swallowed hook, line and sinker every
John Wayne cowboy movie and thinks the world can be divided into good guys and bad guys
depending on what colour hat they wear. In the days of Black & White TV, it was either
black or white. The world seemed so much simpler aged 11 .(1966).
Dungroanin ,
Yet I have yet to see one photo of Trump with a gun or in uniform.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The Duck learned to dress appropriately for business, I'll give him that. As a New York Real
Estate scion you will never see him dress otherwise. Protocol in business is a contemporary
business suit. No other manner of dress is allowed for the executive class in North America
or UK.
The U.S. was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until,
that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week
(Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).
Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but
assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not
observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.
And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq.
He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior
Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was
all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state
official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of
war.
This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the
sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people.
It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between
Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's
sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq (and
therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.
Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House
official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen
consequences soon may come home to roost.
Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the
crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always
unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?
Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no U.S. embassy siege 'on my watch' –
unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would
play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly
by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.
Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli
officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring
within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has
requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his
legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its
future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but
much to gain.
Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with
Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for
technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the
March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his
continued tenure of the premiership.
One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of
Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the U.S. will
back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli
and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is
seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to
Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble
to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the U.S. elections? We do
not know.
So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will
Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the U.S. cross another 'red line' by
striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?
Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi
Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as
"Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd
a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist
forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow
approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces
led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on
the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.
These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a
identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common
zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct
experience).
But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be
outraged by the U.S. attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then
blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?
But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from
limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was
not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real U.S.
channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next
days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?
"... "Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption ..."
"... "The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption. ..."
"... "Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak. ..."
"... "Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo. ..."
"... In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis. ..."
That was how the English protestant leader saw Catholic Spain in 1656. And it is very close
to how key orientations in the U.S. sees Iran today : The evil of religion – of
Shi'ism – subjecting (they believe) Iranians to repression, and to serfdom. In Europe,
this ideological struggle against the 'evil' of an imposed religious community (the Holy
'Roman' Axis, then) brought Europe to 'near-Armageddon', with the worst affected parts of
Europe seeing their population decimated by up to 60% during the conflict.
Is this faction in the U.S. now intent on invoking a new, near-Armageddon – on this
occasion, in the Middle East – in order, like Cromwell, to destroy the religious
'community known' as the Shi'a Resistance Axis, seen to stretch across the region, in order to
preserve the Jewish "peoples' desire for simple liberties"?
Of course, today's leaders of this ideological faction are no longer Puritan Protestants
(though the Christian Evangelicals are at one with Cromwell's 'Old Testament' literalism and
prophesy). No, its lead ideologues are the neo-conservatives, who have leveraged Karl Popper's
hugely influential The Open Society and its Enemies – a seminal treatise, which
to a large extent, has shaped how many Americans imagine their 'world'. Popper's was history
understood as a series of attempts, by the forces of reaction, to smother an open society with
the weapons of traditional religion and traditional culture:
Marx and Russia were cast as the archetypal reactionary threat to open societies. This
construct was taken up by Reagan, and re-connected to the Christian apocalyptic tradition
(hence the neo-conservative coalition with Evangelists yearning for
Redemption , and with liberal interventionists, yearning for a secular millenarianism). All
concur that Iran is reactionary, and furthermore, the posit, poses a grave threat to Israel's
self-proclaimed 'open society'.
The point here is that there is little point in arguing with these people that Iran poses no
threat to the U.S. (which is obvious) – for the 'project' is ideological through and
through. It has to be understood by these lights. Popper's purpose was to propose that only
liberal globalism would bring about a "growing measure of humane and enlightened life" and a
free and open society – period.
All this is but the outer Matryoshka – a suitable public rhetoric, a painted image
– that can be used to encase the secret, inner dolls. Eli Lake,
writing in Bloomberg , however, gives away the next doll:
"Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani –
justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's
advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime
disruption
"The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John
Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who
then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in
the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek
an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the
Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's
incompetence and corruption.
"Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions
taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a
U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them
upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser
writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its
leaders are weak.
"Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against
Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone
[in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a
message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This
could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top
deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo.
In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says
the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)."
Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's
domestic legitimacy crisis.
So there it is – David Wurmser is the 'doll' within: no military invasion, but just a
strategy to blow apart the Iranian Republic. Wurmser, Eli Lake reveals, has quietly been
advising Bolton and the Trump Administration all along. This was the neo-con, who in 1996,
compiled Coping with Crumbling States (which flowed on from the infamous Clean
Break policy strategy paper, written for Netanyahu, as a blueprint for destructing
Israel's enemies). Both these papers advocated the overthrow of the Secular-Arab nationalist
states – excoriated both as "crumbling relics of the 'evil' USSR" (using Popperian
language, of course) – and inherently hostile to Israel (the real message).
Well (
big surprise ), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and destroy
Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the Iranian
leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's domestic
legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and pretend that
the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government.
Eli Lake seems, in his Bloomberg piece, to think that the Wurmser strategy has
worked. Really? The problem here is that narratives in Washington are so far apart from the
reality that exists on the ground – they simply do not touch at any point. Millions
attended Soleimani's cortege. His killing gave a renewed cohesion to Iran. Little more
than a dribble have protested.
Now let us unpack the next 'doll': Trump bought into Wurmser's 'play', albeit, with Trump
subsequently admitting that he did the assassination under
intense pressure from Republican Senators. Maybe he believed the patently absurd narrative
that Iranians would 'be dancing in the street' at Soleimani's killing. In any event, Trump is
not known, exactly, for admitting his mistakes. Rather, when something is portrayed as his
error, the President adopts the full 'salesman' persona: trying to convince his base that the
murder was no error, but a great strategic success – "They like us", Trump claimed of
protestors in Iran.
Tom Luongo has
observed : "Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week, and it's clear that
this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the
Republicans hold the Senate, simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first
place. It is [occurring because it offers] the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose
desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C.
Swamp." Ah, so here we arrive at another inner Matryoshka.
This is Luongo's point: Impeachment was the leverage to drive open a wedge between
Republican neo-conservatives in the Senate – and Trump. And now the Pelosi pressure on
Republican Senators is
escalating . The Establishment threw cold water over Trump's assertion of imminent
attack, as justification for murdering Soleimani, and Trump responds by painting himself
further into a corner on Iran – by going the full salesman 'monte'.
On the campaign trail, the President goes way over-the-top, calling Soleimani
a "son of a b -- -", who killed 'thousands' and furthermore was responsible for every U.S.
veteran who lost a limb in Iraq. And he then conjures up a fantasy picture of protesters
pouring onto the streets of Tehran, tearing down images of Soleimani, and screaming abuse at
the Iranian leadership.
It is nonsense. There are
no mass protests (there have been a few hundred students protesting at one main Tehran
University). But Trump has dived in pretty deep, now
threatening the Euro-Three signatories to the JCPOA, that unless they brand Iran as having
defaulted on JCPOA at the UNSC disputes mechanism, he will slap an eye-watering 25% tariff on
their automobiles.
So, how will Trump avoid plunging in even deeper to conflict if – and when –
Americans die in Iraq or Syria at the hands of militia – and when Pompeo or Lindsay
Graham will claim, baldly, 'Iran's proxies did it'? Sending emollient faxes to the Swiss to
pass to Tehran will not do. Tehran will not read them, or believe them, even if they did.
It all reeks of stage-management; a set up: a very clever stage-management, designed to end
with the U.S. crossing Iran's 'red line', by striking at a target within Iranian
territory. Here, finally, we arrive at the innermost doll.
Cui bono ? Some Senators who never liked Trump, and would prefer Pence as
President; the Democrats, who would prefer to run their candidate against Pence in November,
rather than Trump. But also, as someone who once worked with Wurmser observed tartly: when you
hear that name (Wurmser), immediately you think Netanyahu, his intimate associate.
What a chilling statement attributed to Henry Kissinger that American soldiers are "
dumb , stupid animals to be used as pawns in the conduct of [ American ] policy." Martin
Luther King recognized that our soldiers were "pawns " and in his "searing" anti-war speech
on April4, 1968
he advised ministers and boys facing the draft to register for conscientious objector status
. This speech is said to have help seal his death warrant and exactly a year later he was
assassinated . See :
"When MLK turned on Vietnam , even 'liberal' allies turned on him " cnn.com
"The verdict was harsh .By one count 168 newspapers condemned his speech . King became
'persona non grata' in the Johnson Whitehouse."
The MIC/deep state does not take kindly to anti-war/peacemakers .
"... Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018. The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former, said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group. ..."
"... A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack. ..."
Russia urged to convene a briefing with the participation of OPCW
Fact-Finding-Mission (FFM) experts, who worked on the report on alleged chemical attack in
Syria's Duma in April 2018, to reach an agreement on this controversial case, Alexander
Shulgin, Russia's envoy to OPCW, said at a Security Council meeting. On Monday, members of the
UN Security Council, at the request of the Russian mission,
held an informal meeting to assess the situation around the FMM's Final Report on the incident
in the Arab Republic .
In November, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks published an email, sent by a member of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission to Syria to his superiors,
in which he voiced his "gravest" concerns over the redacted version of the report in question,
which he co-authored. According to the OPCW employee, the document, which is understood to have
been edited by the secretariat, misrepresented facts, omitted certain details and introduced
"unintended bias," having "morphed into something quite different to what was originally
drafted."
"We once again propose to resolve the conflicting situation through the means of holding of a briefing under the auspices of the OPCW and, possibly, with the assistance of
all concerned countries and with the participation of all experts of the
Fact-Finding-Mission, who worked on the Duma incident, to find a consensus on this resonant
incident," Shulgin said on Monday.
Shulgin also suggested that the working methods of FFM must be improved, stressing the
necessity for its members to personally visit sites of alleged use of chemical weapons and
collect evidence samples, as well as strictly adhere to the chain of custody over the items of
evidence and guarantee geographically-balanced makeup of the mission.
In July, Shulgin said that the head of the mission probing claims of a chemical attack in
Duma had never travelled to this city.
Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018.
The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while
the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former,
said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group.
A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United
States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities
with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack.
"... For starters, don't be surprised if his "fortification" of ISIS means Donald Trump can't pull out of Syria after all. Or maybe if ISIS attacks on Iraqi civilians/militias result in the Iraqi parliament revoking their request for the US to remove their troops from Iraqi soil. ..."
"... There's the possibility that ISIS will start a resurgence in Libya, meaning that NATO has to get in there and sort things out. Maybe some furious ISIS fighters will be the ones who assassinate Iranian generals in future. It's much less messy that way. ..."
For starters, don't be surprised if his "fortification" of ISIS means Donald Trump can't
pull out of Syria after all. Or maybe if ISIS attacks on Iraqi civilians/militias result in the Iraqi parliament revoking
their request for the US to remove their troops from Iraqi soil.
There's the possibility that ISIS will start a resurgence in Libya, meaning that NATO has to
get in there and sort things out. Maybe some furious ISIS fighters will be the ones who assassinate Iranian generals in
future. It's much less messy that way.
Or, hell, maybe we'll return to the hits of the 90s and early 2000s, and Islamic jihadists
will get back to work in Chechnya.
Whatever happens, ISIS are back baby. And that means that some way, somehow, Mr al-Salbi is
about to make the foreign policy goals of the United States much easier.
That's what Goldsteins are for.
harry law ,
.... The US have used Islamic state against both Syria and Iraq, [the enemy of my enemy is my
friend].
There can be no doubt that the US are going to use Islamic state to disrupt Iraq, just as
they had no qualms about watching [from satellites and spotter aircraft] Islamic state travel
100's of kilometres from Syria to Northern Iraq [Mosul] across the desert, whipping up tons
of dust in their Toyota jeeps to put pressure on the Iraqi government. Also as they watched
on with equanimity when the Islamic state transported thousands of tanker loads of oil from
Syria to Turkey, that is until the Russians bombed those convoys, the US must think everyone
is as stupid as they are. If the Iraqis don't drive the US out using all means including
violence, they deserve to be slaves.
"Sergey Lavrov earlier called the US-led coalition's refusal to combat al-Nusra
"absolutely unacceptable."
In
groundbreaking news President Putin announced today, 15 January, in his annual address to the
Nation, major changes in his government. First, he announced that Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned and will eventually be replaced by a new PM and a new
cabinet. A timeline was not given. In the meantime, they would carry on with their functions as
'normal'. Well, how normal can this be for a group of "lame ducks"?
A second important point of Mr. Putin's speech focused on shifting power away from the
Presidency to the Duma, or Parliament. The Duma shall have more power in a better balancing act
between the Presidency and the voice of the people; i.e., the Parliament. The possibility of
referenda, with people voting, is also foreseen. A move towards more 'democracy'. Some
interpret this as a reaction to western criticism of Russia being a dictatorial state and this
move should alleviate Russia from this accusation. I don't think so. Western accusations are
random, when it suits them, never based on facts, but on lies.
For example, the change in government power foresees some changes in the Russian
Constitution, but not a rewrite at all, as Mr. Putin stressed. The term-limitation of the
Presidency should also not change, no more than two. It appears the "no more than two in a row"
– should be amended, and the "in a row" deleted. That would mean, that President Putin
would have to leave the Presidency definitely in 2024 when his current term is up. This may be
one of those Constitutional areas to be confirmed by the Duma – or not.
But could Mr. Putin become PM and still run Russia from behind the scene as he did from 2008
– 2012, under then President Dmitry Medvedev? This was not discussed.
When PM Medvedev explained his resignation, he referred to Article 117 of the Russian
Constitution, which states that the government can offer its resignation to the president, who,
in turn, can either accept or reject it. Mr. Putin, of course, accepted it, thanking PM
Medvedev and his Ministers for their good work and service to Russia. Although there was no
visible hostility between Putin and Medvedev, this move has most likely been discussed and
negotiated months ago.
Mr. Medvedev was offered the post of Deputy Secretary of Russia's Security Council, a job
that first had to be created, according to Mr. Putin. This rank is clearly a few steps down
from Prime-Minister. PM Medvedev and President Putin are both members of the United Russia
Party , but Medvedev has the reputation of being an Atlantist, meaning, leaning strongly
towards the west, western political philosophy. The Russian financial sector is still
infiltrated with Atlantists, some may call them Fifth Columnists.
All the while seeking to improve relations with Europe – a logical step –
President Putin is adamant to detach from the US-dollar dominated "sanction-prone" economy. And
rightly so. Might this explain the departure of PM Medvedev? As of this morning, there was no
mention of a favored replacement as PM. This may take a while. Seemingly no problem as all the
key activities are still covered by the "caretaker" government. The entire change of government
was presented as "relaxed", "no big deal", a natural process for improving the functioning of
the Russian government. Yet, this has never happened in "modern" Russia, in the last 20 years,
under Mr. Putin's leadership.
Duma members interviewed saw it generally as a positive move. They will now have more power,
and more responsibility. They will have a say in key appointments, including of the
Prime-Minister and his cabinet, while the final decision rests still with the President.
What is important to notice is that the present "democratization" of the Russian government
comes at a time when Mr. Putin's public approval is still around 70%, a slight drop since his
reelection in 2018 with 77%.
The Duma, with its new powers, will be asked to look at some aspects of the Constitution (as
of yet no details are officially defined) with a view of possibly modifying them. Given Mr.
Putin's high popularity and Russia's economic and political stability, Russia's military
superiority – despite the constant western interference, or attempted interferences
– preserving that stability and continuous economic prosperity is important; i.e.,
continuity in the Presidency and the Government is crucial. Thus, wouldn't it be conceivable
that the Duma might lift the term-limit for the Presidency altogether?
Although, at this stage much of this is speculation. But assuming that some of the strategy
behind this change – the "power equalizing move" – goes in this direction, then the
timing is perfect. A new Decade, a new Era. And Putin remains the key player – the one
who has made of Russia what she is today – a proud, independent, autonomous nation, that
has despite all sanctions and western demonization not only prevailed, but come out on top
brilliantly as a sovereign world super power. Why would the Russian people want to risk giving
up this hard-deserved privilege?
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to destroy the nuclear agreement with Iran. He has
threatened the EU-3 poodles in Germany, Britain and France
with a 25% tariff on their car exports to the U.S. unless they end their role in the
JCPOA deal.
In their usual gutlessness the Europeans gave in to the blackmail. They
triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the deal. The mechanism foresees two 15
day periods of negotiations and a five day decision period after which any of the involved
countries can escalate the issues to the UN Security Council. The reference to the UNSC
would then lead to an automatic reactivation or "snapback" of those UN sanction against
Iran that existed before the nuclear deal was signed.
Iran is now countering the European move. Its Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
announced that Iran may leave the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) if any of the European countries escalates the issue to the UNSC:
Zarif said that Iran is following up the late decision by European states to trigger the
Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the context of the JCPOA, adding that Tehran officially
started the discussion on the mechanism on May 8, 2018 when the US withdrew from the
deal.
He underlined that Iran sent three letters dated May 10, August 26 and November 2018
to the then EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, announcing in the latter that
Iran had officially triggered and ended the dispute resolution mechanism and thus would
begin reducing its commitments to the JCPOA.
However, Iran gave a seven-month opportunity to the European Union before it began
reducing its commitments in May 8, 2019 which had operational effects two months later,
according to Zarif.
Iran's top diplomat said that the country's five steps in compliance reduction would
have no similar follow-ups, but Europeans' measure to refer the case to the United
Nations Security Council may be followed by Tehran's decision to leave NPT as stated in
President Hassan Rouhani's May 2018 letter to other parties to the deal.
He stressed that all the steps are reversible if the European parties to the JCPOA
restore their obligations under the deal.
The Europeans certainly do not want Iran to leave the NPT. But as they are cowards and
likely to continue to submit themselves to Trump's blackmail that is what they will end up
with. Britain is the most likely country to move the issue to the UNSC as it is in urgent
need of a trade deal with the U.S. after leaving the EU. Cooke has piece at Strategic
Culture on Wurmser who may be the strategist behind Trump admin moves on Iran. Adds to this
piece by b.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/20/many-matryoska-dolls-america-way-imagining-iran/
"Well (big surprise), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and
destroy Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the
Iranian leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's
domestic legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and
pretend that the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government."
Overall, the strategy looks to be aimed at weakening and disrupting Iran and removing
its allies in the region from the game before US strikes begin.
The downing of the Uki plane and Trump Pompeo immediately saying they were with the
Iranian people would fit very well into this strategy though it is not mentioned by
Crooke.
The Europeans certainly do not want Iran to leave the NPT. But as they are cowards and
likely to continue to submit themselves to Trump's blackmail that is what they will end
up with. Britain is the most likely country to move the issue to the UNSC as it is in
urgent need of a trade deal with the U.S. after leaving the EU.
We shouldn't humanize entire nations when analyzing geopolitics.
The Europeans are simply aware of the objective fact they are de facto occupied
countries thanks to the many de facto American bases scattered around Western and Central
Europe (Germany being the country with the most American bases in the world). They obey the
USA for the simple fact they are occupied by the USA.
That's why some neocarolingians/European nationalists mainly from Germany, France and
the Benelux (e.g. Macron, Juncker) avidly defend the creation of an European Army. You
don't need to be a geopolitics genius to infer the grave consequences such move would have
to the European peoples' welfare.
As long as NATO exists, Western Europe will remain firmly in American hands.
Besides, there's also the ideological factor.
Many Europeans still see today the USA as their "most illustrious child", their
continuation as the Western Civilization's center. New York is the new Paris+London. They
see themselves as the dwarf countries they really are and rationalize that, ultimately, it
is better to live under the hegemony of another Western nation than under the hegemony of
the "yellows" (i.e. Chinese) or the "slavics" (i.e. Russia). They really see themselves as
a true North Atlantic family, which share the same race and the same cultural values.
These Atlanticists are specially numerous in the UK, which is not surprising, given its
geographic location and the fact that it was indeed the country that founded the USA.
Of course Iran and what happens in Iraq are joined at the hip...
Professor Maranadi>
"Seyed Mohammad Marandi
@s_m_marandi
·
10m
Many believe an economic crisis lies ahead of the US & the timing of the crash will
determine the fate of Trump's re-election bid. However, another threat looms. If the US
fails to swiftly comply with Iraqi demands to end the occupation, the resistance will
become very violent."
and in Germany?
USA warnen: "Unmittelbar bevorstehender Angriff auf US-Militärs in Deutschland".
RT/D
"Pulling back" may suit the Clowns, but agreement requires more than that if there's to
be no child.
The Clowns are not contract capable. The only "deal" is for the imperial forces to leave
the ME... the only deal is action....Of one sort or another. The clowns imagine a glorious
victory over smoking ruins.
Fatwa or not, Iran must have the bomb, for the same reason NoKo had to build it. It's the
only way to lance the boil and move on from under the incessant threats from the United
States. We won't let up, even if it takes 100 years, and they have to know this. They do
have the engineering know how to do it; now they must, but they will have to be discrete
and stockpile enough 90% U235, then fiddle around with the details involved in assembling a
staged device with enough yield so it's understood by all. I expect this whole process will
now move forward.
One is reminded of Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in 1914: "As the German ambassador
to Vienna reported to his government on July 14, the [note] to Serbia is being composed so
that the possibility of its being accepted is practically excluded." As Churchill wrote at
the time: "it seemed absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept it, or
that any acceptance, however abject, would satisfy the aggressor."
Many people refer to the European countries as 'occupied' (vk) and that is the reason they
submit to American policy. I don't believe that is the case. The number of troops is far
too small to 'occupy' a country that was resisting an occupation. Those troops were there
as a 'trigger' to initiate a conflict with the Soviet Union if it invaded Europe. These
days they are just there as some kind of vestigial legacy, and don't really mean anything.
The US exercises its control over the EU and elsewhere through its control of international
finance and trade. This system benefits the elite of those countries that are part of the
'empire', so has substantial support from influential people inside those countries. Unless
and until there is some groundswell of support among the peoples of those countries to
change that system, they will continue to be an obedient part of the US empire.
It's not even clear that resistance isn't futile. Those countries that want to maintain
independence like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey (?), India (?) also have a strong internal
attraction to Western 'culture'. As much as some denigrate that culture as shallow,
materialistic, and worthless, it seems to have a very universal attraction around the
World, particularly among the young. There are a lot of people everywhere that would like
to be a part of a global empire, with a hedonistic Western-style culture. Sad, but
true.
I tend to agree with comments here saying Iran needs to make bomb.
North Korea proved that truth 100%. No amount of agreements or "guarantees" with usual
lying suspects will provide security to Iran - only hard cold nuclear deterrence will.
This time, now, Iran has enough conventional & asymmetrical firepower to deter its
enemies long enough for it to develop nukes (few years?).
It already has proven means to deliver warheads, now it needs them.
I strongly concur with several other commentators here. Iran should immediately commence
enriching uranium to weapons grade levels and assemble at least 10-20 nuclear warheads ASAP
if they ever hope to remain an intact, non-US/Israeli dominated country.
The US understands ONLY raw power and who it perceives has it (Israel, North
Korea..etc.), and who doesn't (Libya, Syria, Iraq..etc.).
The NPT "Treaty" is nothing more than a cabal of nuclear armed countries attempting to
cartel who's allowed to posses a nuclear weapons arsenal and all the rest of the world
countries that's ultimately at their mercy.
"So, what does Iran actually gain by leaving the NPT?"
For one thing, it means they won't have to violate that treaty and international law if
they decide to take steps that wouldn't be allowed under the NPT terms. It's easy to look
at the lawless rogue US regime and forget this, but: some countries actually do try to have
some semblance of abiding by and respecting treaties and the rule of law.
I am always taken aback when people compare unsavory characters to members of the
primate family. Please do not engage in "zoomorphism." And I am dead fucking serious.
Animals do not deserve to be denigrated in such a way. Keep your insults grounded in the
human sphere.
The U.S. has already used that tactic of insisting on concessions known to be unacceptable
to the other side with the intention of causing war at least twice: to Japan in 1941 and to
Yugoslavia before the Kosovo War.
Does Iran really need a nuke? They have proven they can hit a US base and Saudi oil
infrastructure. It is believed they already have.... or at least have the capability of
mining the Strait of Hormuz. If the global financial elite can't get oil out of the gulf...
what happens to the global economy? My guess is it would implode. Isn't this the real and
only reason the US hasn't bombed Iran back to the stone age yet? They already have
deterrence. The US claims about restoring deterrence was just the projection of sociopaths
and psychopaths.
re:Cornelius von Hamb | Jan 20 2020 19:59 utc | 14
"For one thing, it means they won't have to violate that treaty and international law if
they decide to take steps that wouldn't be allowed under the NPT terms."
Iran says it won't develop nuclear weapons (anti Islamic), so what steps could they
possibly be not wanting to rule out?
The state of the JCPOA today bears a lot on Trump's negotiations with North Korea.
Kim Un Jung has be spooked by Bolton comparing North Korea's fate to Libya and by the ease
with which US withdrew from the JCPOA. Negotiations have halted.
Trump needs to show that he is serious with deals that he guaranties will be binding the
partners more seriously than the flawed JCPOA.
Iran has only one choice: Press Europe to take a stand against the USA, (which will
probably not happen) then pull out officially from the JCPOA that has become a liability
with no advantages and calls for re-negotiation. Trump will certainly jump in and will try
to get the best deal possible by squeezing Iran on its regional role. Yet he can't have too
excessive demands as he wants to make a similar deal with North Korea.
Iran could ask for withholding sanctions during negotiations. It could take years to
finalize the deal. In the meantime the regional situation could change greatly
That seems to be the only path for Iran.
According to what is said here, the US is still afraid of attacking Iran, and is going for
internal disruption, and sanctions. So what's new? It's been the same policy for forty
years. The fact that Trump doesn't like long-term wars, and will only go for a big bang
without consequences, is neither here nor there.
Rouhani and his team, including Zarif, seem to me pretty bright, and capable of coping
with the politics. Relighting nuclear refinement is essentially a political move.
Again, find it hard to believe that they are in fact such quisling sycophants to the
US.
Suspect they rely on Trump to provide cover for the fact that they (like him) are beholden
to higher powers.
The USE of WMDs is haram.
Words mean things B, much as the PC police have twisted their meanings,and even fatwas can
be reversed.
The frantic efforts to corral the USSRs nukes were never anything like 100% effective,500+
warheads and tonnes of
plutonium were NEVER accounted for from the KNOWN inventory,who knows what the unknown
inventory was ?
Generals of Rocket Forces had to eat,and there were willing buyers for their only
wares.
A CIA assessment I was made privy to,the old boys network for an opinion from outside,
claimed the Iranians did not have the ability to keep those warheads in working order,which
begs a question,how many ?
I told my old schoolmate they were wrong in their assessment, they've had the capability
since the Shahs nuclear program.I know Iran very well,worked and lived there ,during the
Shah times.
Money quote: "The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these
fraudulent investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance."
Notable quotes:
"... For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others are tenaciously withholding evidence. ..."
"... When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over 340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was incriminating. No rational person would believe that. ..."
"... The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a defender of FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court. They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want. ..."
"... Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, " there is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election ..."
"... Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story. Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing. ..."
Many government officials with long entrenched power are unwilling to give up any of that
power. In their minds, they have a right to control our lives as they see fit, with complete
indifference to our wishes. To avoid rebellion, they need to hide this fact as much as
possible. They want the citizens to believe the lie that we are a nation of laws with equal
justice under the law. To advance this lie, they have staged many theatrical productions that
they call "investigations". They try to give us the impression that they want to expose the
facts and punish wrongdoing.
Most of the big 'investigations' in the news in recent years have not been at all what they
pretended to be. The sham investigations of Hillary's email, or the Clinton Foundation, or
Weiner's laptop, or Uranium One, or Mueller's witch hunt, or Huber's big nothing, or the IG's
whitewash, or the Schiff-Pelosi charades, have all been premeditated deceptions.
There are
three types of investigations that call for different deceptions by the Deep State.
The first type is the rare honest investigation . Examples would be the attempt to find
the truth about Fast and Furious (Obama's
gunrunning operation), or the IRS scandal (Obama's
weaponizing of government). In response to real investigations, the criminals do two
things lie and hide evidence. Key evidence, even if it is under subpoena, just disappears.
In the IRS case, Lois Lerner's relevant email and the email of 6 others involved in the
scheme was just "lost". The IRS "worked tirelessly" to find the email, but hard drives
had been destroyed and back-up drives were missing, so the subpoenaed evidence could
not be provided.
For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating
procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end
of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my
memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others
are tenaciously
withholding evidence.
The second type of 'investigation' is when the Deep State pretends to investigate the
Deep State . In these 'investigations' the outcome is known in advance, but the script calls
for pretending, sometimes for years, that it an honest investigation is underway.
There was nothing about the Hillary investigations that had anything to do with finding
facts. The purpose from the beginning was exoneration. Key witnesses were given immunity
and many were allowed to attend each other's interviews. There were no early morning swat
team raids to gather evidence. Evidence was destroyed with no consequences.
When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over
340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about
finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York
agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very
quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was
incriminating. No rational person would believe that.
The dirty cops are so comfortable about getting away with lies like this that Huber can
announce that he found no corruption, when it is readily apparent that he did not interview
key witnesses . He even turned away whistleblowers
who wanted to submit evidence. A real investigator, Charles Ortel, could have given Huber a
long list of Clinton Foundation crimes
. Like the Weiner laptop fake investigation, you don't find crimes if you don't really look
for them.
The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they
just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a
defender of
FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court.
They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want.
IG
investigations have proven to be flimsy exonerations of Deep State criminality. Any
honest observer can see that there was a carefully organized plan by top officials to
control the outcome of the Presidential election. This corrupt plan involved lying to the
FISA court, illegal surveillance and unmasking of citizens and conspiring with media
partners to make sure lies were widely circulated to voters. The government conspirators
and the majority of the media were functioning as nothing more than a branch of Hillary's
campaign. That's a lot of power aimed at destroying Trump.
To an IG investigator, this monumental scandal was presented to us as nothing to be very
concerned about. Yes, a few minor rules were inadvertently broken and there did appear to
be some bias, but there was no reason at all to think that bias effected any actions. If
the agencies involved make a training video and set aside a day for a training meeting,
then that should satisfy us completely.
The third type of investigation involves investigating an imaginary crime for political
reasons . The Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation are two examples of
this. Probably as a justification for illegal surveillance they were already doing, the
conspirators pretended that there was powerful evidence that Trump was colluding with Putin
to win the election. Lies about this issue propelled the country into 3 years of stories
about nothing stories and investigations about something that never happened. Never in the
history of nothing has nothing been so thoroughly covered.
Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, "
there
is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to
prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media
partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat
team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very
un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian
troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the
desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to
favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election .
Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort
failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority
in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary
crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that
allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story.
Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing.
The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these fraudulent
investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance.
We are increasingly angry that there is a double standard of justice in this country. There
is a protected class of people who are not prosecuted for their crimes. This needs to end.
The sheeple are easily led including the opposition sheeple. Two quick examples:
1. In the email scandal, Hillary was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of violating the
FOIA by conducting all State Department business via a personal email She was guilty. Yet her
team, listen up sheeple, her team made it about whether or not classified information was
transmitted. This is a gray area which could be defended. She knew she was guilty of the FOIA
violation because it was the whole reason the server was set up in the first place. Yet she
got away with it because everyone focused on the classifications of emails which was a gray
area.
2. In the Weiner / Abedin laptop matter, it is and was illegal for any of these emails to
be on a personal computer. Again, guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet again everyone
focused on what was in the emails and not the fact that just possessing the emails was
illegal. So the FBI was able to say nothing new here and let it drop. If another group such
as the US Marshals was in charge of this investigation, Weiner / Abedin would have been fully
charged with possessing these emails. They would have been pressured to reveal why it was
named Insurance and have been asked to cut a deal.
The purpose of show trials is to fool those that don't pay attention. There are millions
of US citizens that get their news from their neighbor or a narrow set of information that is
disseminated by media that parrot their providers verbatim without challenge. Such people are
quite regularly fooled and some vote.
The double standard justice system in America is appalling and even worse than communists.
Americans really don’t have any credit to criticize communist countries. The ruling
class is no better than them.
The media and ruling classes have tried decades to brainwashed the mass to believe that
the less or even not corrupted.
They could have never pulled off the JFK assassination had the internet existed back in
1963. Time for the Epstein *********** to be posted on the internet. Even the asleep would
realize the unimaginable evil that has been controlling this world for millenia.
I am not sure about that,,we have the net now,,and although there are many of us that pay
attention and figure out their crimes and hoax's,,,,they still get away with them,,,,,,NASA
still gets 59 million a day to fake the space program,,,
Why not? They pulled off 9/11. And what do we have? The same as with the JFK murder.
People still arguing over how it was done, and ignoring the obvious, historically established
now, of who benefited and why. Grassy knoll, 2nd shooter, or directed energy weapons or
explosives, internet or not, still chasing the tail.
"During the Iran-Iraq war Iraq's Saddam Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons
against Iranian front lines and cities. Ten thousand Iranians died of those and many more
were wounded by them"
Nope, in fact the estimate body count is much higher:
"According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat
medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas." (this was only a part, there were also many
civilians killed)
"In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000
casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons,[10] though current estimates are more
than 100,000"
"Reporter Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post stated that Reagan's administration was
well aware that the materials sold to Iraq would be used to manufacture chemical weapons for
use in the war against Iran"
"According to Reagan's foreign policy, every attempt to save Iraq was necessary and
legal.[4]"
All of this is in the wikipedia, hardly a "hardcore iranian trolls" web:
Some people, in the US, still do not understand why Iranian people do not "love"
America...If you had around 100.000 casualties by nerve gas that was sold by the US and his
poodles (forget other western countries, you know who is "the boss" in the game) full aligned
with Iraq, and then you attack Iran with sanctions and threats again and again, and at the
peak of hypocrisy in 2003 USA invaded Iraq "to counter the threat of WMD" (sold by the
US)...What do you think of the US if you are an Iranian were living all your live under the
"Damocles sword" of the threats and sactions of the Empire?
@ Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 20 2020 21:48 utc | 38
Let me see if I understand your point:
First US give permissions in September 1980 (if not encouraged) to Saddam to invade Iran,
to finish the new Islamic regime that was seen as an enemy by Washington; and then when
Iranians, at a huge costs, retaliates and turn the tide, then the US thought it was justified
to supply Iraq with the chemicals (the "dual-use" technology) to make huge amounts of nerve
gases and support the use against Iranian soldiers (with some unavoidable thousands of
"collateral damages"), and also helping them with intelligence, satellite imagery and
etc...Is that your point?
Do you think US would have permitted Iraq attacks Iran if the Shah was governing Iran? Do
you think all the US did is justified? Do you think the people of Iran has no reasons for not
"loving" America?
The US has turned into such a fake bullshit nation that nothing the people say who run the
place can be trusted. It is totally a Masonic land where money is God and the decent people
are exploited and oppressed. Free speech and democracy are only kosher if the issue is
something like Pooper-Scooper Enforcement Officer with no real money or power involved,
unless of course there is an impressive uniform which goes with the position.
The brainwashed masses are presently transfixed to their TV's watching the theatre of the
fake-impeachment pageant unfold, dutifully believing it is all real. All the performers strut
about keeping to their carefully-scripted lines. Like the establishment-hatched fake
Russia-bashing campaign, it is all theater. With the impeachment drama intended the polarize
the entire nation, the people are once-again being caresully herded into their red and blue
stalls in ensure nothing really populist, and not controlled by the establishment cabal
running things, gets off of the ground. the entire performance will be so carefully
choreographed, on a pro and anti Trump basis that it will also ensure that whomever the
ruling cabal anoints will be chosen for the top puppet job.
Like in the US midterm elections in 2018, issues involving US foreign policy were mum. In
the coming presidential election, Americans will see no real difference in the leading
contenders' position regarding foreign affairs, which most Americans in any case now believe
should be left to the military and the agencies who know best how to protect and advance
their interests. Once again, any real discussion or debate on foreign policy during the
coming election campaign will be taboo, and with the careful censorship of the alternate
media, and with no real protest from the American people, who in fact become willing
accomplices to any further unjust wars and atrocities their so-called "free" nation
commits.
Americans are brought up on Hollywood imagery, life-styles and fantasy. The corporate
media and entertainment industry is so pervasive that most of the people cannot discern the
difference between fantasy and reality, and as result of their constantly-fed addiction, they
now demand more and more theatre and even wars to satisfy their cravings. A false-flag
attack, 9/11, on their own people coming from their diabolical "owners", results in being no
more than a thrilling performance to make life seem more real. If there was any reality to
the people they would long ago have arrested the thousands of insider perps involved,
(especially deep-state ones in and out of the US), and long ago they would hung everyone of
them.
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict
the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is
a bad faith actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia before things got stupid and they
never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly
don't live in that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov,
a professor at the Russian University of Economics and Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation:
the ability to repay on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's debts, especially in this case where
debt is to a non-existent entity.
In Syria, the Department of Defense was supporting one group of pet jihadis. The CIA was supporting a different group of pet
jihadis.
At times the two groups of pet jihadis were actively fighting each other. I am not sure how the DoD and CIA felt about their
respective pet jihadis fighting each other. However they felt, they kept right on arming and supporting their respective
groups ...
"... There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students, who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater specialties). ..."
"... Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from the Red Army was waiting for you. ..."
"... translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books were translated into Russian within a very short interval. ..."
"... But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own (except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-). ..."
"... Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic sense. ..."
"... I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no "business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science ..."
"... The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the talent of those few who managed to get into universities. ..."
"... Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations. ..."
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet
educational system is delusional.
However, the US has understood something that the Russians and any decent people don't get:
The people are consumers. They should not be educated beyond the needed to use the most recent
applications on their electronic devices. Anything further carries the danger of having them
discontent and thus an inroad to the Western entity.
Also, a military is not there to win wars and subsequently have a headache about how to deal
with the conquered people. It is about wrecking far away places and providing opportunities to
claim invoices from the federal government.
Modern, hybrid warfare is not about applying this or that military means, but about
occupying the universities, courts and parliaments of the subdued people – finally
occupying their minds. And yes, to do so includes that the weaponry should look cool and
provide job opportunities for the hopeless youngsters of that amorphous mass formerly called
the nation.
The Russians, Chinese, Iranians will have to stay alert 24/7/365 not to fall into the abyss
of depravity that the Great Western Civilisation is offering to them. I am afraid, that the
threat is very real that in the end they will be worn down.
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet educational
system is delusional.
Believe me or not, I would prefer the USA system of education (with all its warts) to the
Soviet system in the 70-90th without any hesitation. And with the same quality of students, the
USA would achive the same or better results.
There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students,
who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary
universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater
specialties).
Soviet universities were as poor as church rats, which has one good side effect that they
were forced to concentrate more on classic subjects like physics and math, which do not require
expensive labs. So students got a solid background in math and physics. But that's about
it.
Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the
university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic
rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from
the Red Army was waiting for you.
As emigrants from the USSR told me, programming courses were simply dismal, and graduates
essentially learned the craft of the jobs, not at universities.
Even math books were the second rate in comparison with the USA textbooks of the same
period.
They were written by a representative of so-called axiomatic schools and were extremely
boring and uninformative. But many good math books were translated (for example, Polia
writings) Actually, as I understand, translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only
first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection
and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books
were translated into Russian within a very short interval.
Academic degrees were also mostly fake (much like they are in the USA now ;-): one of my
friends told me that his Ph.D. from top Ukrainian University was counted only as a master
degree in the USA by the commission which studied his thesis (I believe in NYU)
But again, most good western books on tech subjects were translated and were somewhat
available. And if you compare Feynman lectures (which were also translated) to Soviet physics
textbooks, Soviet textbooks were not even competitive. Some "cutting edge" books was OK. But
very few.
The professors and lectures (including professors large part of which were just incompetent
jerks, promoted due to nepotism or Communist party activities) deteriorated to the level that
was simply painful to watch. Some came to lectures completely unprepared or drank, or tried to
teach some completely bogus theories of their own invention. Many did not come at all sending
assistants.
My impression is that essentially, in 1990, Soviet science and education experienced the
same crisis as the Communist social system as a whole.
But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of
the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university
teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own
(except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-).
Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects
for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no
matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic
sense.
That was especially true as you also need to pass exams in Marxism philosophy and Political
economy to get a degree. Those subjects were frown upon, but in retrospect were useful:
students were forced to read classics, not junk like in neo-classical economics courses in the USA.
I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not
the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no
"business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of
the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science
The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was
staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of
whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the
talent of those few who managed to get into universities.
Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many
problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of
Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations.
Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the
works of the USA military machine
Notable quotes:
"... I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet. ..."
"... Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption, and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted villages, a la My Lai. ..."
"... Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies', that's not quite as obvious. ..."
"... And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long progeny. ..."
"... So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA. ..."
"... Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it happened on his 'watch'. ..."
"... We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations remains to be seen. ..."
"... Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse. In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve honesty and common sense? ..."
Previously, most discussions of the Trump presidency reflexively proceeded to either visceral
disgust etc or accolades of some species. Trumps words and manners dominated. As things
developed, and actual results were recorded, a body of more sober second thought developed.
And a variation on these more experience/reality based assessments is what b has delivered
above.
Some of my points that follow are repeats, some are new. On the whole I see Trump as a
helpful and positive-result really bad President.
I begin with the premise that the United States is a longstanding cultural
catastrophe, and is far along the way in the process of destroying itself, after having
destroyed or damaged the prospects of much of the planet.
As one aspect of this cultural catastrophe, let's refer back to the United States attack
on Indochina, which accomplished millions of dead and millions of wounded people, and birth
defects still in uncounted numbers as a legacy of dioxin etc laden chemical warfare. The
millions of dead included some tens of thousands of American soldiers, and even more wounded
physically, and even more wounded 'mentally'.
Within the context of the attack on Indochina, on the ground and taking place within
the spaces left alive after the B52 bombers et al, there was the 'Phoenix Program'. euphemism
for the CIA's ambitious program of technocratic torture, assassination, bribery, corruption,
and so on, with tens of thousands of murdered victims. And the military destroyed uncounted
villages, a la My Lai.
When asked what it was all about, Kissinger lied in an inadvertently illuminating way:
"basically nothing" was how he put it, if memory serves.
During and after the attack on Indochina, the US trained, aided, financed, etc active
death squads in Central and South America, demonstrating that the United States was an equal
opportunity death dealer.
Now this was a bit of a meander away from the Trump topic, but note that Trump came to
power within the above cultural context and much more pathology besides, talking about ending
the warfare state. Again, this is not an attempt to portray Trump as either sincere or
insincere in that policy. In terms of ideas, it was roughly speaking a good idea.
Another main part of the Trump message was 'let's rebuild America'. And along with the
de-militarization and national program of rejuvenation there was the 'drain the swamp' meme,
which again resonated. And once again, I am not arguing that Trump was sincere, or for that
matter insincere. That's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make: which could essentially
by reduced to: what will be the actual meaning and potential impact of Trump?
Note then that Trump has almost patented the 'fake news' meme. The idea that the msm
is lying about and hiding the truth, non-stop propaganda, is an idea that Trump has pushed
repeatedly. Most people on the MofA etc are well aware of that. But for many 'normies',
that's not quite as obvious.
And yes, he himself could be described as the liar in chief. But doesn't deflect from
the great collapse in the status of the msm propaganda machine. And that propaganda machine
has been very much associated with the CIA via operation Mockingbird and its generations long
progeny.
So the attack on the media via fake news is a direct attack on the basic indispensable
control mechanism of the deep state, and CIA.
Note too that after three Years of Trump, the long standing criminality and corruption
of the FBI has never looked as obvious. Again, we don't have to give Trump credit. But it
happened on his 'watch'.
Now the deep cultural, including political, pathology in the United States, in its many
manifestations remain. We're not talking miracle cures here. But Trump has been a kind of
part deranged, part clever political monkey wrench thrown into the works. As to whether his
disruptive arrival has provided openings for more sensible political and cultural innovations
remains to be seen.
The frantic attempt to deflect attention from and give mainly derisive media coverage to
Tulsi Gabbard is a case in point. Is she the harbinger of a growing political movement aiming
to dismantle the military empire project?
Many of the internal difficulties that the US faces are distinct from militarism, but
related to militarism in the sense that a police state keeping control via surveillance and
bs, etc, and spending its money on empire, is not going to prioritize clear honest discourse.
In the end, one overarching question for the US like the rest of us is: can we achieve
honesty and common sense?
"... They have promoted dishonest claims about the JCPOA and made unfounded claims about Iran's so-called "nuclear ambitions" in order to make it seem as if the Iranian government is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. They have done this to justify their hard-line policies and to lay the groundwork for pursuing regime change and war. Every time that someone repeats false claims about a non-existent "nuclear weapons program" in Iran, it creates unnecessary fear and plays into the administration's hands. ..."
"... The administration is already working overtime to propagandize the public and scare Americans into supporting aggressive and destructive policies against Iran, and no one should be giving them extra help. ..."
"... "Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue." ..."
"... Friedman isn't usually thought of as a devotee of Truth, and the chance of him correcting even the most egregious falsehoods you point out is approximately zero. At heart he's a propaganda guy, not a fact-based analyst. ..."
"... Friedman does it for Israel. It is their line, their constant foreign policy push. The NYT lets him, seems to encourage it, due to its own complex ties to Israel. ..."
"... The Israel Lobby is behind vast wars, killing, and waste. It has become an endless evil. ..."
"... Friedman seems to forget that Iran is a signatory of the NPT and inspectors come and monitor activities, all outside JPCOA. But hey, Iraq had WMD at the time the international inspectors were saying that it didn't and their message and activities were obstructed and blocked by the US. Same as with the alleged gas attacks in Syria and the OPCW "mishandling" the reporting... US has learned since Iraq and wanted compliance from these types of organizations. ..."
Friedman's
latest column obviously wasn't
fact-checked before it was published:
And then, a few weeks later, Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, an action that required him to shift more troops into the
region and tell Iraqis that we're not leaving their territory, even though their Parliament voted to evict us. It also prompted
Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program [bold mine-DL], which could well necessitate U.S. military action. And then, a few
weeks later, Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, an action that required him to shift more troops into the region and tell
Iraqis that we're not leaving their territory, even though their Parliament voted to evict us. It also prompted Iran to restart
its nuclear weapons program [bold mine-DL], which could well necessitate U.S. military action.
Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did,
and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and it hasn't had anything like
that for more than sixteen years. The Iranian government took another step in reducing its compliance with the JCPOA in the days
following the assassination, but contrary to other misleading headlines their government did not abandon the nuclear deal. Iran has
not repudiated its commitment to keep its nuclear program peaceful, and it doesn't help in reducing tensions to suggest that they
have. Trump's recent actions are reckless and dangerous, but it is wrong to say that those actions have caused Iran to start up a
nuclear weapons program. That isn't the case, and engaging in more threat inflation when tensions are already so high is foolish.
Friedman is not the only one to make this blunder, but it is the sort of sloppy mistake we expect from him. If this were just
another error from Friedman, it would be annoying but it wouldn't matter very much. This has to do with the nature of our debate
over Iran policy and the nuclear issue in particular. This matters because there is a great deal of confusion in this country about
Iran's nuclear program that the Trump administration has deliberately encouraged. They have promoted dishonest claims about the JCPOA
and made unfounded claims about Iran's so-called "nuclear ambitions" in order to make it seem as if the Iranian government is trying
to acquire nuclear weapons. They have done this to justify their hard-line policies and to lay the groundwork for pursuing regime
change and war. Every time that someone repeats false claims about a non-existent "nuclear weapons program" in Iran, it creates unnecessary
fear and plays into the administration's hands.
The administration is already working overtime to propagandize the public and scare
Americans into supporting aggressive and destructive policies against Iran, and no one should be giving them extra help. The second
part of Friedman's sentence is also quite dangerous, because it encourages his readers to think that the U.S. would somehow be justified
in attacking Iran in the unlikely event that they started developing a nuclear weapon. He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons
program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice
just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something
that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war.
Friedman's
claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is
irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and it hasn't had anything like that for
more than sixteen years. The Iranian government took another step in reducing its compliance with the JCPOA in the days following
the assassination, but contrary to other misleading headlines their government did not abandon the nuclear deal. Iran has not repudiated
its commitment to keep its nuclear program peaceful, and it doesn't help in reducing tensions to suggest that they have. Trump's
recent actions are reckless and dangerous, but it is wrong to say that those actions have caused Iran to start up a nuclear weapons
program. That isn't the case, and engaging in more threat inflation when tensions are already so high is foolish.
... ... ...
He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances
would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman
seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to
the idea of preventive war. The second part of Friedman's sentence is also quite dangerous, because it encourages his readers to
think that the U.S. would somehow be justified in attacking Iran in the unlikely event that they started developing a nuclear weapon.
He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances
would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman
seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to
the idea of preventive war.
"Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is
completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is
irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue."
Friedman isn't usually thought of as a devotee of Truth, and the chance of him correcting even the most egregious falsehoods
you point out is approximately zero. At heart he's a propaganda guy, not a fact-based analyst.
Friedman does it for Israel. It is their line, their constant foreign policy push. The NYT lets him, seems to encourage it, due
to its own complex ties to Israel.
The Israel Lobby is behind vast wars, killing, and waste. It has become an endless evil.
Friedman's readers are the choir, and he's just singing to them. People who have seen through his fabrications stopped reading
him years ago. Friedman will always have his little clique of deluded pseudo-intellectuals, but truly intelligent people don't
waste their time with him.
I think the picture of Friedman that accompanies this article tells a big part of the story. His furrowed brow, the intensity
of his studied gaze, his penetrating and knowing look into the the complexities that only someone of his intelligence can unravel.
It is really the picture of a stuffed shirt.
Friedman represents something really wrong with our society and culture: The incompetent, the ignorant, and the arrogant ones
are given positions of power and influence, and the wise and knowledgeable are marginalized.
It is difficult to name a more odious shill for Israel war mongering than friedman but than he does have competition in the NYT
staff. NYT is a bugle for Israel.
Mr. Friedman recently called Gen. Soleimani "the dumbest man in Iran" for sponsoring terrorist forces in Lebanon, Syria, and
Yemen backing paramilitary forces fighting terrorism in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
Mr. Friedman is one of the dumbest pundits
in the media class and almost certainly the dumbest ever to work for The New York Times. He just can't help himself...
Friedman seems to forget that Iran is a signatory of the NPT and inspectors come and monitor activities, all outside JPCOA. But
hey, Iraq had WMD at the time the international inspectors were saying that it didn't and their message and activities were obstructed
and blocked by the US. Same as with the alleged gas attacks in Syria and the OPCW "mishandling" the reporting... US has learned
since Iraq and wanted compliance from these types of organizations.
Ellie Geranmayeh is a senior policy fellow and deputy head of the Middle East and North
Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. She specializes in European
foreign policy in relation to Iran, particularly on the nuclear and regional dossiers and
sanctions policy.
... ... ...
The response from Tehran could be immediate or more long term, ranging from military action
in the region to cyber attacks inside the U.S. and heavy political pushback. Iranian Supreme
Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly warned that there would not be war with the U.S. and
Iran has so far acted in a calculated and rational fashion to Trump's "maximum pressure"
campaign. If this position holds, Tehran will attempt to manage the risk of direct conflict,
continuing to deploy asymmetric tactics to undermine U.S. interests, albeit with the red lines
now redrawn.
The gravity and scale of Iranian compliance will be influenced by the recent escalation
with the U.S.
The extensive U.S. military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan means the U.S. is
likely to bear the brunt of retaliation. Iran has deep ties to both state and non-state actors
across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Yemen that can be utilized to inflict pain on
America. Soleimani's death has already triggered a new decline in the Trump administration's
relations with Baghdad that may extend to Kabul, and is also likely to heat up the long debate
inside Tehran over how far to push U.S. military forces out of neighboring Iraq and
Afghanistan.
... ... ...
If Tehran takes drastic steps on the nuclear file, it could mark the total collapse of the
agreement.
... ... ...
In the space of six months, the U.S. and Iran have gone from targeting drones, oil
installations and bases, to killing personnel. It is still unclear how and when Iran will
choose to respond to Soleimani's assassination. But the new commander of the Quds Force --
appointed within 12 hours of Soleimani's death -- will no doubt be eager to demonstrate his
willingness to exact revenge against America.
When that happens, neither the Middle East nor Europe will be isolated from the
blowback.
The murder of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis will resonate hugely throughout Iraq.
Trump in so many ways represents the bad ruler Gilgamesh who is poorly advised in his
conquest by Enkidu (Pompeo) and they brutally slay the guardian of the forest to steal the
precious timber. Then they murder the sacred bull of heaven (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) for
prowess and nothing more. This slaughter of the sacred bull enrages the gods and they slay
Enkidu which breaks Gilgamesh heart. etc etc. (drastically simplified and likely contested).
This tale is deeply known throughout the lands of the Middle East in all manner of old and
modern iterations.
Trump is so unwise and devoid of subtlety that he has ended any chance of salvation in
that land and has started every chance of retribution on a scale he could not conceive. His
assault on all culture and sacred leaders is bonded to the deepest sense of existential being
that any further aggression will simply escalate the payback. The USA urgently needs some
cooler heads to intervene but they are not yet impacting on him. Indeed Trump is so eager to
pat himself on the back with his adrenalin rush of murdering other leaders that it is
disgusting.
Almost all of the "terrorism" affecting the West has been Wahabbi Salafist Sunni driven.
Iran, despite their religious head, is a more modern sectarian nation than Saudi Arabia. ISIS
had become a proxy army of the CIA; that's likely why Soleimani had to be killed. It is time
to align with Iran and the Shia for a change. They also have oil! Would send a nice message
to our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
After only a week or so after this heinous crime, we are assisting already to a new
campaign on whitewashing Trump at each of the US military blogs...SST at the head...as
always...but following the rest...be it a editorial level, be it at commentariat level...
What part of Trump admitting he personally ordered the murder you have not understood?
What part of Soleimani and Al Muhandis being the main strategic heads of real anti-IS
front have you not understood?
What manner of nation does these things? What manner of man? Why are these criminals not
facing arrest and trial at this very moment? Is it because they all had their magical 'I'm a
special guy' hats on? Justice will come to us all.
I don't think what Pompeo was saying is vague, it is really just a way to con the US media
into believing that what they did was anything other than what it really was. They are trying
to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the
China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a
mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by
keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."
"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a
mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless
they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
It's odd to see Reuters get the name of the Hoover Institution wrong, and also be wrong about
the Institution's association with Stanford University. The Institution is on the Stanford
campus but has a separate board of directors.
Okay, Reuters is making typically sloppy errors about the name and the amount of control
Stanford has over the rightwing "Institute" on its campus. Stanford, the university, has
plenty of US military intelligence (and actual black world) ties, but almost no one working
at Stanford would think killing Soleimani a good idea. Though plenty of the "thinkers" at The
Hoover Institution would.
Right, Pompeo is delusional. Murdering Soleimani will deter no one. Nor of course do the
Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq mean the end of Iran's response to the act of
war.
I am surprised at how many establishment media have actually labelled this murder as
"assassination" instead of the usual euphemisms. I think nearly everyone in the world
understands that bragging about international murder completely changes international
relations. Except for Pompous and Trumpet, of course.
Everyone will be filing their hair-triggers. There seems to be a general world-wide
mobilization but no one is calling it that. It is all "war games" and such. At some point
before the 2003 Iraq invasion it was clear to me that the decision for open war had been
made. It is now clear to me that there will be an invasion of Iran, starting with Iraq. I
think the B-52s sent to the area are for killing Iraqis, since they have no air defense.
At the same time, the US asset bubbles are nearly "priced to perfection". That means they
have no where to go except down. Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. All it takes is a
break in the chain of payments and the next financial panic is ON! Can Uncle Sam greatly
expand his War on the World in the middle of financial chaos? I think he will probably
try.
I speculate that Uncle Sam believes Iran and Iraq will simply cower and wait for the next
blow. I predict they will not. Soleimani's assassination and the subsequent Iranian attack
have not substantially changed the strategic situation, except to tie down the boiler relief
valve and turn up the heat. God, if there is one, help us all. We're sure gonna need it.
Does this idiot Pompeo not realize the door swing both ways? Unless he plans to live his
remaining days bunkered in NORAD, he's just as vulnerable as the rest.
Pompeo is the spokesman for the rules based Western empire mafia don, Trump.
The event is now being turned into a US media event (real time movie making here) by Trump
letting out text versions of the backroom chatter around the murder. This will not sit well
with the ME, IMO.
What late empire keeps pushing for is some event that can be blown into global support for
war escalation....but it hasn't happened, yet
And all this over public/private global control of value sharing in the social human
contract....what a way to run a railroad/species......
Not only will it not deter anyone, it is loudly signaling that third rate neocons are the
only decision makers left in the room.
You're likely to see more provocations, since it's now such an easy button to push. i.e.
for any regional or global powers who need US forces to be diverted for a while. Any bullshit
they manage to sell to the young Bolton's in the bureaucracy will do.
While not exactly unprecedented, the change is how much the mask is off now.
The part of Pompeo's speech quoted by b above is American to the core: every sentence or
short paragraph contains at minimum one outright lie; the entire quote selected is also both
palpably delusional and stupid.
But having said that, there is something uniquely refreshing about the Trump/Pompeo tag
team's capacity for blurting out lies and inanities, and furthermore, they do it with gusto.
Guile is not Pompeo's strong suit.
One might say that the criminality of the 'new deterrence' is as American as apple pie,
except that apple pie in my experience is innocent of all that, unless I suppose it contains
a deadly poison, and is fed to a political or ideological foe.
What is new about the 'new deterrence' that will surely make life far more dangerous for
Americans, is that it publicly declares itself as a policy with no bounds, no ethical, or
logical, or legal constraints. So what the Americans have been doing for generations, often
but not by any means always with 'plausible denial', and sometimes quite brazenly, is now
explicitly underlined policy.
Previously, the fight was 'against communism', or 'for democracy', or for 'national
security'.
So for example, when Nicaragua during the "Reagan Revolution' was sanctioned, attacked,
vilified, subjected to uncounted atrocities, because those dastardly Nicaraguans had replaced
their loathsome monster dictator with a government trying to do the right thing for the
people, the war against that country was under the rubric of protecting American 'national
security', with bits of domino theory and communist hordes concerns thrown in.
So what is the difference between deploying tens of thousands of maniacal murderous
'contras' as 'deterrence' against a small country's attempts at making a decent life for its
people, and a drone attack on Soleimani and his companions?
I think one main difference is that the 'world has changed' around the perpetrators, but
they are still living the delusions of brainwashed childhood, the wild west, white hat
un-self conscious monstrosities riding into town, gonna clean the place up. Pathetic and
extremely dangerous.
There's another logical flaw in Pompeo's argument.
The USA is a nuclear power. If you claim to assassinate other countries' generals as a
deterrent, then that signals America's true enemies - Russia and China - that it will
vacilate in using its own nuclear deterrent if an American target is to be neutralized. That
would bring more, not less, instability to the world order.
But maybe that's the American aim with this: to shake the already existing international
order with the objective to try to destroy Eurasia with its massive war machine and,
therefore, initiate another cycle of accumulation of American capitalism.
Another potential unintended blowback of Soleimani's assassination lies in the fact that
the USA is not officially at war with Iran. Iran was being sanctioned by the UN. That poses a
threat in the corners of the American Empire, since it sends a message that the USA doesn't
need to be at war with a nation in order to gratuitously attack it; it also sends the message
that it is not enough to play by the rules and accept the UN's sanctions - you could still do
all of that and submit yourself and still be attacked by the Americans.
The endgame of this is that there's a clear message to the American "allies" (i.e.
vassals, provinces): stay in line and obey without questioning, even if that goes directly
against your national interests. This will leave the Empire even more unstable at its
frontier because, inevitably, there'll come a time where the USA will directly command its
vassals/provinces to literally hurt their own economies just to keep the American one afloat
(or not sinking too fast). Gramsci's "Law of Hegemony" states that, the more coercion and the
less consensus, the more unstable is one's hegemony.
>Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be
> ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet
> strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
> Posted by: Zee | Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27
Indeed. But the longer Iran can delay the inevitable, the stronger and better prepared it
becomes, while Uncle Sam is busy burning the furniture and getting financially more
precarious. US planners seem to think that one can build an economy around poor people giving
each other haircuts while rich people keep trading the exact same assets back and forth while
steady driving asset prices higher.
Somewhere in the economic cycle someone has to actually make stuff and grow food. But
planners have allowed the manufacturing (and associated engineering, etc.) to leave while
driving farmers into bankruptcy. They are mortgaged to the hilt. When land prices quit
rising, there is no additional collateral and no new credit. With no additional credit, no
one will sell them seeds and equipment. So they are out of business. It's scary to think how
few people actually grow all the food to feed millions and millions.
Asset bubbles have real consequences, such as millions can not afford rent anymore while
millions of housing units remain empty because their value still goes up even without rental
income. Scenes from Soylent Green come to mind, thinking about how more and more people are
crammed into fewer living quarters.
Our brain-dead leaders have created a situation where they must continue to inflate
bubbles to keep increasing collateral to back more debt. But the bubbles impoverish the rest
of us. And bubbles always pop. Always.
I'm not sure how much the next financial crisis will affect the US killing machine, but I
doubt it would make the war machine stronger.
>The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they
> wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The
> media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
> destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
> Posted by: Curtis | Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29
Yes to this. There is no disagreement in DC on the goals, just fussing over the tactics
and who takes credit. Two right wings on the war bird. Maybe that is why it is on a downward
spiral.
Describing that the drone strike took out "two for the price of one" -- in reference to
slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to
greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the
'situation room' (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.
He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from
"cameras that are miles in the sky."
"They're together sir," Trump recalled the military officials saying. "Sir, they have two
minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. '2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the
car, they're in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30
seconds. 10, 9, 8 ...' "
"Then all of a sudden, boom," he went on. "'They're gone, sir. Cutting off.' "
"I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him."
"We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military
deterrence."
"diplomatic isolation" - when I read this I thought of the Ukrainian plane and the demand
for an "investigation according to international guidelines" (well, Syria got that
investigation according to international guidelines with the OPCW and we know how that went)
- it may lead to diplomatic isolation. Watch it. As such, Pompeo might have laid out a motive
for a potential US involvement.
"economic pressure" - while the E3 did not sanction Iran, with their lack of action in
regards to find working mechanisms and their depending on the US, that goal has been
achieved.
"military deterrence" - Pompeo thinks in CIA terms which can be seen as a covert weapons
trafficking organization (Timber Sycamore) and something like a secret military organization.
The murder of Suleimani is a war crime and as such a criminal act; it can hardly be
considered a military deterrence - although the murder was carried out by the US military
(maybe by CIA embedded in base?).
I don't know. It's a lot of speculation. Iran may have a reason to not state their systems
got hacked. But in the current context it may be advisable to do so, turn a potential
cyberattack back to its place of origin.
Pompeo and Trump have no concept of personal honour as they come from a sub-culture that has
none.
In the rest of the world, honour-integrity is very important. Throughout MENA to Pakistan,
the US was viewed as treacherous for using Sadaam to fight Iran then turning on him in
service of Israel's goals. Bush 2 contributed, through his blatant financial criminality
(much of this remains unknown to average Americans), to the perception that the US is
incapable of honouring ANY agreement (re:oil and other sub-rosa deals the US made).
The decimation of Syria, Iraq and Libya was not enough; criminal elites in the US have now
completely exposed themselves to the Muslim world. I am firmly convinced that the Arab
'street' has concluded the US and Israel are inseparable in their policy of murder and
mayhem. I am betting the elites view reconciliation within the Arab and Islamic world as the
way forward with input from Russia, China when and if needed. Turning away from US-Israeli
meddling and treachery will be a primary concern for the 20's.
I don't believe Pompeo or Trump have the foresight to understand killing Soleimani has sealed
how the US is perceived: Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslim India (all 250+million), Afghanistan and
Pakistan will accelarate the turning away.
This 'decision' to murder Soleimani will be cited by future non_court historians as seminal.
The US murdered the 2nd most important person in Iranian politics. This has to be one of THE
STUPIDEST DECISIONS I have seen come out of the Washington, D.C--Tel Aviv--London axis. I
really cannot think of any other official action by the US that compares in stupidity.
Unofficially, 911 was the stupidest act of the last 2 decades but as for official I believe
this takes the cakes.
In essence, screaming to the world that you are a gangster is not a very graceful way to wind
down an Empire. Pompeo-Trump-BoBo should have looked at a map. I see a hemisphere that is
geographically isolated that has to make a case for why anyone should interact with it.
Currently, all they have is the petrodollar system that supports 1, 000 military bases.
Problem: they have just given many of the (often unwilling) participants in that system a big
reason to leave it. I believe this is referred to as 'suicide'?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I would be happy to be.
Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between
Germany's behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and
externally. Is it just me, or have other's noted the similarity of Pompeo to Herman Goering
in looks and behaviour?
The leadership in the US need to stop thinking that they are impervious to revenge. Very
small drones can fly autonomously and each can carry 2 Kg of cargo which can be explosives,
chemical or bioweapons or a combination. They are cheap, easy to build and can operate
autonomously. With only using relatively simple algorithms they can be made to fly in groups
and track using already extant facial recognition software. I can envision a scenario where
drones are flown to the top of a semi-trailer somewhere south to hitch a ride north on I-95
until they get into DC near Fort Belvoir or Andrews AFB. They could then lift off and loiter
perched on transmission lines where they can easily recharge using rf energy and wait. Once a
target arrives, say a President on the golf course or perhaps Air Force 1 taxiing on the
runway or even perhaps perch outside a window, they can then lift off and conduct an attack
either directly or as limpet mines. With swarming you can send a mass of drones all flying
autonomously with varied patterns. It would be impossible to stop them. Because they are
autonomous jamming won't work. They would be impossible to trace back to their origin and
most could be 3D printed and use off the shelf parts. If I can think this way, I am certain
others are as well. Snake drones would be particularly difficult to stop.
Old hippe @128.yes, but these were being guided remotely from a US Navy aircraft and somewhat
controllable from remote which is what happened. I think inside the US they don't think that
far ahead and jamming would interfere with wifi etc. so not palatable. I Ave in mind they
would be sitting in the grass or on a nearby telephone pole waiting for the target and travel
less than 100 meters to hit. Autonomous means flying without any external controls and would
be committed once set out. One perched on a window with 2kg of C4 waiting for whatever
executive to sit down next to it would be another scenario. A snake drone could navigate in
the sewers up to an executive toilet. The possibilities are endless. It is just a matter of
time.
The Trump administration sees the U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani as a form of
deterrence not only with regards to Iran but also towards Russia, China and others. That view
is wrong.
The claim that the murder of Soleimani was necessary because of an 'imminent threat' has
been
debunked by Trump himself when he tweeted that 'it
doesn't really matter' if there was such a threat or not.
In a speech at the Hoover Institute Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the
assassination was part of a new deterrence strategy. As Reuters
reported:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday said Qassem Soleimani was killed as part of a
broader strategy of deterring challenges by U.S. foes that also applies to China and Russia,
further diluting the assertion that the top Iranian general was struck because he was
plotting imminent attacks on U.S. targets.
In his speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institute, Pompeo made no mention of the
threat of imminent attacks planned by Soleimani.
On the 3rd of this month, we took one of the world's deadliest terrorists off the battlefield
for good.
...
But I want to lay this out in context of what we've been trying to do. There is a bigger
strategy to this.
President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing
deterrence – real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic. In strategic terms,
deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior
exceed its benefits. It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must
understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact,
willing to do so.
...
And let's be honest. For decades, U.S. administrations of both political parties never did
enough against Iran to get the deterrence that is necessary to keep us all safe.
...
So what did we do? We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and
military deterrence.
...
Qasem Soleimani discovered our resolve to defend American lives.
...
We have re-established deterrence, but we know it's not everlasting, that risk remains. We
are determined not to lose that deterrence. In all cases, we have to do this.
...
We saw, not just in Iran, but in other places, too, where American deterrence was weak. We
watched Russia's 2014 occupation of the Crimea and support for aggression against Ukraine
because deterrence had been undermined. We have resumed lethal support to the Ukrainian
military.
China's island building, too, in the South China Sea, and its brazen attempts to coerce
American allies undermined deterrence. The Trump administration has ramped up naval exercises
in the South China Sea, alongside our allies and friends and partners throughout the
region.
You saw, too, Russia ignored a treaty. We withdrew from the INF with the unanimous support
of our NATO allies because there was only one party complying with a two-party agreement. We
think this, again, restores credibility and deterrence to protect America.
This understanding of 'deterrence' seems to be vague and incomplete. A longer piece I am
working on will further delve deeper into that issue. But an important point is that deterrence
works in both directions.
Iran responded with a missile strike on U.S. bases in Iraq. The missiles hit the targets they were
aimed at . This was a warning that any further U.S. action would cause serious U.S.
casualties. That strike, which was only the first part of Iran's response to the murdering of
Soleimani, deterred the U.S. from further action. Iran also declared that it will expel the
U.S. from the Middle East. How is Iran deterred when it openly declares that it will take on
such a project?
Reuters makes it seem that the U.S. would not even shy away from killing a Russian or
Chinese high officer on a visit in a third country. That is, for now, still out of bounds as
China and Russia deter the U.S. from such acts with their own might.
Russia and China already had no doubts that the U.S. is immoral and willing to commit war
crimes. And while 'western' media avoid that characterization for the assassination of
Soleimani there is no doubt that it was one.
In a letter to the New York Times the now 100 years old chief prosecutor of the
Nuremberg trials, Benjamin B. Ferencz, warned of the larger effects of such deeds when he
writes :
The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had
"taken out" (which really means "murdered") an important military leader of a country with
which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the
subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.
The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the International
Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being bypassed. In
this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal danger unless we change the
hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to law.
The killing of a Soleimani will also only have a short term effect when it comes to general
deterrence. It was a onetime shot to which others will react. Groups and people who work
against 'U.S. interests' will now do so less publicly. Countries will seek asymmetric
advantages to prevent such U.S. action against themselves. By committing the crime the U.S. and
Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicated.
Posted by b on January 18, 2020 at 19:28 UTC | Permalink
next page " "And let's be honest." anyone who starts off with those words - run the
other way when they say that.. pomparse is a real embarrassment to the usa on the world stage
at this point... there is no international law that the usa will not completely bypass / lie
/ or obfuscate to push its uni-polar exceptional agenda at this point.. anyone paying any
attention can see this clearly.
If push comes to shove, the Iranians are well aware that the US would, by its bombing and
missiles that the Iranians cannot completely withstand, cause many deaths and massive
destruction to its cities and infrastructure ... BUT the Americans are very much aware that
the Iranian response would be devastating -- all US ME military assets would come under
massive fire resulting in many deaths; all Gulf State oil infrastructure would be destroyed;
Tel Aviv and Riyadh would be attacked; the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked, and on and on.
It seems highly unlikely that the US would take such a risk -- let us call it Mutual
Assured Destructiveness
It is interesting that the commentary closes with a letter by Benjamin Ferencz, perhaps the
last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. As he indicates, the assassination is a war crime, and,
in my view, even the threat of such an assassination is a serious breach of international
law. Regimes following such a policy have gone rogue, and cabinet ministers making such a
pronouncement that the assassination was carried out as a deterrent are, in effect,
confessing to war crimes. In future the reach of the offending regime may be much less than
it is now, and, if that occurs, the rogue minister better be careful if he travels outside of
his home country.
Thanks B, for your continued articles that are never mentioned elsewhere. I completely agree
with your assessment. War used to have rules. Any american army brass or higher ups in USA,
Britain, Israel and allies will have to keep looking over their shoulder when they leave
their own country. Israel already cancelled trips to Saudi Arabia over security concerns. The
gloves are off and targeted assignation will hit allies of USA. The president family are fair
game, People who sponsor the the orange prophet of misery, Pompous Pompeoo, Esper or any
general will have a very paranoid time knowing that the rules of war that once protected them
from targeted assignation no longer apply. After all if america can do this, what's stopping
their adversaries from doing the same.
Benjamin B. Ferencz, his touted Harvard Law School pedigree Nuremberg Trial experience have
precisely ZERO persuasive value.
Ferencz was one of the most vicious and manipulative of the Nuremberg prosecutors. In a
BBC interview he stated boldly that he threatened to kill detainees or their families unless
they confessed:
Interviewer: "In previous interviews you've described how in gathering testimonies you did
resort to duress, for instance, lining up villagers and threatening to shoot them if they
lied. Such methods now would amount to witness harassment of the most extreme order.
Ferencz: Perhaps it would. but it's only because the people who make allegations don't
understand what war is about -- bring a room of 20 people together -- this is an actual
case -- and say I want you all to write out what happened, what your role was, what others
did. Anybody who lies will be shot.
"Oh, how can you do a thing like that!" You're threatening them, it's torture! What am I
going to tell 'em? That you won't get your patty-cake tonight? ' Please be honest, please
confess that you're a murderer. Please do that, I don't want to have to ____ you of
anything.'
What are you talking about? There's a war going on! They will kill you if they could. They
were killing some of their buddies before. So what am I going to do? I didn't shoot them.
But I threatened to , and that's the only weapon I had. And if that be torture, then call
me a torturer."
Moreover, Rabbi Stephen Wise, one of the key instigators of World War II and US
involvement in it, recorded a Personal Letter he sent to his wife / daughter (probably)
shortly after Germany's surrender. The Rabbi wrote that he and Nahum Goldmann had lunch with
Justice Robert Jackson, and that
"Justice [Robert] Jackson. . . .has grand and spacious ideas on the Nuremberg trials in
mid-October, with Weizmann, Goldmann or S.S.W. [Stephen S. Wise] as Jewish witnesses to
present the Jewish Case –not permitted as Amicus Curiae!
In itself it becomes the greatest trial in history, with what Jackson calls its broad
departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.
Retroactively "aggressive war-making" becomes criminally punishable–with membership
in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation."
If Ferencz has an ounce of integrity, he will condemn as "aggressive war-making" every
person who voted for an illegal war against Iraq, and every person involved in imposing
sanctions on Iran -- themselves acts of "aggressive war."
"By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more
complicate."
USA is not exactly the sole economic superpower, but as long as the allies, EU, NATO,
major allies in Asia and Latin America, behave like poodles, USA pretty much controls what is
"normal". After Obama campaigns of murder by drone, now Trump raises it to a higher level,
and Europe, the most critical link in the web of alliances, applauds (UK) or accepts and
cooperates. That can be a useful clarification for US establishment.
So the bottom line is that while it is hard to show constructive goals achieved by raising
murder policies to a more brazen level, nothing changes for the worse. Allies tolerate
irrationality, cruelty etc. and to some extend, join the fun.
IMO, from what I understand of Shia mentality, after immoral assassination of general
Soleimani the only thing can prevent a violent revenge against US military or political staff
would be a Fatwa by a grand ayatollah to nullify a fatwa by any junior Ayatollah authorizing
(sanctioning) specific action. It was an incalculably caster F* mistake that can last for a
generation at least.
"t̶h̶e̶ U̶.̶S̶.̶ Israel and Trump made the global
situation for themselves more complicate"
Not if the purpose was more pressure by complication. The goal then to create a pretext: a
pressure cooker which will cause military exchange or, especially after some limited violent
exchange, increasing internal strife inside Iran which can't afford more war.
The conditions for this tactic would be clear: containing all the likely fall-out of the
above unraveling, namely:
- contain China with the trade war no one can win but will make it near impossible for
China to deal with Iran, Iraq and Syria.
- increased containment Palestine and Lebanon by Israel. Make very move there seem way too
expensive for especially Hezbollah.
- prevent any kind of weapon transport or technology transfer to Lebanon which could break
above containment.
- vastly improved border security and travel limitations
- increasing War on T̶e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶ Blow Back related powers for
Homeland Security, NSA etc.
Russia is seen as less of a problem as any potential military support would be simply too
costly and too little gain for Putin.
And make no mistake, Trump is fully ready to display nuclear might the moment Iran would
demonstrate their own remarkable advances. And he would make it very clear that the US is
willing. The new policy of deterrence is very simple and yet horrible: examples have to be
made to demonstrate that "all options are still on the table". If he wants to keep declining
America great but not have expensive wars and yet force others to still follow American lead:
there's only one cold logical solution to that.
The glaring fact of the matter is that the us president and his accomplices useld false
allegations as an excuse to murder these men. They also did so in a cowardly manner, under a
false invitation to negotiate (and, Yes I do believe that).
In my country, when a person orders someone to murder someone else in exchange for
compensation (in this case salaries), the police call it murder for hire.
Idle speculation on my part, but I am not alone in wondering if the Soleimani
assassination accelerated Putin's restructuring agenda. (I'm not suggesting it was generated
or even influenced in substance by the strike, just that the timing may have been.) Given the
power of the President in Russia, as the CIA itself very well understands, there is perhaps
no more tempting target for an overt military assassination strike than President Putin.
Of course, deterrence of rational actors is precisely what would prevent this, but I
imagine Russian strategic thinkers have wondered whether or for how long the US remains a
rational actor. Moreover, this would be the sort of thing that a fanatical faction could pull
off. In some Strangelovean bunker somewhere, there may be those who would actually welcome a
last gasp of large-scale warfare before the Eurasian Heartland is lost and the
Petrodollar-fueled global finance empire, nominally sheltered in the US, dies away.
Creative destruction ... a last chance to shuffle the cards, and perhaps reset a losing
game to zero.
What manner of nation does these things? What manner of man? Why are these criminals not
facing arrest and trial at this very moment? Is it because they all had their magical 'I'm a
special guy' hats on? Justice will come to us all.
I don't think what Pompeo was saying is vague, it is really just a way to con the US media
into believing that what they did was anything other than what it really was. They are trying
to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the
China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a
mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by
keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."
"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a
mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless
they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."
"This second Beast worked magical signs, dazzling people by making fire come down from
Heaven. It used the magic it got from the Beast to dupe earth dwellers, getting them to make
an image of the Beast that received the deathblow and lived. It was able to animate the image
of the Beast so that it talked, and then arrange that anyone not worshiping the Beast would
be killed. It forced all people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to have a
mark on the right hand or forehead. Without the mark of the name of the Beast or the number
of its name, it was impossible to buy or sell anything."
yeah - mafia tactics as offered by trump /pompeo and etc is exactly what it is... and when
Benjamin B. Ferencz calls it what it is, apologists show up to can ferencz @ 7.. so what will
persuade you chasmark?? do i need to send a hit man over to your place?
It's odd to see Reuters get the name of the Hoover Institution wrong, and also be wrong about
the Institution's association with Stanford University. The Institution is on the Stanford
campus but has a separate board of directors.
Okay, Reuters is making typically sloppy errors about the name and the amount of control
Stanford has over the rightwing "Institute" on its campus. Stanford, the university, has
plenty of US military intelligence (and actual black world) ties, but almost no one working
at Stanford would think killing Soleimani a good idea. Though plenty of the "thinkers" at The
Hoover Institution would.
Right, Pompeo is delusional. Murdering Soleimani will deter no one. Nor of course do the
Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq mean the end of Iran's response to the act of
war.
all this rhetoric says the obvious: the USA wants to destroy physically the Near East (Iran,
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, etc). either he destroys the whole region or he cannot be
reelected or better he gets impeached in the Senate.
I am surprised at how many establishment media have actually labelled this murder as
"assassination" instead of the usual euphemisms. I think nearly everyone in the world
understands that bragging about international murder completely changes international
relations. Except for Pompous and Trumpet, of course.
Everyone will be filing their hair-triggers. There seems to be a general world-wide
mobilization but no one is calling it that. It is all "war games" and such. At some point
before the 2003 Iraq invasion it was clear to me that the decision for open war had been
made. It is now clear to me that there will be an invasion of Iran, starting with Iraq. I
think the B-52s sent to the area are for killing Iraqis, since they have no air defense.
At the same time, the US asset bubbles are nearly "priced to perfection". That means they
have no where to go except down. Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. All it takes is a
break in the chain of payments and the next financial panic is ON! Can Uncle Sam greatly
expand his War on the World in the middle of financial chaos? I think he will probably
try.
I speculate that Uncle Sam believes Iran and Iraq will simply cower and wait for the next
blow. I predict they will not. Soleimani's assassination and the subsequent Iranian attack
have not substantially changed the strategic situation, except to tie down the boiler relief
valve and turn up the heat. God, if there is one, help us all. We're sure gonna need it.
Does this idiot Pompeo not realize the door swing both ways? Unless he plans to live his
remaining days bunkered in NORAD, he's just as vulnerable as the rest.
Should have add to my earlier comment (10) , the missile attack on American bases on Iraq was
Iran's military/ government response for killing General Soleimani, by no means was the Shia'
response since that would need a Fatwa and not necessary by an Iranian cleric or even by
Iranian Shia. Is now a religious matter for all believers.
Sooner or later, Saudi Arabia will make peace with Iran. It will improve relations with
Russia and China, and will reduce ties with Israel. Soon, Turkey will be completely out of
Syria, and Idlib will be entirely liberated. The US, in Iraq, will slowly be drained of
vitality with a death of a thousand cuts. Medium range missile production in conjunction with
Russian S-300 air defense will will spread throughout the Middle East, and Israel's air force
will be neutralized. Then the pipeline from Iran to Syria will be completed.
- I think that EVERYONE who is involved in the Middle East will think twice before one makes
a (provocative) move. Tensions will remain high. But some people may (and will) do
(deliberately) something (provocative) that will ratchet up tensions even more. With the
intent of ratcheting tensions higher.
- There was someone who said that in 2020 World War III would start. For a long time I
thought this person was nuts. But now I am not so sure anymore that this person was nuts.
- There were also people who said that we were "sleepwalking" into WW III, something along
the lines of what happened before WW I. These persons were talking about a war between the US
(+ NATO) and Russia. But now I think that if a war would break out that then not only Russia
but also China and Iran are going to be part of that war. No, I am not sure anymore that this
going to end well.
- I also think that everyone haas become (more) cautious. And that an act of A-symmetric
warfare has become (more) unlikely.
Pompeo is the spokesman for the rules based Western empire mafia don, Trump.
The event is now being turned into a US media event (real time movie making here) by Trump
letting out text versions of the backroom chatter around the murder. This will not sit well
with the ME, IMO.
What late empire keeps pushing for is some event that can be blown into global support for
war escalation....but it hasn't happened, yet
And all this over public/private global control of value sharing in the social human
contract....what a way to run a railroad/species......
The most depressing thing about the assassination's aftermath is that Western Europe's
leaders are as bad as America's - "It's the economy, stupid!" So, a threat to their auto
manufacturers is a threat to jobs, and one has to consider the next election. They were
already controlled thanks to the NSA's eavesdropping on their cell phones, a threat to
individual politicians - no need for them to worry about physical elimination, then; Trump
threatened via economics their parties' chances of reelection, meaning they have support for
knuckling under. China, Russia and Iran are on their own - China was still working on its
economic might, Russia was still working on building a strong political foundation, and Iran
already has its hands full with internal and external threats. The fence-sitters (India,
smaller Asian and African countries) will sit on the sidelines, working to improve their own
economies and waiting to see who looks more powerful before joining one side or the other to
break down or uphold the international norms and laws it took centuries to build. Tottering
as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't
yet strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
Trailer Trash 20
The only reason I wouldn't be surprised at big media calling Soleimani's murder an
"assassination" is how the media politics is played by party. Since the media tends to lean
left, they want to be thorns in Trump's side. Neither party is against war; they want to be
the instigators to get the glory (while shifting/limiting blame). Amid the media's stories on
this were the talking points of Trump going too far by DEMs in congress.
Recall Libya. The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they wanted to be able to
say they were the tough guys. The media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
Trump is simply a third-rate Godfather type gangster, with a touch of the charm and a lot
of the baggage. I think his murder of General Qassem Soleimani was not something he would
have done if he had any choice. It was a very stupid move, and Trump is just not that stupid.
I really think this was demanded by the 'churnitalists'. These churnitalists are probably the
psychos of the predatory arm of the CIA, and their billionaire allies.
See, it all works like this:
These churnitalists (who supposedly provide us with 'protection', or 'security') are the
real rulers (because everybody who defies them ends up dead). Now just ask your self: How
does rulership actually really work? It's really kind of simple. The only actual way to
establish rulership over other people is to prove, again and again, that you can force them
to do stupid things, for absolutely no reason. This is called 'people-churning', and all you
have to do is just keep churning out low-class 'history' by constantly forcing the weaker
ones to do stupid things. Again and again. This happens constantly in a churnitalist gangster
society. Even in schools and legislatures, and so on. Haven't you noticed it yet?
@ 24 willy2... i have been talking about war in 2020 for some time based off the astrology..i
have mentioned it in passing here at moa a few times in the past couple of years.. see my
comments in this skyscript link from june
2015..
Not only will it not deter anyone, it is loudly signaling that third rate neocons are the
only decision makers left in the room.
You're likely to see more provocations, since it's now such an easy button to push. i.e.
for any regional or global powers who need US forces to be diverted for a while. Any bullshit
they manage to sell to the young Bolton's in the bureaucracy will do.
While not exactly unprecedented, the change is how much the mask is off now.
The part of Pompeo's speech quoted by b above is American to the core: every sentence or
short paragraph contains at minimum one outright lie; the entire quote selected is also both
palpably delusional and stupid.
But having said that, there is something uniquely refreshing about the Trump/Pompeo tag
team's capacity for blurting out lies and inanities, and furthermore, they do it with gusto.
Guile is not Pompeo's strong suit.
One might say that the criminality of the 'new deterrence' is as American as apple pie,
except that apple pie in my experience is innocent of all that, unless I suppose it contains
a deadly poison, and is fed to a political or ideological foe.
What is new about the 'new deterrence' that will surely make life far more dangerous for
Americans, is that it publicly declares itself as a policy with no bounds, no ethical, or
logical, or legal constraints. So what the Americans have been doing for generations, often
but not by any means always with 'plausible denial', and sometimes quite brazenly, is now
explicitly underlined policy.
Previously, the fight was 'against communism', or 'for democracy', or for 'national
security'.
So for example, when Nicaragua during the "Reagan Revolution' was sanctioned, attacked,
vilified, subjected to uncounted atrocities, because those dastardly Nicaraguans had replaced
their loathsome monster dictator with a government trying to do the right thing for the
people, the war against that country was under the rubric of protecting American 'national
security', with bits of domino theory and communist hordes concerns thrown in.
So what is the difference between deploying tens of thousands of maniacal murderous
'contras' as 'deterrence' against a small country's attempts at making a decent life for its
people, and a drone attack on Soleimani and his companions?
I think one main difference is that the 'world has changed' around the perpetrators, but
they are still living the delusions of brainwashed childhood, the wild west, white hat
un-self conscious monstrosities riding into town, gonna clean the place up. Pathetic and
extremely dangerous.
There are 2 beasts, the first is either America or NATO, or basically "The Empire" or The
Neocon Oligarchy--all work well but America is a bit too broad since there are many good
people in America. The second beast whose number is 666, is Trump. Search: Trump 666 and be
amazed.
There's another logical flaw in Pompeo's argument.
The USA is a nuclear power. If you claim to assassinate other countries' generals as a
deterrent, then that signals America's true enemies - Russia and China - that it will
vacilate in using its own nuclear deterrent if an American target is to be neutralized. That
would bring more, not less, instability to the world order.
But maybe that's the American aim with this: to shake the already existing international
order with the objective to try to destroy Eurasia with its massive war machine and,
therefore, initiate another cycle of accumulation of American capitalism.
Another potential unintended blowback of Soleimani's assassination lies in the fact that
the USA is not officially at war with Iran. Iran was being sanctioned by the UN. That poses a
threat in the corners of the American Empire, since it sends a message that the USA doesn't
need to be at war with a nation in order to gratuitously attack it; it also sends the message
that it is not enough to play by the rules and accept the UN's sanctions - you could still do
all of that and submit yourself and still be attacked by the Americans.
The endgame of this is that there's a clear message to the American "allies" (i.e.
vassals, provinces): stay in line and obey without questioning, even if that goes directly
against your national interests. This will leave the Empire even more unstable at its
frontier because, inevitably, there'll come a time where the USA will directly command its
vassals/provinces to literally hurt their own economies just to keep the American one afloat
(or not sinking too fast). Gramsci's "Law of Hegemony" states that, the more coercion and the
less consensus, the more unstable is one's hegemony.
>Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be
> ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet
> strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
> Posted by: Zee | Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27
Indeed. But the longer Iran can delay the inevitable, the stronger and better prepared it
becomes, while Uncle Sam is busy burning the furniture and getting financially more
precarious. US planners seem to think that one can build an economy around poor people giving
each other haircuts while rich people keep trading the exact same assets back and forth while
steady driving asset prices higher.
Somewhere in the economic cycle someone has to actually make stuff and grow food. But
planners have allowed the manufacturing (and associated engineering, etc.) to leave while
driving farmers into bankruptcy. They are mortgaged to the hilt. When land prices quit
rising, there is no additional collateral and no new credit. With no additional credit, no
one will sell them seeds and equipment. So they are out of business. It's scary to think how
few people actually grow all the food to feed millions and millions.
Asset bubbles have real consequences, such as millions can not afford rent anymore while
millions of housing units remain empty because their value still goes up even without rental
income. Scenes from Soylent Green come to mind, thinking about how more and more people are
crammed into fewer living quarters.
Our brain-dead leaders have created a situation where they must continue to inflate
bubbles to keep increasing collateral to back more debt. But the bubbles impoverish the rest
of us. And bubbles always pop. Always.
I'm not sure how much the next financial crisis will affect the US killing machine, but I
doubt it would make the war machine stronger.
>The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they
> wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The
> media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
> destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
> Posted by: Curtis | Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29
Yes to this. There is no disagreement in DC on the goals, just fussing over the tactics
and who takes credit. Two right wings on the war bird. Maybe that is why it is on a downward
spiral.
Describing that the drone strike took out "two for the price of one" -- in reference to
slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to
greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the
'situation room' (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.
He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from
"cameras that are miles in the sky."
"They're together sir," Trump recalled the military officials saying. "Sir, they have two
minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. '2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the
car, they're in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30
seconds. 10, 9, 8 ...' "
"Then all of a sudden, boom," he went on. "'They're gone, sir. Cutting off.' "
"I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him."
b: Usage or typo alert - about 2/3 of the way through your piece.
Reuters makes it seem that the U.S. would not even shy away from killing a Russian or
Chinese high officer on a visit in a third country. That is, for now, still out of
bounce as China and Russia deter the U.S. from such acts with their own might...
The English language expression is "out of bounds" as in, of course, outside the bounding
lines defining a field of play.
"We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military
deterrence."
"diplomatic isolation" - when I read this I thought of the Ukrainian plane and the demand
for an "investigation according to international guidelines" (well, Syria got that
investigation according to international guidelines with the OPCW and we know how that went)
- it may lead to diplomatic isolation. Watch it. As such, Pompeo might have laid out a motive
for a potential US involvement.
"economic pressure" - while the E3 did not sanction Iran, with their lack of action in
regards to find working mechanisms and their depending on the US, that goal has been
achieved.
"military deterrence" - Pompeo thinks in CIA terms which can be seen as a covert weapons
trafficking organization (Timber Sycamore) and something like a secret military organization.
The murder of Suleimani is a war crime and as such a criminal act; it can hardly be
considered a military deterrence - although the murder was carried out by the US military
(maybe by CIA embedded in base?).
I don't know. It's a lot of speculation. Iran may have a reason to not state their systems
got hacked. But in the current context it may be advisable to do so, turn a potential
cyberattack back to its place of origin.
Pompeo and Trump have no concept of personal honour as they come from a sub-culture that has
none.
In the rest of the world, honour-integrity is very important. Throughout MENA to Pakistan,
the US was viewed as treacherous for using Sadaam to fight Iran then turning on him in
service of Israel's goals. Bush 2 contributed, through his blatant financial criminality
(much of this remains unknown to average Americans), to the perception that the US is
incapable of honouring ANY agreement (re:oil and other sub-rosa deals the US made).
The decimation of Syria, Iraq and Libya was not enough; criminal elites in the US have now
completely exposed themselves to the Muslim world. I am firmly convinced that the Arab
'street' has concluded the US and Israel are inseparable in their policy of murder and
mayhem. I am betting the elites view reconciliation within the Arab and Islamic world as the
way forward with input from Russia, China when and if needed. Turning away from US-Israeli
meddling and treachery will be a primary concern for the 20's.
I don't believe Pompeo or Trump have the foresight to understand killing Soleimani has sealed
how the US is perceived: Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslim India (all 250+million), Afghanistan and
Pakistan will accelarate the turning away.
This 'decision' to murder Soleimani will be cited by future non_court historians as seminal.
The US murdered the 2nd most important person in Iranian politics. This has to be one of THE
STUPIDEST DECISIONS I have seen come out of the Washington, D.C--Tel Aviv--London axis. I
really cannot think of any other official action by the US that compares in stupidity.
Unofficially, 911 was the stupidest act of the last 2 decades but as for official I believe
this takes the cakes.
In essence, screaming to the world that you are a gangster is not a very graceful way to wind
down an Empire. Pompeo-Trump-BoBo should have looked at a map. I see a hemisphere that is
geographically isolated that has to make a case for why anyone should interact with it.
Currently, all they have is the petrodollar system that supports 1, 000 military bases.
Problem: they have just given many of the (often unwilling) participants in that system a big
reason to leave it. I believe this is referred to as 'suicide'?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I would be happy to be.
Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between
Germany's behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and
externally. Is it just me, or have other's noted the similarity of Pompeo to Herman Goering
in looks and behaviour?
That's one of the good aspect of Trump administration, in the long run. With these psychos
openly plagiarizing Grand Moff Tarkin ("Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of
this battle station."), it will be pretty had for any sane and sensible observer not to come
to the conclusion that, deep down, the USA *is* an Evil Empire that has to be fought and
brought down - and thankfully, this time, one saner Obama-like presidency, if it ever happens
after Trump, won't be enough to change that perception.
I can only guess what Toynbee would think of the US now, it certainly looks like suicide to
me and if the US actually had any friends left they would be busy trying to talk the US out
of it. From this point of view the relative silence speaks loudly and says something quite
different than at least some people think.
US NATO "allies" haven't exactly been enthusiastic. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking the UK
came closest with Johnson's "not crying" remark, everything else seems to be tortured
statements walking on eggshells. 2nd biggest NATO member Turkey cooperates with Iran and
plenty of others in NATO have wanted and worked towards normal relations despite differences,
some more publicly than others. It might not have amounted to anything but that's my
impression at least.
Any support for war against Iran is microscopic. Against Russia? Except for the rarest of
the worst of fools not a chance. Against China? People would have trouble comprehending the
question itself due to how absurd the notion is.
"Is it just me" who makes the argument reductio ad Hitlerum?
No, it's you and every other moron who gets his history from teevee and Hollywood.
If the compulsion to resort to WWII analogies is too compelling to overcome, flip the
script:
US and Britain 'won' the war in Germany by deliberately firebombing civilian targets, over
and over and over and over again.
United States Dept. of Interior records in detail how Standard Oil engineers, USAF, Jewish
architects, and Jewish Hollywood studio set designers constructed and practiced creating
firestorms with the stated goal of killing working class German civilians, including "infants
in cribs."
In a discussion of his book, The Fire, Jörg Friedrich emphasized that Allied bombers
dropped leaflets telling the Germans they were about to kill that their only recourse was to
overthrow their government -- to topple or kill Hitler: the "greatest generation" killed
civilians as "deterrents" to Wehrmacht's defensive actions against Allied invasion.
Since at least 1995 US tactics against Iran have been similar: Ed Royce spelled them out:
US will sanction Iranian citizens in an effort to make life so miserable for them that they
will riot and overthrow their government.
So yes, it IS "just like the Nazis" -- US-zionists are running a similar playbook as that
used to prostrate Germany.
And Iraq.
And Libya.
And Syria.
Notice that wrt Syria, having reduced that ancient place to rubble, much like Allies
reduced Germany's cultural heritage to rubble, US 'diplomats' are steadfastly refusing to
allow Syria access to resources with which to finance its reconstruction, and are also
blocking any other country's attempt to aid Syria in reconstruction: Destroying Syria was
'hi-tech eminent domain,' and now USA intends to be the only entity to finance and rebuild
Syria -- or else US will continue the destruction of Syria.
Most Americans think Marshall plan was an act more generous than Jesus Christ on the
cross, but in fact it was a cynical strategy to completely dominate Germany in saecula
saeculorum. (US LOANED the money, and far more-- about 2.5 X more-- was committed to
England -- relatively undamaged -- than to Germany, where 70% of infrastructure was
rubble.)
You won't learn that from the Hollywood version of WWII.
"This is not a Warning, it is a Threat," Trump declared in a tweet on Tuesday afternoon,
adding that Iran will "pay a very BIG PRICE" for the embassy siege earlier in the day."
They sure did. So who is next?
Yesterday Trump warned the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khameni:
US President Donald Trump has warned the supreme leader of Iran to watch his language,
following a heated sermon in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei slammed American leaders as
"clowns."
Leading a prayer in Tehran on Friday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boasted that Iran had the
"spirit to slap an arrogant, aggressive global power" in its retaliation to the
assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, which he said struck a "serious
blow" to Washington's "dignity" – triggering a response from the US president.
"The so-called 'Supreme Leader' of Iran, who has not been so Supreme lately, had some
nasty things to say about the United States and Europe," Trump tweeted. "Their economy is
crashing, and their people are suffering. He should be very careful with his words!"
In his sermon, Khamenei blasted "American clowns," who he said "lie in utter viciousness
that they stand with the Iranian people," referring to recent comments by Trump and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Lets face it, assassinations are not a new thing. It became more organized with Lord
Palmerstons gangs of thugs in the mid 19th century (one of which took out Lincoln) . Since
the end of WWII the global mafia jumped across the pond and assassinations have been covert
actions arranged by the CIA , with operations having a high degree of plausible deniability.
But most higher ups had a pretty good idea who was behind it . Trumps just continued this but
like Bush and Obama have made clear its their right to do so against terrorists . Of course
the definition of terrorist has become rather broad. Trump recently said he authorized the
hit because he said bad things about America. Maybe saying bad things about Trump can get you
labelled the same. Watch out for those drones barflies.
So basically the main change is they no longer care about plausible deniability . They are
proud to admit it. And nobody seems to care enough to express any outrage. Name any countries
leader who has except in muted terms. Europe, Russia, China, etc everyone quiet as a mouse.
China so outraged they signed a trade deal giving them nothing. UN? Might as well move it to
Cuba , Iran or Venezuela for all the clout it has.
So you know, maybe the deterrence is working. Terrorism works both ways. The world seems
terrorized and hardly anyone in the US dares criticize Trumps action without saying the
general was evil and deserved it. Its not just drones they fear as financial terrorism
(sanctions, denied access to USD) works quite well also (except in Irans case).
The argument is correct.
(Although the mafia label bespeaks a limited frame of reference and it's inappropriate in any
event -- crime families do not have the reach or power of state assassination squads.)
Ferencz does not have the moral standing to make the argument.
It's like granting Ted Bundy credibility for criticizing police brutality.
The beast rises from the bottomless pit, it is written in the book you quoted!
How do you suggest a mere mortal and retard like trump does that?
The murcanized xtianity eschatology you have been reading is stupid and in NO WAY SHAPE OR
FORM Orthodox(Orthodox=Christian)
"ORTHODOXESCHATOLOGYdotBLOGSPOTdotCOM"
"orthodoxinfoDOTcom"
"preteristarchiveDOTcom"
You will find info that is not xtian but Christian @ those blogs..
The last one is a library with ancient and old texts about Christianity!
If you search "THEOSIS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE" on orthodoxinfo you will also find a
book WELL worth reading if you are/want to be Christian.
Per
Russian Orthodox
Norway
"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the
bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."
Kali @35
i messed up and hit post b4 i pasted this..
"'The beast that thou didst see: it was, and it is not; and it is about to come up out of the
abyss, and to go away to destruction, and wonder shall those dwelling upon the earth, whose
names have not been written upon the scroll of the life from the foundation of the world,
beholding the beast that was, and is not, although it is."
Per
Russian Orthodox
Norway
first speculation. however it happened, "deep state" power or factions now have a
jacket
on Trump. he can't disown what happened. Brennan and Stephen Schwarzman are safe.
the Money and the MIC get what they want. Trump's agenda of converting the common good
to corporate profit is acceptable. they can use Trump to defeat Sanders.
and lastly this outlier from ibm.com. a new, more powerful battery made from sea
water.
charges in 5 min. in California this means electricity off your roof for everything
including
your car plus a surplus for export. how soon? doesn't say. oil dependent economies
want to know. and we won't need the "petro" for the petrodollar. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/
The truth of it is Trump murdered General Soleimani because the general was very effective in
defeating ISIS - the U.S. created and funded - terrorists in Syria and Iraq. The neocons were
none too pleased.
Release Jan.18 2020 21st centurywire audio Interview with Dr. Mohammad Marandi, Tehran
University
@ ChasMark 7 - not an ounce of integrity! Trump or Ferencz?
How is it I posted days ago that link to Ferencz's letter to New York Times and not a
pips. Are you defending Trump's war crimes as against bringing the Nazis to justice?
How about the U.S. waterboarding and torturing Muslims at Gitmo? 19 years on with NO
TRIALS!!! That's OK, right?
As far as b's premise goes, he's proven it IMO. Looks like the CIA made the next move in
Lebanon. IMO, Asia plus Russia & Belarus hold the geoeconomic and geopolitical deterrence
cards. The Financial Parasite continues hollowing out what remains of US industry and retail
helped along by Trump's Trade War. I presented the fundamental economic info and arguments on
the prior threads, so I don't have anything to add.
the price of fake freedom is remaining ever vigilant to prevent peace breaking out. trump's
as much a warmonger as any of them (which is to say impeachment won't make a bit of
difference).
[Before] the US assassination of Soleimani, there were numerous back-channel efforts for
détente in the costly wars that have raged across the region since the US-instigated
Arab Spring between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran and Iraq. Russia and China have both in
different ways been playing a key role in changing the geopolitical tensions. At this
juncture the credibility of Washington as any honest partner is effectively zero if not
minus.
[.] The US president just tweeted his support for renewed anti-government Iran protests,
in Farsi. We are clearly in for some very nasty trouble in the Middle East as Washington
tries to deal with the unintended consequences of its recent Middle East actions.[.]
Run home as fast as you can. In this election year, an observation; 10% of companies are
losing money but thanks to the Feds, the Markets are making ATH ...all time highs. On main
street Joe and Jane are in a well of hurt "it's the economy, stupid."
There is nothing ambiguous about Pompeo's statement. It is evidence of a profound psychotic
break. It is a megalomaniac delusion of godlike power, a deterance not attainable on a human
scale. "In all cases, we have to do this."
The masters of the universe will kill those who do not comply. The projection of their
psychic power to intimidate the world goes well beyond Iraq and Iran, brushing aside all the
little insubstantial nations that are constantly underfoot. Russia and China are to take heed
now, it is they too who must sleep with one eye open. The deterrence necessary to keep us all
safe means to go ahead and challenge those islands China built in the South China Sea.
The smiling villains do not accept that Crimea is part of Russia. Pompeo compares
Soleimani to bin Laden. There are so many departures from reality in the speech amidst all
the levity that it seems like someone has opened the doors of the Asylum.
Your retorts don't make sense relative to anything I've posted.
"not an ounce of integrity! Trump or Ferencz?"
Neither.
"How is it I posted days ago that link to Ferencz's letter to New York Times and not a
pips."
U can't fool all of the people all of the time. I wasn't fooled by Ferencz's claim to
righteousness based on Harvard when his Nuremberg activities were outrageous and the
Nuremberg set-up itself was that of a kangaroo court.
"Are you defending Trump's war crimes as against bringing the Nazis to
justice?"
Trump's war crimes are indefensible; the Nuremberg trials were not about "bringing Nazis
to justice," they involved, as Rabbi Wise said, a largely Jewish exercise in revenge. If
Nuremberg were about "justice," Wise himself would have been in the dock along with FDR (post
mortem), Churchill, Stalin, and Truman + + +
If Congress were just, it would be impeaching Trump, Pompeo, Pence etc. for war crimes.
But that does not make the Nuremberg trials the model of justice: they were not: as Rabbi
Stephen Wise wrote to his family, months before the trials began, they were set up by FDR's
man Robert Jackson as a
" broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. [in which]
Retroactively "aggressive war-making" becomes criminally punishable–with membership
in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation."
Ferencz's co-ethnics participated in the creation of the kangaroo court that Ferencz
himself utilized more to vent his spleen than to establish international models of
justice.
That is why the so-called Nuremberg principles have not and cannot be properly applied to
the war crimes committed by Bush (I and II), by Clinton (Bill & Hill), Obama, Trump --
not to mention FDR, Truman & Churchill.
Further, as Ferencz surely realizes, "The United Nations Charter, the International
Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague" are toothless: if
they were effective bodies for meting justice, even the sanctions on Iran would be subject to
judgment under United Nations Charter, along with Victoria Kagan Nuland's subversion of
Ukraine and every other 'color revolution' US has engaged in: the UN Charter proscribes
interference in the internal affairs of member states.
In the Orwellian value system of America, Mike Pompeo's idea of "deterrence" is really
NewSpeak for America's brazen war crimes, wars of aggression, and shredding of international
law.
America is a mafia nation masquerading as a democracy.
And Donald Trump is a two-bit New York mafioso don in charge of this America Mafia
state.
Trump recounts minute by minute details of Soleimani assassination at a fundraiser held at
his Florida resort. Cause that's what normal people do; brag about murdering someone. I'll
bet his fat cat Zionist friends emptied their coffers. SICK.
ak74 @62: Mike Pompeo's idea of "deterrence" is really NewSpeak ...
Exactly. And we might add:
"America First" means America is the Empire's Fist;
"Stand with the people of " is 'New World Order' psyop;
"Economic sanctions" is the economic part of hybrid warfare;
"War on terror" is the war on ALL enemies of the empire via terrorist
destabilization;
"Russiagate" is McCarthyist war on dissent;
"Trump" is the latest dear leader whose flaws are blessings and whose 'gut
instinct' is God's will. We know this because his fake enemies (like the Democrats, "fake
news", and ISIS) always fail when they confront him.
!!
V , Jan 19 2020 3:12 utc |
69 Dr. George W Oprisko | Jan 19 2020 2:46 utc | 65
You are a CIA/NSA TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!
Are you sure you actually read Chasmark @ 61?
Nowhere does he; You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!
What Chasmark did, was to post the truth of the Nuremberg Trials.
They were an out and out sham...
You definitely need to up your reading comprehension and or, your knowledge of history...
And the other countries of the world whine, but do nothing. I'm afraid they've become as
shallow and self-absorbed as most Americans, afraid to confront the world's bully.
Torches and pitchforks are needed, and we get marches. I'm afraid the depravity has to get
worse before direct action is taken.
I only hope to live long enough to see the debacle that is inevitable, even if takes me
with it.
Justice and truth demand a reckoning..
Sounds dark, I know, but these are very dark days.
Among some of very good points you made, I take issue:
"Your retorts don't make sense relative to anything I've posted."
Perhaps you should re-read my comment vs what you posited. Look to Gitmo; is it any
different to your critique of Nuremberg where there was a trial, albeit with deficiencies, vs
holding and torturing prisoners over 18 years without a trial? that was my point.
You continue to offer up Rabbi Wise who proffered the Nuremberg trials were [.] "a
largely Jewish exercise in revenge"
I may add, they are also continuing to take out their revenge on Palestinians who had
nothing to do with events in Germany. The once oppressed have become oppressors.
If Congress were just, it would be impeaching Trump, Pompeo, Pence etc. for war
crimes.
Don't expect justice from Congress they are all too busy at the money trough to recognize
war crimes.
War crimes are prosecuted by the ICC which the US and Israel do not recognize. US is not a
state party; have threatened,
denied visas and barred entry to ICC investigators of war crimes
Further, as Ferencz surely realizes, "The United Nations Charter, the International
Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague" are toothless:
Toothless! Perhaps but Don't tell that to
Africans or Slobodan Milosevic while ELITES residing on that sliver of the "occupied
lands of Palestine" continue to roam free. Oh wait, they are the chosen ones who rule the
world!
Pompeo's speech may just be an attempt to reduce the cost of a future false flag
assassination that could be blamed on one of the enemies. If the enemy does what we do, no
need for an all out war. There will be a range of response options including just firing a
few missiles. Cost of war with the chosen enemy may be too high or the timing just not right.
William Gruff @ 9 Expressions of <=reality-disconnected human behavior=> describes
victim response to rules, enforcement behaviors and media products that bathe the
differentiation space that allows to produce human automatons. An examination of the forces
at work inside of the nation state container (differentiation space) will likely reveal
private and external forces that produce in these public containers, reality-disconnected
human responders (human behavior is a function of its environment; all learning is a result
of personal experience). No one can learn from another, but everyone can learn from the
behaviors of that other.
The physical environment is nature's doing, but the non physical environment is man's
doing. We can organize content as a product of the physical environment ( we build a home) or
as a product of the virtual environment (we produce a movie).
Conscious physical man is a highly differentiated product of both environments. A person
growing up in the jungles of Belize, will not learn to operate a sled designed to operate in
snow, and a person in the cold north will not learn to survive in the topical jungles of the
Amazon. Experience is the only teacher, human expression is the experience modified product
of sets of expressed genes. Experience in both the physical environment and the virtual
environment contribute to the human response to the challenges of life. The virtual
environment is about knowledge, habit, privilege, opportunity and a host of other non
physical components. see Law, Moral attitudes, and behavioral change, p. 243 ref and to be
clear behavior has three components. ref 7
What is this virtual space (environment) that allows differentiated humans to be
manufactured from genetic material in to adult automatons. How are these automatons
programmed? Since is it rarely possible to modify the physical space; most human
differentiation occurs in virtual space. How many such digital spaces are there? virtual
content means<= the verbal and non verbal (ref.12) discourse that engages interactively
with the mind (conscious and unconsciousness). Environments can be natural or manufactured.
Environment then is the container space. The contents of the manufactured environment are
psycho-econo-socio-metically designed, media engineered, sets of media products. Each nation
state supports a different set of contents within its container space. The order, arrangement
and time of environments presented controls the mental behaviors of the media connected
humans who reside within the container space environment.
The content of each nation state in the system is a set of environment variables operative
in each human container. Two hundred and six different container spaces (the global nation
state system=NSS) divides and separates the 8 billion humans in the world. Human
differentiation is a product of the 206 different container environments. Your observation
that "Pompeo is a psycho"; expresses the real problem for humanity; its leaders are the
products of the physical and virtual content of the host nation state within the system of
nation states. Each nation state is led by a few. I say to solve this always war condition it
is necessary to control the humans that occupy the positions in the nation states or to
eliminate the nation state system, and find some better way to address human need for
governance.
That strike, which was only the first part of Iran's response to the murdering of
Soleimani, deterred the U.S. from further action.
Is USA really 'deterred' or just didn't want war at this time? USA is 'deterred' if the
Iranian response actually stopped them in some way.
But they took Iran's 'slap' and RESPONDED (though not militarily) with more sanctions and
even tried to turn the attack to their advantage by saying (initially) that Iran missed on
purpose (
as I explained here ) and conducting Electronic Warfare/Info War that may have
contributed to Iran's mistaken downing of a commercial airliner.
And, as bar patrons know only too well, Pompeo has refused to negotiate a USA exit from
Iraq, saying that "USA is a force for good in the Middle East".
IMO USA wants to put on UN sanctions (now in progress) and, when war comes, USA will
portray it as entirely Iran's fault. The claim will be that Iran is "lashing out" due
to "sanctions imposed by the world community" .
Why does anyone gives either the president or US officials credence regarding what they say,
especially Secretary Pompeo, not to mention POTUS? Taking Pompeo at this word and responding
to it strikes me as a waste of time. These people are never going to say publicly what they
are up to, which is world domination. Nor is it their own ideal. This has been the policy of
the US elite at least since WWII, which was simply a transfer of the seat of power from
London to Washington as the British Empire morphed into the Anglo-American Empire. Global
domination through sea power was British policy for centuries and the US just recently
joining the game, especially when the game expanded to air power as well. Arguably, this goes
back to the end of WWI, if not the Spanish-American war that embarked the US on empire.
Deterrence, I guess is the politically correct term for what Trump is doing.
He sees that the Dollar hegemonic empire was crumbling same as most who don't rely on MSM for
their news.
Trump believes US can hold its position in the world through pure military power, or the
threat of military power.
He wants to regain what he calls importance from early 90s when US was sole undisputed
superpower.
Iran though, he believes is a blot on USA's past that needs erasing.
Throughout the election campaign, Trump's big thing was rebuilding US military. He believes
this will restore US power in the world. Ruling through the world fear rather than soft power
and blackmail.
Today is Theophany in the Orthodox Christian Church, the baptism of Christ in the River
Jordan:
Today Thou hast appeared to the universe
and Thy light, O Lord, hast shone on us,
who with understanding praise Thee:
Thou hast come and revealed Thyself
O Light Unapproachable!
The 2000 page report about Afganistan sums up USA's criminal insanity. Further, Trump says
the response attack from Iran did not harm troops nor do anything of significant damage.
Indeed Iran's missiles are far superior than the USA's and the counter attack for the
General's assassination. I have mused, that, perhaps the USA was/is set up in this scenario
via Iran, Et Al.
The basis of the American Empire and its parasitic economy and Way of Life(TM) itself are
premised on what should be called America's Dollar Dictatorship.
Because of the US Dollar, America is able to wage economic siege warfare (aka economic
sanctions) on multiple nations around the planet--all in order to impose the Land of the
Free's imperial dictates on them.
This is American global gangsterism in everything but name--and disguised behind the
founding American deceptions of "Freedom and Democracy."
The vast majority Americans--including some fake "alternative media" shills--will attempt
to spindoctor this issue by avoiding such blunt description of this system.
Instead, they prefer to employ Orwellian euphemisms about the "US PetroDollar" or the "US
Dollar Reserve Currency" or how America's superpower status is dependent on this dollar
syistem.
But former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accurately calls out this system for what
it is: America's global dictatorship of the Dollar.
This is another reason why America has such hatred for Iran:
Best explanation I've seen yet of the 752 jet takedown. It was a false flag attack by the US
or its allies intended to frame Iran. The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had
already been hit by the Stinger and was several seconds from crashing anyway. The rich kids
of Tehran were in the housing complex at 6 AM to film the Stinger shootdown by their
terrorist buddies. They have properly been arrested. There have been other arrests too. I
wonder what they will come up with.
This makes more sense than any other theory I have seen.
Tom Luongo, who frequently cites b, has coined a new word for Trump's and his minions
tactics. Tom asks:
Does Gangsternomics Meet its End in the Iraqi Desert?
In the aftermath of the killing of Iranian IRGC General Qassem Soleimani a lot of questions
hung in the air. The big one was, in my mind, "Why now?"
There are a lot of angles to answer that question. Many of them were supplied by
caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi who tried to let the world know through
official (and unofficial) channels of the extent of the pressure he was under by the
U.S.
In short, President Trump was engaged in months of what can best be described as
gangsternomics in directing the course of Iraq's future economic and political
development.[/]
Iraq's importance goes much farther than just protecting the petrodollar to the U.S. It
is the fulcrum now on which the entire U.S. defense against Eurasian integration rests. The
entire region is slipping out of the grasp of the U.S.
And this started with Russia moving into Syria in 2015 successfully. We are downstream of
this as it has blown open the playbook and revealed it for how ugly it is.
Trump's crude gangster tactics in Iraq, Venezuela, Bolivia and to a lesser extent in
Syria cannot be hidden behind the false veil of moral preening and virtue signaling about
bringing democracy to these benighted places.[/]
What began in Syria with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and China standing up together and
saying, "No," continues today in Iraq. To this point Iran has been the major actor.
Tomorrow it will be Russia, China and India.
And that is what is ultimately at stake here, the ability of the U.S. to employ
gangsternomics in the Middle East and make it stick.[.]
By the time Trump is done threatening people over S-400's and pipelines the entire world
will be happy to trade in yuan and/or rubles rather than dollars.[.]
Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and
energy hegemony of] America".
While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about
protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries
of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old
Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the MSM/cinema
diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic
function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. It
always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by
extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always
represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental
way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the
Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their
interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces. The good guys are always identifiable
through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we want is just to live and let live, but
you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a little 'preemptive deterrence': you
looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we 'accidentally' go too far, it's because
there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or some other naughty boy who can be the
fall-guy, scapegoat, etc. To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the
Iliad , which, like all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's
tragedy) that the warrior's basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect
others from the same. But mostly take by force . No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies
are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a
whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by
people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with
paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make
this happen. But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens.
Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military
for next poor bastards who stand up to us."
Patroklos 84
Xerxes wanted water from Spartans, Hitler wanted land from "subhumans", but I don't see what
kind of stuff Americans want from Iranians. When they had Iran under control during Pahlavi
rule, what stuff did they take from Iran? They were giving Iran lots of money - didn't give
them USD printing press machine too?
Mike Javaras @82: The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by
the Stinger ...
MANPADs like Stingers are heat-seeking. They go after ENGINES. On a big plane like PS732,
a MANPADs is unlikely to have stopped the transponder and communications.
Philip Giraldi points a finger at US/Israeli Electronic Warfare:
Giraldi thinks the transponder was hacked. But the article he cites also talks about a device
on board that would've allowed for EW. And he notes that Israel probably ALSO has the
capability to have been responsible for the EW and/or device on board.
Thanks. Gangsternomics seems a good term for Trump's vision of US world power. Trump is
pragmatic or realist in that he knows there is no court or authority to hold the US to
account.
As to US holding power purely through military power, that can only happen long term if he
gets hold of a good chunk of the worlds energy reserves (as in Persian gulf and Venezuela
oil). If he doesn't achieve that, then the US goes down. Iran needs to ensure it stays under
Russia's nuclear umbrella as there are no rules.
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated there is unverified information
that at least six American F-35 jets were in the Iranian border area at the time when Tehran
accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.
Sickening series of Trump interviews and speeches demanding that Iraq pay America and its
allies over a trillion dollars for liberating Iraq (time stamp 8:20 to 12:00). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZfDJerI0o
This demonstrates that US attacks in Iraq over the last 30-40 years was mostly about the
control (including transportation routes) and than profiting from its oil and gas
reserves.
A secondary reason is to put troop on the border with Iran to further destabilize it via
state terrorism to overthrow the government and then take its oil and gas too.
It will get interesting when a pro Iranian new Prime minister takes office and China
offers Iraq a line of credit equivalent to the funds that would be frozen in Western bank
accounts if Iraq actually demands the troops to leave.
"The Iran-linked Binaa parliamentary voting bloc has nominated Asaad al-Edani, a former
minister and governor of oil-rich Basra province. Binaa's bloc is mostly made up of the Fatah
party led by militia leader turned politician Hadi al-Ameri, who is close to Tehran."
The Kurdish President of Iraq has stated that "Out of an eagerness to spare blood and
preserve civil peace, I apologize for not naming Edani prime minister," the letter continued.
"I am ready to submit my resignation to parliament." https://time.com/5755588/iraq-president-resignation/
I close with a visionary French rock opera Starmania "story of an alternate reality where
a fascist millionaire (read Trump) famous for building skyscrapers is running for president
on an anti-immigration policy, and where the poor are getting more and more desperate for
their voices to be heard." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78LytR-6Xmk
Xerxes wanted water from Spartans, Hitler wanted land from "subhumans", but I don't see
what kind of stuff Americans want from Iranians. When they had Iran under control during
Pahlavi rule, what stuff did they take from Iran? They were giving Iran lots of money -
didn't give them USD printing press machine too?
Assuming that your post was serious...
1. Water from the Spartans? That makes absolutely no sense as a glance at any historical
map of the Achaemenid Empire will show;
2. Lebensraum was indeed a specific war aim of Hitler;
3. Under the Shah Anglo-American (not mention Dutch, French and other) interests skimmed all
Iranian energy resources, kept the USSR under pressure on the southern coast of the Caspian
Sea and provided a key friendly power in the most important region of central Asia.
Petro-dollar supremacy could not have been established without control of the Persian
Gulf. The Persian elite were given wonderful opportunities while the rest... well we know
what the rest get.
@ krollchem #90 with the Starmania link that is not working
I get the following error from Oregon, USA
"
Video unavailable
This video contains content from WMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright
grounds.
"
Thanks for the rest of the comment and agree with the sickness of demanding Iraq pay for
being invaded.
1. Water from the Spartans? That makes absolutely no sense as a glance at any
historical map of the Achaemenid Empire will show;
That was in the movie 300. I guess you did not watch it. :-)
The Persian elite were given wonderful opportunities while the rest... well we know
what the rest get.
Not just the elite. Persian middle class was pretty well off too. Spending vacation in
Europe was easy, quite affordable. Not any more. I know I know, those dang sanctions... well
that is what you get when you piss off the big dawg.
Anybody know what's up with Andrew Peek getting sacked from the NSC Russia desk tonight?
Odd that, and he seemed like such a trustworthy chap as indicated in his twitter feed.
Perhaps he has some Ciaramella connections that would make Trump uncomfortable. Or Trump is
taking absolutely no more chances with any insider he has no control over when attending high
level meetings.
Are you talking about 'earth and water' ? The symbolic gesture
of submission to the Great King? That's a very different thing altogether. You make it sound
like 'water rights'... I did indeed watch the film I'm sad to say, but Xerxes was not after
water.
I'd like to know what proportion of the pre-1979 population of Iran qualified as
'middle-class' and what that meant in real terms. Outside of Tehran, Shiraz, etc there
probably weren't a lot of Iranians skiing in St Moritz.
There are certain signs that nations exhibit when they slide into becoming
'regimes'...targeted, illegal assassinations of opponents is one of these; America's recent
political trajectory has been from oligarchy to kakistocracy and now, it seems, to regime -
banana republic next, perhaps?...
Soleimani had delivered an speech on 2 August 2018 in Hamadan, in his speech he read 5 verses
poems from Rumi the famous Persian poet lived on 13 century. You can watch and listen minute
35:45 of the film ,
if you know Farsi. He said let enemy pay attention to these poems.
He has selected 5 verses from two locations from Book3 of Masnavi.
V-96 : Men dance and whirl on the battle-field // They dance in their own blood.
V-97 : They clap a hand when they are freed from the hand of ego // They make a dance when
they jump out from their own imperfection,
V-98: The inner musicians strike the tambourine // The Oceans burst into foam from their
ecstasy
I think Soleimani selected last 3 verses from this story of baby elephant killer, and
revenge of the mother elephant, without intending the content of story. But the coincidence
is striking.
No fault in your reasoning, particularly when expressing this from Trump's point of view.
I'd go a bit further and suggest he understands Iran, North Korea and Cuba are the only
remaining nations without a Rothschild central bank. Thinking he's successfully rebuilt the
U.S. military could be the single most critical failure of his presidency. Upgrading hardware
with a tactical nuclear weapon preference, isn't synonymous with rebuilding. What's neglected
are the people operating any apparatus. As an example, there is no timely military action to
counter mining of the Strait of Hormuz as illustrated by
Death and Neglect in the 7th Fleet . A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye
opening (emphasis mine).
He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and
maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its
crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse
underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those
training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty
navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.
Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be
considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago,
have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was
implemented. I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider
willingness to commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
psychedelicatessen "Thinking he's successfully rebuilt the U.S. military could be the single
most critical failure of his presidency."
I would be in agreement on the overall gist of your reply, but on Trump thinking he's
successfully rebuilt the US military, I'm not so sure. He is a pragmatic gangster when it
comes to world affairs which is why his Nuclear Posture Review lowered the threshold of first
use of nukes. b's previous post on 'How Trump rebelled against the generals' also fits in
with this line of thought.
I believe Trump needs to be thought of as a CEO brought in to pull a company back from the
edge of bankruptcy. I think that is the way he sees himself, and as I have put in previous
comments, there are no rules. I had thought Trump may be adverse to pure terrorism but
depending on what comes of the Ukie airliner shootdown in Iran, there may be absolutely no
rules as far as Trump is concerned.
The article linked by Mike Jarvis @86 makes observational comments about the behavior of
the first missile strike in PS752 and that it must have been a stinger/manpad (and not a
Tor). The same article also concludes that EW must also have been involved. Everything I have
read indicates that the first missile strike behaved like a stinger/manpad - until this can
be disproved it must remain a valid theory.
As I've discussed many times before, Russia was on the verge of being a failed state in 2000
when Putin took the helm. There were crises in every major area of state governance: the
military was in shambles, the economy had collapsed, crime was rampant, massive poverty
pervaded the country, and Russians were experiencing the worst mortality crisis since World War
II.
Putin's Three Priorities
Having studied Putin's governance and how Russia has fared over the two decades in which he
has ruled, it's clear that he's had three main priorities for Russia in the following
order:
Ensuring Russia's national security and sovereignty as an independent nation. In
previous writings, I've
explained the importance of national security to Russians as a result of their history and
geography; Improving the economy and living standards for Russians; and, The gradual
democratization of the country.
These three priorities are reflected in this week's address to the Federal Assembly, the
equivalent of the U.S. president's annual state of the union. Putin reiterated to his audience
that the first priority of national security and state sovereignty had been secured:
"For the first time ever – I want to emphasise this – for the first time in
the history of nuclear missile weapons, including the Soviet period and modern times, we are
not catching up with anyone, but, on the contrary, other leading states have yet to create
the weapons that Russia already possesses.
The country's defence capability is ensured for decades to come, but we cannot rest on
our laurels and do nothing. We must keep moving forward, carefully observing and analysing
the developments in this area across the world, and create next-generation combat systems and
complexes. This is what we are doing today."
Putin goes on to emphasize that success on this first priority enables Russia to focus even
more seriously on the second priority:
"Reliable security creates the basis for Russia's progressive and peaceful development
and allows us to do much more to overcome the most pressing internal challenges, to focus on
the economic and social growth of all our regions in the interest of the people, because
Russia's greatness is inseparable from dignified life of its every citizen. I see this
harmony of a strong power and well-being of the people as a foundation of our
future."
In light of the abysmal living conditions that Putin inherited in 2000, he did a remarkable
job over the next decade of cutting poverty, improving infrastructure, restoring regular
pension payments as well as increasing the amount, raising wages, etc. Russians, whether they
agree with everything Putin does or not, no matter how frustrated they may get with him
regarding particular issues, are generally grateful
to him for this turnaround in their country. This progress on his second priority has
underpinned his approval ratings, which have never dipped below the 60's.
But his comments during his address reflected mixed success currently as economic conditions
for Russians have stagnated over the past few years. One contributing factor has been the
sanctions imposed by the West in response to Russia's reunification with Crimea as a result of
the 2014
coup in Ukraine.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko climb the stairs
in the House of Chimeras in Kyiv, Ukraine, en route to a working lunch following a bilateral
meeting and news conference on July 7, 2016. (State Department)
Putin has done a respectable job of
cushioning the Russian economy from the worst effects of the sanctions and even using them
to advantage with respect to import substitution in the agricultural and industrial sectors.
However, polls of the population have consistently shown over the past two-to-three years that
Russians are
losing patience with the lack of improvement in living standards.
Another problem that is limiting economic progress is the pattern of local bureaucrats not
implementing Putin's edicts. For example, in his 2018 and 2019 addresses, Putin laid out an
expensive plan for economic improvement based on infrastructure projects throughout the country
as well as improving health and education. Budget allocations were made for these projects and
the funds released, but many have only been partially realized. Confirming what has been
reported in some
quarters , Putin complained about the deficiencies in the roll-out of these policies during
his address.
I believe this is connected to the subsequent resignation of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
who will now step into the newly created role of deputy chairman of the Security Council, while
his cabinet remains in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed.
Medvedev has not been particularly effective as prime minister and has been very
unpopular over the past several years as suspicions of corruption have swirled around him.
He is also problematic ideologically as he has always embraced neoliberal economic policy which
has no traction with most of the Russian people due to the experience of the 1990's when
neoliberal capitalists ran amok. He also lacks the charisma and creative problem-solving skills
of Putin.
Dmitry Medvedev with Vladimir Putin in 2008. (Wikimedia Commons)
But in all fairness, no prime minister will have an easy job in Russia if significant
changes are needed or a transition is still in progress. Throughout Russia's history, whenever
leaders wanted to reform the system, they've always encountered the problem of implementation
in terms of the bureaucracy. Whether out of malevolence, fear of losing perceived benefits,
inertia, or incompetence, bureaucrats lower down the chain don't always put the reforms
effectively or consistently in place. Putin has
complained at various times of local bureaucrats' intransigence and its negative effects on
average citizens whom they are supposed to be serving.
Mikhail Mishustin. (Wikimedia Commons)
Not much is known about Medvedev's immediate replacement , Mikhail Mishustin , except that he is a
former businessman and has served as head of Russia's Tax Service since 2010. In his capacity
leading the tax agency, he is held in positive regard, credited with modernizing and
streamlining the historically onerous tax collection system.
The third priority of Putin has been gradual
democratization of the country. Putin is often characterized in the west as an autocrat and
a dictator. However, as I've written before, there are many democratic reforms that have been
implemented
under Putin's rule that are often ignored by Western media and analysts. It is not that
democracy has not been a priority for Putin, it's that it was to be subordinated to the other
two priorities. Putin, as well as many other Russians, have been nervous about possible
instability. With their history of constant upheaval over the past 120 years – two
revolutions, two world wars, numerous famines, the Great Terror, and a national collapse
– this is understandable.
Putin inherited a system of governance that featured a strong president and a weak
parliamentary system as reflected in the 1993 constitution ushered in by Yeltsin – the
origins of which are explained
here . Putin has used this system effectively throughout his 20 years in power – 16
of them as president – to try to solve the various crises mentioned earlier. Such strong,
centralized power is necessary when a state is dealing with multiple existential
emergencies.
At this point, I think Putin realizes that Russia, though it still has significant problems
to be addressed, is no longer in a state of emergency. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to
keep quite the same level of power concentrated in the office of the presidency, which is open
to abuse by future occupants. Here is what Putin said about this:
"Russian society is becoming more mature, responsible and demanding. Despite the
differences in the ways to address their tasks, the main political forces speak from the
position of patriotism and reflect the interests of their followers and voters."
The constitutional reforms Putin goes on to discuss include giving the parliament the right
to appoint the prime minister and his/her cabinet, no foreign citizenship or residency of major
office holders at the federal level (president, prime minister, cabinet members,
parliamentarians, national security agents, judges, etc.), expanding the authority of local
governmental bodies, and strengthening the Constitutional Court and the independence of judges.
He also mentioned codifying certain aspects of socioeconomic justice into the constitution:
"And lastly, the state must honour its social responsibility under any conditions
throughout the country. Therefore, I believe that the Constitution should include a provision
that the minimum wage in Russia must not be below the subsistence minimum of the economically
active people. We have a law on this, but we should formalise this requirement in the
Constitution along with the principles of decent pensions, which implies a regular adjustment
of pensions according to inflation."
In other words, Putin realizes that the system as it is currently constructed has outlived
its usefulness and some modest changes are needed to keep the country moving forward. Despite
the constant nonsense that passes for news and analysis of Russia in the west, civil society is
alive and well in Russia. Putin is aware of the citizen-led
initiatives that have been occurring throughout the country to improve local communities
and it appears that he is ready to allow more space for this new participation of average
Russians to solve problems for which the official bureaucracy seems to be stuck:
"Our society is clearly calling for change. People want development, and they strive to
move forward in their careers and knowledge, in achieving prosperity, and they are ready to
assume responsibility for specific work. Quite often, they have better knowledge of what, how
and when should be changed where they live and work, that is, in cities, districts, villages
and all across the nation.
The pace of change must be expedited every year and produce tangible results in
attaining worthy living standards that would be clearly perceived by the people. And, I
repeat, they must be actively involved in this process."
How these changes will actually be instituted and what the results will be is, of course,
unknown at this time. Putin suggested that the eventual package of constitutional amendments
will be voted on by the Russian people. It also appears that Putin will indeed step down at the
end of his presidential term in 2024, but it is still very likely that he will remain in an
active advisory role.
Unlike the knee-jerk malign motives that are automatically attributed to anything Putin does
by the western political class, I see this as a calculated risk that Putin is ready to take to
make further progress on his second and third priorities for Russia.
Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia
Relations." She is co-author of "Ukraine: Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How the West Was
Checkmated." She has traveled throughout western Russia since 2015 and has written several
articles based on
her conversations and interviews with a cross-section of Russians. She blogs at natyliesbaldwin.com .
Good analysis/deep-background article! It's SO refreshing to read something about Russia
here in the US press that isn't the simplistic 'Russia bad! US good! Anything else is
Putin-stooge talk or what-about-ism'. I'm sure that the US & British MSM will attribute
only evil motives by Putin for all of this and will somehow try to ascribe Russian
world-domination designs to it, no-matter how much contortion and out-of-left-field
fantasizing that requires, after all that's their job, they've had a lot of practice, and
they get amply rewarded
ranney , January 19, 2020 at 16:29
Thank you Natalie ( and CN for publishing this); your explanations are extremely helpful .
Also what a relief to finally read something that isn't filled with hate and false
assumptions about Russia. When Rachel at MSNBC starts in on Putin I start to feel sick and I
have to turn off the TV Her hatred is frightening.
I hope we'll see more of your writing, Natalie.
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial
and energy hegemony of] America".
While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about
protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries
of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old
Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the
MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the
basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior
violence.
It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by
extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always
represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental
way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the
Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their
interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.
The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we
want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a
little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we
'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or
some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.
To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like
all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's
basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But
mostly take by force .
No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force
(land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just
once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want
to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We
will use violence and armed force to make this happen.
But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead
it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next
poor bastards who stand up to us."
. A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye opening (emphasis mine).
He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and
maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its
crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse
underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those
training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty
navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.
Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be
considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago,
have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was implemented.
I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider willingness to
commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc |
98
Internal emails from Boeing staff members working on the 737 MAX were made public earlier
this month have revealed new safety problems for the company's flagship 777X, a long-range,
wide-body, twin-engine passenger jet, currently in development that is expected to replace the
aging 777-200LR and 777-300ER fleets, reported
The Telegraph .
Already, damning
emails released via a U.S. Senate probe describes problems during the MAX development and
qualification process. The emails also highlight how Boeing employees were troubled by the 777X
– could be vulnerable to technical issues.
Emails dated from June 2018, months before the first MAX crash, said the "lowest ranking and
most unproven" suppliers used on the MAX program were being shifted towards the 777X
program.
>
The email further said the "Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X
with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule."
Another Boeing employee warned about cost-cutting measures via selecting the "lowest-cost
suppliers" for both MAX and 777X programs.
"We put ourselves in this position by picking the lowest-cost supplier and signing up to
impossible schedules. Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven suppliers receive the
contract? Solely based on the bottom dollar. Not just the Max but also the 777X! Supplier
management drives all these decisions."
Like the MAX, the 777X is an update of an outdated airframe from decades ago, which is an
attempt by Boeing to deliver passenger jets that are more efficient and provide better
operating economics for airlines.
Back in September, we
noted how the door of a new 777X flew off the fuselage while several FAA inspectors were
present to evaluate a structural test.
Boeing's problem could stem from how it used the "lowest-cost suppliers" to develop
high-tech planes on old airframes to compete with Airbus. The result has already been
devastating: two MAX planes have crashed, killing 346 people, due to a malfunctioning flight
control system, and 777X failing a structural ground test.
Boeing's C-suite executives push for profitability (at the apparent expense of safety) has,
by all appearances, been a disaster; sacrificing the safety of the planes to drive sales higher
to unlock tens of billions of dollars in stock buybacks - that would allow executives to dump
their stock options at record high stock prices.
If you wonder what the post-Trump Republican Party will look like,
take a glimpse at Tom Cotton, one of the US senators from Arkansas (where I live). Cotton has
waged a
relentless campaign for war against Iran and has supported every horror produced by the US
foreign-policy establishment for the last 20 years. He makes other American hawks look like
pacifists. Cotton once said that his only criticism of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
where people are held indefinitely without charge or trial, is that too many beds are empty.
Typical of take-no-prisoners warmongers, Cotton savages critics of the pro-war policy that
has characterized US foreign policy in the 21st century. No baseless charge is beneath him. He
recently attacked the Quincy Institute in the course of remarks about anti-Semitism. (You can
see what's coming.) According to Jewish Insider , Cotton
said that anti-Semitism "festers in Washington think tanks like the Quincy Institute, an
isolationist blame America first money pit for so-called 'scholars' who've written that
American foreign policy could be fixed if only it were rid of the malign influence of Jewish
money."
This is worse than a series of malicious lies – every word is false. In fact, it's an
attempt to incite hostility toward and even disruption of one of the bright spots on the mostly
desolate foreign-policy-analysis landscape.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecraft (QI) started last year with money from, among others, the Charles Koch
Foundation and George Soros's Open Society Foundations. Its officers and staff include
respected and sober foreign-policy analysts and journalists such as Andrew Bacevich, Trita
Parsi, Jim Lobe, and Eli Clifton. Also associated with the institute are the well-credentialed
foreign-policy authorities John
Mearsheimer, Paul Pillar, Gary Sick, Stephen Walt, and Lawrence Wilkerson. This is indeed a
distinguished team of foreign-policy "realists" who are heroically resisting America's
endless-war-as-first-resort policy.
Named for John Quincy Adams – who as secretary of state famously declared that
"America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" – QI "promotes ideas that
move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of
international peace." The QI website goes on to state:
The US military exists to defend the people and territory of the United States, not to
act as a global police force. The United States should reject preventive wars and military
intervention to overthrow regimes that do not threaten the United States. Wars of these kinds
not only are counterproductive; they are wrong in principle.
It then goes on to indict the current foreign-policy establishment:
The foreign policy of the United States has become detached from any defensible
conception of US interests and from a decent respect for the rights and dignity of humankind.
Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and
indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in
itself.
Moreover, much of the foreign policy community in Washington has succumbed to
intellectual lethargy and dysfunction. It suppresses or avoids serious debate and fails to hold
policymakers and commentators accountable for disastrous policies. It has forfeited the
confidence of the American public. The result is a foreign policy that undermines American
interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the
United States had earned.
This may not be pure libertarian foreign policy ("US interests" is too slippery a term for
my taste), but compared to what passes for foreign-policy thinking these days, it's pretty damn
good.
So why is Tom Cotton so upset? It should be obvious. QI opposes the easy-war policy of the
last 20 years. Of course Cotton is upset. Take away war, and he's got nothing in his toolbox.
He certainly doesn't want to see the public turn antiwar before he's had a shot at high office,
say, secretary of state, secretary of defense, CIA director, or even the presidency.
Cotton's charges against QI are wrong on every count.
QI is not isolationist as long as it supports trade with the world and diplomacy as the
preferred method of resolving conflicts.
It's not a blame-America-first outfit because the object of its critique is not America or
Americans, but the imperial war-loving elite of the American political establishment. Cotton is
part of that elite, but that does not entitle him to identify the mass of Americans with his
lethal policy preferences.
It's not a money pit. As you can see, QI boasts an eminent lineup thinkers and writers. So
the money is obviously well-spent on badly needed analysis. QI should have been set up long
ago. Cotton shows his pettiness by putting the word scholars in sarcasm quotes. He
should aspire to such scholarship as Bacevich, Parsi, et al. have produced.
But where Cotton really shows his agenda is his absurd claim that anti-Semitism "festers" in
QI (and other think tanks – which ones?).
Cotton here is performing that worn-out trick that, alas, still has some life in it:
conflating criticism of Israel and its American lobby with people who are Jewish (and who may
well oppose how the Israeli state mistreats the Palestinians). I'm sure he knows better: this
is demagogy and not ignorance.
On its face, the proposition that virtually anyone who criticizes Israel's conduct toward
the Palestinians and its Arab and Iranian neighbors probably hates Jews as Jews is patently
ridiculous. Any clear-thinking person dismisses that claim out of hand.
Undoubtedly Cotton has in mind primarily Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of
The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy , published in 2008. (It began as an essay
in The London Review of Books .) In that work, Walt and Mearsheimer reasonably attribute
the lion's share of influence on US policy in the Middle East to the Israel lobby, "a loose
coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move US foreign policy in a
pro-Israel direction." They add, "[I]t is certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that 'controls'
US foreign policy. It is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles,
whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel's case within the United States and influence
American foreign policy in ways that its members believe will benefit the Jewish state."
This is hardly controversial stuff, although reasonable people can disagree over whether the
lobby was decisive in any given case.
But does anyone doubt that American champions of Israel work overtime and spend a lot of
money to advance what they see as Israel's interests? If so, see this and my book
Coming to Palestine . (Many non-Zionist Jews disagree with them about those
interests.) Organizations like AIPAC often boast about their influence. That they sincerely
believe Israel's interests coincide with America's interests is beside the point. (I won't
address that dubious contention here.) That influence, which supports massive annual military
aid to Israel, has helped to facilitate the oppression of the Palestinians, wars against
Lebanon, and attacks on Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It has also provoked hostility to America and
vengeful terrorism against Americans. (For example, the 9/11
attacks as acknowledged by the
government's commission .) Pro-Israel American political and military officials acknowledge
this.
Cotton need not wonder why the lobby has succeeded so often since he himself is using the
anti-Semitism canard to inhibit Israel's critics. No one wants to be condemned as anti-Semite
(or as any other kind of bigot), so we can easily imagine prominent people in the past
withholding criticism of Israel for fear of being thought anti-Jewish. (It's Israel and its
champions, not Israel's critics, who insist that Israel is the state of all Jews, no
matter where else they may be citizens.) Thankfully, despite the efforts of Cotton, Kenneth
Marcus, Bari Weiss , Bret Stephens, and others, the invidious conflation has lost much of
its force. More than ever, people understand that to oppose the entangling alliance with Israel
and to express solidarity with the long-suffering Palestinians do not constitute bigotry
against Jews.
Can Cotton produce any evidence that anyone at QI believes that pro-Israel Jewish Americans
should be barred from lobbying and making political donations or that such an obvious violation
of liberty would fix American foreign policy? Of course not. There is no evidence. Moreover,
I'm sure the QI realists understand that other interests also propel the pro-war US foreign
policy, including glory-seeking politicians and generals and the profit-craving
military-industrial complex.
Those who reflexively and slanderously tar Israel's critics as anti-Semites seem not to
realize that the worthy effort to eliminate real anti-Semitism is undermined by their efforts
to immunize Israel and its American champions from good-faith criticism.
Munich, 16 February 2018 : World Uyghur Congress president, Dolkun Isa, and Turkey Prime
Minister Binali Yıldırım.
The "Xinjiang papers", released on 16 November 2019 by the New York Times , have been
spinned by the Western media as a plan to suppress Uyghur culture in China [ 1 ]. Written in Chinese, their
interpretation may not be easily accessible to the Western world. In reality, China protects
Uyghur culture, tolerates Muslim religion, while trying to stymie terrorist attacks and the
separatist push coming from the World Uyghur Congress (WUC).
China has already published numerous studies [ 2 ] clarifying its policy.
The documents published by the New York Times attest to the determination of the
Chinese government to use any means necessary to maintain civil peace. President Xi has called
on the police to show "absolutely no mercy" towards terrorists. Indeed, the Chinese leader is
up against a powerful organization, i.e. the World Uyghur Congress, which was created by the
CIA during the Cold War, and which the US daily disingeniously portrays as being totally
peaceful.
However, the World Uyghur Congress, based in Munich (Germany), has directly claimed
responsibility for many deadly attacks in China. In addition, thousands of Uyghur combatants
were sent to be trained in Syria with Turkey's assistance. [ 3 ] More than 18,000 Uyghur jihadists
are currently occupying the city of al-Zanbaki (Idlib governorate) where German and French NGOs
provide them with food and health services.
Uyghur jihadists have garnered many supporters in Europe. Thus, lobbyists gathered in
Brussels behind closed doors for a three-day seminar (7-9 December 2019), followed on 10
December by a conference in the European Parliament co-chaired by French MEP, Raphaël
Glucksmann, and WUC president Dolkun Isa.
[ 1 ] "'Absolutely No Mercy': Leaked
Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims", Austin Ramzy and Chris Buckley,
The New York Times , November 16, 2019
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited,
their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND ).
On 8 January 2020, in Ankara, Russian President Vladimir Putin struck a deal with his
Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, for a ceasefire in Syria's Idlib province. It
was made public before being approved by the Syrian side.
With the United States also having secretly agreed to the ceasefire, China and Russia went
along with the vote on 10 January at the Security Council of a resolution [ 1 ] renewing the list of crossing
points for the delivery of humanitarian aid inside Syria, which were not those initially
proposed.
In addition, the Russian delegation convened another Security Council meeting to discuss the
report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the alleged chemical
attack in Douma, issued on 7 April 2018, and currently put into question. [ 2 ]
Following these developments, the heads of the Syrian and Turkish secret services, Ali
Mamlouk (national security) [photo] and Hakan Fidan (Millî İstihbarat
Teşkilatı), held talks during a Syro-Russian-Turkish summit in Moscow on 13 January
2020. It was the first time that the two countries had an official contact since the outset of
the conflict in 2011.
Talks focused on the liberation of the Idlib governorate, where a large number of Al Qaeda
fighters, possibly hundreds of thousands, are harbored. On this subjet, the Sochi de-escalation
memorandum (2018) [ 3 ], which Turkey has not complied
with, provided for:
the withdrawal of
heavy weapons, while Turkey continues to support the jihadists. However, it has started to move
them out of Idlib to Djerba (Tunisia), and onwards to Tripoli (Libya), where the United States
wishes to rekindle the war.
the reopening of the
Aleppo-Latakia (M4) and Aleppo-Hama (M5) highways.
Also on the agenda was the fight against the Kurdish terrorists of the PKK/YPG. On this
point, Turkey requested the revision of the Adana Secret Agreement (1998) [ 4 ], which was hammered out
during the Cold War, when the Kurdish organizations identified themselves as Marxist-Leninist
and were turned towards the Soviet Union. They are now anarchists and work with NATO. The
Agreement recognized Turkey's right to guarantee its security, granting it access to a strip of
Syrian territory corresponding to the range of the artillery in possession of the Kurdish armed
groups at the time. Article licensed under Creative
Commons
The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited,
their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND ).
The guys that Erdogan supports in Libya are extremist Muslims that set the dark Islam's
Sharia laws as the base of their judicial system. Same as other extreme Muslim regimes like
Iran and Saudi Arabia.
For our frequent fliers who are members of our "Chopping Heads and Eating Livers of
Infidels" Afriqiyah Airways is a code share flight with Turkish Airlines. Also, remember your
points can be used in Paradise to rent hotel rooms for you and your 72 virgins.
Turkish Airlines. The airline of choice for Jihadis.
(satire)
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ , 38 minutes ago
link
If there were flight attendants (male or female), I bet they were groped.
Remember the insurgents paused the killing long enough to start up a central bank, in the
middle of a war! If that doesn't make the general public curious about who is doing all the
*******, they are to incurious to save.
Where did Gadaffi's gold go? 86 tons didn't leave in a Toyota Hilux.
Erdogen hasn't been hiding anything even as far back as his ISIS caravans to Syria for oil
for gold scam he was running. He's threatened to take over the nuclear weapons as Incirlik at
least twice. He's playing Putin because it gives him leverage against NATO. He's criminally
in Syria and now Libya and nobody's calling him on it. Putin is actually capitulating and
coddling Erdogan. Erdogan's at least as much of an international war criminal, terrorist,
mass murdered as the last five Presidents so why is he still in office let alone still
alive?
Oddly, like in Syria, the US set up Libya, and the Russians and Turks are claiming to
resolve what chaos was created by the empire. Looks stage produced. In the Syrian case,
Turkey was aiding and abetting "ISIS" and then the script flipped to Russian ally, and they
invaded Syria and still occupy their territory. The empire achieves their goals, another
crushed and dependent nation, resources stolen, their defenses exhausted, while assigning
political rebuilding to their Russian and NATO partners.
Who gets victimized out of all involved? The Libyans and the Syrians.
More NATO shenanigans. Look back to when the US regime/zionist empire attacked Libya,
sending in the airforce while their Al-CIA-da provided the ground force, and after they
sodomized, tortured, and murdered the 70 year old Gaddafi, as well as his son's family,
including grandchildren, they reported it openly that those mercenaries were being sent to
Syria. When the average person is too mentally damaged by propaganda to realize what they're
looking at, the rulers probably enjoy putting it out in the open. I bet they get tingles
every time they fool people.
Operations in Syria wrapping up, so now back to Libya. It's like sequels in one of their
hollywood productions.
The general gist of this article is on target, but I feel some of the details are off.
First off, Iran does want to be a region hegemon, they have wanted that for 5,000 years.
But they only succeeded, and then only temporarily, when the opposition was weak. Today they
are opposed by Israel, which is far stronger them Iran militarily, and by the Saudis, who are
far richer. Those two can contain Iran by themselves with little US support.
Secondly, Iran getting nuclear weapons is a problem. If they do, next will be the Turks
and Saudis, then the Egyptians and then who know who else. Having several nuclear powers in
an unstable part of the world is a bad thing in general, and when (not if, but when) one of
those state collapses like Iran did in 1979 or the USSR did in 1989, the risk of loose nukes
floating around is far too real. Better nobody has them (I am not a particular friend or foe
of Israel, but I trust them more than the Arab states on this score).
But our aggressive policy and troop deployments give the Iranians every incentive to build
nukes. Their previous incentive was to counter Saddam Hussien's Iraq, but we graciously
eliminated threat. But then we provided them with our own incentive to nuclearize. Very
dumb.
I don't fully agree that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a problem for us. To the extent
that any country's having them is a problem, sure. But Iran lacks the means to deliver such a
weapon to US territory, and their regime, which has, for better or for worse, been rather
stable over 40 years, has, notwithstanding aggressive rhetoric, been pragmatic: they know the
awful consequences that would come from unleashing a nuclear attack on us. They wouldn't even
think of it. Even attacking Israel, something within their capabilities, would certainly
unleash nuclear retaliation and mutually assured destruction. The mullahs are not into that.
I think that nuclear non-proliferation became a dead letter when Pakistan and India
acquired nuclear weapons and the world shrugged. Pakistan has one of the least stable
governments around, having frequent coups, an intelligence service brimming with religious
and ideological fanatics, and a history of repeated wars with neighboring India. If ever a
red line should have been drawn, that was it. But nothing was done, barely anything was even
said. From that point on, nobody really has any basis to complain if Iran (or any of the
other countries you mention) goes nuclear.
Worse, US foreign policy is almost perfectly designed to maximize nuclear proliferation
around the world. We have clearly and repeatedly sent the message to all nations that nuclear
weapons are the only deterrent to US aggression, and that giving up your nuclear weapons (or
agreeing not to make them, as Iran did) is suicidal. The world already knows that the US is a
lawless, rogue nation, and that its treaty promises are not worth the paper they are written
on. You really have to question the sanity of any government that has the resources to
develop nukes and isn't doing that.
to the extent that any country's having them is a problem, sure.
This is a pretty big "but", though? Nuclear proliferation is a huge danger and it's
why a country like Germany without a huge middle east presence or danger of getting attacked
with Iranian nuclear weapons would so forcefully back the JCPOA.
The existence and success of the JCPOA should be indictivative of the correct method to
fight proliferation and the importance of doing so. To the degree that the US should be
involved with the affairs of the Middle East, it should be done through the State Department
(or what's left of it when the Republicans are finished with it).
As for Pakistan's nukes means "nobody really has any basis to complain if Iran (or any of
the other countries you mention) goes nuclear." IR doesn't run on moral consitency. We should
complain about countries that start up nuclear programs, but we should also complain about
how the US's action have made nuclear proliferation more likely and not less. I'd rather not
the US give up on non-proliferation just because Pakistan has the bomb. We just need to
pretending our military can find solutions to political problems.
It's not relevant that they can't strike America. They have the means to deliver a nuclear
warhead to Israel, which is all that matters to the people in charge of this country.
And Iran does not even need nuclear weapons to completely destroy the Israeli state. They
have more than enough conventional missiles to do the job. And such anti-missile defense
systems such as the Patriot and Iron Dome implementations have both been shown to be
completely
inadequate against the type of missile onslaught Iran could deliver against Israel...
Yes, Iran could strike Israel with a nuke. Or, as Steve Naidamast has pointed out in his
response to you, they could obliterate Israel with conventional ballistics as well. In 40
years, they haven't done that. And they know that Israel would respond in kind, or with
nuclear weapons, and they would be destroyed. So they will not do that.
In any case, while it is true that the people running the country view the defense of
Israel as our responsibility, even as a top priority. In my opinion, and I think many readers
here agree, that is precisely the problem. There is no reason we should commit to the
defense of Israel: its existence and well being is not relevant to the defense of the United
States. In fact, our unconditional support of everything Israel does, no matter how blatantly
wrong it may be, is one of the things that fuels anti-American hatred around the world and
motivates terrorists. Pulling away from our connection to Israel would be one of the best
things we could do to enhance our national security.
The US is in the Mid East for Israel's interests and Israel's interests only. This article
completely ignores this reality and tries to obfuscate it with a lot of air over how another
analyst views the situation there.
Had the US not recognized partition in 1947/1948 and then the subsequent state of Israel,
much of the violence in the Mid East would have never occurred in the first place. This
combined with assassination of the Iranian head of state in 1953 (over the move to
nationalize Iranian oil and thus pushing out the British and Dutch oil industry) by
Eisenhower only served to seriously complicate the matters in this region.
Iran would have most likely never had felt the need to develop nuclear weapons if the
United States had simply just left well enough alone.
Unfortunately, the United States with few exception has never had anything but dim light
bulbs in the presidency. Even Truman's senior military leaders, Mid East Foreign Service
policy experts, and Secretary of State Marshall all warned him of the consequences of
recognizing an Israel state and they were all correct...
You know it, I know it, and pretty much everyone lurking around knows it: The US is in the
ME for very basic things that insure its primacy:
- the control of the oil flow;
- the control of the way that oil is being transaction-ed, must be US dollars. The flow of
dollars, especially the excess dollars needs to be controlled and be returned back to fund US
deficit - which of course US has no intention of repaying (external creditors only), and the
Feds, which are private bodies of financiers which benefit tremendously from controlling the
world's reserve currency, understand this;
- Oiled ME countries must be run by autocracies in fear of revolutions so they need US
support;
- Nationalist movements and republicanism are to be killed and persecuted;
- While a nuclear Iran might pose a threat to Israel, like India/Pakistan, US/Russia, it
would be all MAD, so not much to worry about.
US will stay in the ME as long as it will take to insure its primacy. And they will kill
any external or internal threats to this primacy.
Furthermore, there is a stirred appetite in the US and what its elites stand for. Look at
TPP, at the proposed treaty on services, etc. The intention is to privatize everything in the
world and have it in the hands of some, few. Thus State Owned Enterprises are to be shunned
and ultimately appropriated. This is all what TPP was about, this is all what the trade war
with China is about, and this is all the upset with Russia and Putin is about.
It is a very simple equation, that had the US population (military/intelligence) harnessed
to be the slave drivers of the rest of the world, while they themselves think they are free,
and liberators. This is the content of the red pill.
Not much different than the story told in the "Against the Grain A Deep History of Earlier
States" by James C. Scott
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lse...
And how can it be the other way if there are only two parties making decisions, and both of
them are committed as hell to staying bogged down in the Middle East whatever the cost
even to American troops and America's own economy , not to even mention the poor
peoples of that region? Just the latest example: Democrats received a totally free and
unprovoked electoral gift from Trump in the form of his administration committing an
unmitigated idiocy regarding Iran (which, probably, resulted in dead American
soldiers, not only wounded ones, given that even those wounded were concealed in the
beginning). A real, not clownish cause for an impeachment investigation, against which
Republican senators would have a very hard time looking honest and non-partisan in defending
the president. A dream for any half-literate opposition political strategist in an election
year. Their actions? They didn't think even for a minute that maybe - just maybe - they
should not squander that gift. Instead they threw it - a real (and their last)
opportunity to look solid in trying to impeach Trump - down the drain, industriously flushed
the closet and kept on digging some clownish personalities from Ukraine, who are not even
Ukrainian residents due to living in the US for years. You know how it looks like? The
Democratic Party's neolib bosses (also known as the Republican Party's neocon bosses) called
the DNC and said: keep on playing in your political sandbox, babies, but don't even dare to
pester the POTUS on those issues that further our policies.
To say that I'm eager to read a reply from that miserable partisan hack which shall have a
cheek to claim that either of the American institutional parties is not controlled by
neocons/neolibs after all this is to say nothing.
There are too many Jews and Christian Zionists involved with America's foreign policy, who
are happy to sacrifice America's well being for the sake of israel.
Until that changes, which I can't see how it will while America exists in its current form,
we are doomed to continue wasting blood and treasure in the region. It's tragic really, that
this nations elite doesn't care much for America, but only what America can do to further
their interests abroad.
ZOG is considered to be a conspiracy theory. These days, I'm not so sure it is.
At least part of the blame should go to the religious conservatives on the US Supreme Court
which, with its Citizens United decision in 2010, opened the floodgates for large scale
campaign contributions in Federal elections. The five Catholic conservatives voted in favor
of Citizens United. The three Jewish members of the court along with the sole liberal
Catholic (a woman) voted against it.
If you happened to watch candidate Trump's address to the 2016 AIPAC convention on TV
(which I did), you might recall that he promised to be the best president that Israel ever
had. It reminds me of that old Chinese proverb "Be careful what you wish for." Trump appears
to be more popular in Israel than in the US.
Being on the Supreme Court means that you never have to say that you are sorry.
I couldn't read the article because I don't subscribe to the WSJ, but I was wondering what he
meant by solving the Israel- Palestine conflict. I don't think we should " solve" it by
supplying the Israelis with weapons and almost unlimited support. We have been pretending to
be an honest broker for decades and we aren't. I doubt we could be. A President Sanders might
try, but I doubt he would succeed. He would have enough battles to fight on both domestic
policy and ( hopefully) pulling back from our endless interventions to put too much effort
into the I- P conflict. Most of the other possible Presidents would probably just be Israel's
lapdog, as usual.
I think the US government should pull back from Israel. Have relations, but don't treat
them like they are the 51st state. In theory I wish we could be an honest broker, but it
hasn't happened so far.
I have to say that the style of comments being posted as they regard Israel demonstrate that
a tide may be changing. I have noticed a slow but increasing negative response by serious
commenters on several sites not only toward the US commitment to Israel also to Israeli
policies and military capabilities as not being what everyone has promoted them to being.
This could be indicative of a sea change in US opinion, isolating most US
politicians...
@ Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc | 98
You are right one of the pillars of the Iranian asymmetric strategy to counter the USN is
using thousands of mines in the Strait of Hormuz and beyond, and probably also around the US
bases inside the Persian Gulf.
Back in the day when Iran was a pariah state in 1988 (under full embargo from USA and the
USSR), they almost sunk the frigate Samuel B Roberts with a very old WWI mine:
But forget it, they have now thousands of modern mines of Russian, Chinese, north Koreans
origin and inverse engineered Iranian mines, even better than those.
To try to clear the mines with wooden minesweepers in the Strait of Hormuz is a joke; to
clear the mines they have to move sloooowly and they will be sitting ducks to the Iranian
coastal defenses in this narrow pass; good luck using slow moving helicopters also, and using
hi-tech subs drones taking one by one will take months or years to clear them, if not
detected and destroyed before.
As in the case of the missiles threat, USN has no good solutions to the massive minelaying
in the Strait of Hormuz, and without massive resupply of the troops inside the Persian Gulf
by sea (of weapons, men, spare parts, evacuate wounded, etc...) they do not have a good
prospect to continue the war after few weeks; remember that the Iranians missiles have the
capacity to destroy all the airstrips of the US air bases in ME and cut dry the use of them
for bombing Iran and re-supply (trying to re-suppy a complete army only with helicopters is
not an option)
The iranians even do not need high-tech supersonic anti-ship missiles to close the Strait
of Hormuz, but they need them to maintain the US air carriers far enough from the iranians
eastern shores that their air wings will sit iddle inside the carriers (the operational range
of the F15, F16, F18 is around 700-800 Km), so they cannot support the troops in the opposite
side of the Persian Gulf, and even the SCG cannot use their cruise missiles (range 1700 Km)
against the western part of Iran where their missile force is allocated pounding the US bases
all around the Gulf
For US the only remained option would be to use long range bombers and cruise missiles
from subs, but they do not have enough of them to stop the rain of missiles and really
destroy the command and control centers, especially if they have not destroyed the huge
multilayered aerial defense Iran has (that seems to be much better than the american one)
The US then could think to use nukes, and then call a draft, but I do not recommend it, it
is better to ask for a truce
Best explanation I've seen yet of the 752 jet takedown. It was a false flag attack by the US
or its allies intended to frame Iran. The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had
already been hit by the Stinger and was several seconds from crashing anyway. The rich kids
of Tehran were in the housing complex at 6 AM to film the Stinger shootdown by their
terrorist buddies. They have properly been arrested. There have been other arrests too. I
wonder what they will come up with.
This makes more sense than any other theory I have seen.
Mike Javaras @82: The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by
the Stinger ...
MANPADs like Stingers are heat-seeking. They go after ENGINES. On a big plane like PS732,
a MANPADs is unlikely to have stopped the transponder and communications.
Philip Giraldi points a finger at US/Israeli Electronic Warfare:
Giraldi thinks the transponder was hacked. But the article he cites also talks about a device
on board that would've allowed for EW. And he notes that Israel probably ALSO has the
capability to have been responsible for the EW and/or device on board.
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated there is unverified information
that at least six American F-35 jets were in the Iranian border area at the time when Tehran
accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.
For our frequent fliers who are members of our "Chopping Heads and Eating Livers of
Infidels" Afriqiyah Airways is a code share flight with Turkish Airlines. Also, remember your
points can be used in Paradise to rent hotel rooms for you and your 72 virgins.
Turkish Airlines. The airline of choice for Jihadis.
In a statement
, No. 10 Downing Street said: "He was clear there had been no change in the U.K.'s position on
Salisbury, which was a reckless use of chemical weapons and a brazen attempt to murder innocent
people on U.K. soil. He said that such an attack must not be repeated."
There was no immediate statement by the Kremlin, but Putin has rejected the British
allegations as baseless and Russian officials repeatedly demanded that U.K. authorities come
forward with hard evidence.
In its statement, No. 10 portrayed Johnson as unbudging in his insistence that Russia end
its extra-territorial mischief and said he had reiterated the two countries' responsibilities
as world powers.
"The Prime Minister said that they both had a responsibility to address issues of
international security including Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran," the statement said. "The Prime
Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends
the destabilizing activity that threatens the U.K. and our allies and undermines the safety of
our citizens and our collective security."
Johnson and Putin were in the German capital for an international
conference aimed at achieving a cease-fire to end a long-running civil war in Libya.
Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few
People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the
Conquered.
Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by
Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's
way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat
Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active
Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War
while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.
That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.
WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding
Nation-States with Sanctions.
Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using
Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind
- AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I
am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.
Neoconservatism started in 1953 with Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the Democratic Party US Senator
from the state of Washington (1953-1983), who became known as a 'defense' hawk, and as
"the Senator from Boeing," because Boeing practically owned him. The UK's Henry Jackson Society
was founded in 2005 in order to carry forward Senator Jackson's unwavering and passionate
endorsement of growing the American empire so that the US-UK alliance
will control the entire world (and US weapons-makers will dominate in every market).
Later, during the 1990s, neoconservatism became taken over by the Mossad and the lobbyists
for Israel and came to be publicly identified as a 'Jewish' ideology, despite its having -- and
having long had -- many champions who were 'anti-communist' or 'pro-democracy' or simply even
anti-Russian, but who were neither Jewish nor even focused at all on the Middle East.
Republicans Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John McCain; and the Democrat, CIA Director
James Woolsey -- the latter of whom was one
of the patrons of Britain's Henry Jackson Society -- were especially prominent
neoconservatives, who came to prominence even before neocons became called "neoconservatives."
What all neocons have always shared in common has been a visceral hatred of Russians. That
comes above anything else -- and even above NATO (the main neocon organization).
During recent decades, neocons have been hating Iranians and more generally Shiites -- such
as in Syria and in Lebanon, and now also in Yemen -- and not only hating Russians.
When the Israel lobby during the 1990s and after, pumped massive resources into getting the
US Government to invade first Iraq and then Iran, neoconservatism got its name, but the
ideology itself did not change. However, there are a few neoconservatives today who are too
ignorant to know, in any coherent way, what their own underlying beliefs are, or why, and so
who are anti-Russians (that's basic for any neocon) who either don't know or else don't
particularly care that Iran and Shia Muslims generally, are allied with Russia.
Neoconservatives such as this, are simply confused neocons, people whose underlying ideology is
self-contradictory, because they've not carefully thought things through.
An example is Vox's Alex Ward, who built his career as an anti-Russia propagandist ,
and whose recent
ten-point tirade against Russia I then exposed as being false on each one of its ten points
, each of those points having been based upon mere allegations by US neocons against Russia
without any solid evidence whatsoever. Indictments, and other forms of accusations, are not
evidence for anything. But a stupid 'journalist' accepts them as if they were evidence, if
those accusations come from 'the right side' -- but not if they come from 'the wrong side'.
They don't understand even such a simple distinction as that between an indictment, and a
conviction. A conviction is at least a verdict (though maybe based on false 'evidence' and thus
false itself), but all that an accusation is an accusation -- and all accusations (in the
American legal system) are supposed to be disbelieved, unless and until there is at least a
verdict that gives the accusation legal force. (This is called "innocent unless proven
guilty.")
Mr. Ward is a Democrat -- an heir to Senator Jackson's allegedly anti-communist though
actually anti-Russian ideology -- but, since Ward isn't as intelligent as the ideology's
founder was, Ward becomes anti -neocon when a Republican-led Administration is doing
things (such as Ward there criticizes) that are even more-neocon than today's Democratic Party
itself is. In other words: 'journalists' (actually, propagandists) such as he, are more
partisan in favor of support of Democratic Party billionaires against Republican Party
billionaires, than in support of conquering Russia as opposed to cooperating with Russia (and
with all other countries). They're unaware that all American billionaires support expansion of
the US empire -- including over Yemen (to bring Yemen in, too -- which invasion Ward
incongruously opposes). But politicians (unlike their financial backers) need to pretend not to
be so bloodthirsty or so beholden to the military-industrial complex. Thus, an American doesn't
need to be intelligent in order to build his or her career in 'journalism', on the basis of
having previously served as a propagandist writing for non-profits that are mere fronts for
NATO and for Israel, and which are fronts actually for America's weapons-manufacturing firms,
who need those wars in order to grow their profits. Such PR for front-organizations for US
firms such as Lockheed Martin, is excellent preparation for a successful career in American
'journalism'. If a person is stupid, then it's still necessary to be stupid in the right way,
in order to succeed; and Ward is, and does.
This, for example, is how it makes sense that Ward had previously been employed at
the War on the
Rocks website that organized the Republican neoconservative campaign against Donald Trump
during the 2016 Republican primaries : the mega-donors to both US Parties are united in
favor of America conquering Russia. And that's why War on the Rocks had organized
Republican neocons to oppose Trump: it was done in order to increase the chances for Trump's
rabidly anti-Russia and pro-Israel competitors such as Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to win that
nomination instead, which would then have produced the billionaires' dream contest, between
Hillary Clinton versus an equally neoconservative Republican nominee. A bipartisan
neoconservatism controls both of the American political Parties. A 'journalist' who displays
that sort of bipartisanship can't fail in America, no matter how incompetent at real journalism
he or she might be. (However, they do have to be literate . Stupid, maybe; but literate,
definitely.)
The core of America's form of capitalism has come to be the US aristocracy's bipartisan,
liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican, form of capitalism, which isn't merely
fascist (which includes privatizing everything that can be privatized) but which is also
imperialist (which means favoring the country's perpetration of invasions and coups in order to
expand that nation's empire). The United States is now a globe-spanning empire, controlling not
merely the aristocracies in a few banana republics such as Guatemala and Honduras, but also the
aristocracies in richer countries such as France, Germany and UK, so as to extract from
virtually the entire world -- by means mainly of deception but also sometimes public threats
and clearly coercive -- unfair advantages for corporations that are within its borders, and
against corporations that are headquartered in foreign countries. America's billionaires
-- both the Democratic ones and the Republican ones -- are 100% in favor of America's
conquering the world: this ideology is entirely bipartisan, in the United States. Though
the billionaires succeeded, during the first Cold War -- the one that was nominally against
communism -- at fooling the public to think they were aiming ultimately to conquer communism,
George Herbert Walker Bush made clear, on the night of 24 February 1990, privately to the
leaders of the US aristocracy's foreign allies, that the actual goal was world-conquest, and so
the Cold War would now secretly continue on the US side , even after ending on the USS.R.
side. When GHW Bush did that, the heritage of US Senator Jackson became no longer the formerly
claimed one, of 'anti-communism', but was, clearly now and henceforth, anti-Russian. And that's
what it is today -- not only in the Democratic Party, and not only in the Republican Party, and
not only in the United States, but throughout the entire US alliance .
And this is what we are seeing today, in all of the US-and-allied propaganda-media. America
is always 'the injured party' against 'the aggressors'; and, so, one after another, such as in
Iraq, and in Libya, and in Syria, and in Iran, and in Yemen, and in China, all allies (or even
merely friends) of Russia are 'the aggressors' and are 'dictatorships' and are 'threats to
America', and only the US side represents 'democracy' . It's actually an aristocracy ,
which has deeply deceived its public, to think it's a democracy. Just as every aristocracy is
based on lies and on coercion, this one is, too -- it is no exception; it's only that this
particular empire is on a historically unprecedentedly large scale, dominating all continents.
Support that, and you're welcomed into the major (i.e., billionaire-backed) 'news' media in
America, and in its allied countries. This is America's 'democracy' . (Of course, an article such as this one is not
'journalism' in America and its allied countries; it's merely "blogging." So, it won't be found
there though it's being submitted everywhere. It will be accepted and published at only the
honest news-sites. A reader may Web-search the headline here in order to find out which ones
those are. Not many 'news'media report the institutionalized corruptness of the 'news'media;
they just criticize one-another, in the way that the politicians do, which is bipartisan -- the
bipartisan dictatorship. But the rot that's actually throughout the 'news'media, is prohibited
to be reported about and published, in and by any of them. It is totally suppressed reality.
Only the few honest news-sites will publish this information and its documentation, the links
here.)
However, actually, the first time that the term either "neoconservatism" or
"neo-conservatism" is known to have been used, was in the British magazine, The Contemporary
Review , January 1883, by Henry Dunkley, in his "The Conservative
Dilemma" where "neo-conservative" appeared 8 times, and was contrasted to traditional
"conservatism" because, whereas the traditional type "Toryism" was pro-aristocratic,
anti-democratic, and overtly elitist; the new type was pro-democratic, anti-aristocratic, and
overtly populist (which no form of conservatism honestly is -- they're all elitist):
"What is this new creed of yours? That there must be no class influence in politics? That any
half-dozen hinds on my estate are as good as so many dukes? That the will of the people is the
supreme political tribunal? That if a majority at the polls bid us abolish the Church and toss
the Crown into the gutter we are forthwith to be their most obedient servants?" "No: from
whatever point of view we consider the question, it is plain that the attempt to reconstruct
the Tory party on a Democratic basis cannot succeed." "The Tories have always been adepts at
conservation, but the things they have been most willing to conserve were not our liberties but
the restrictions put upon our liberties." "The practical policy of Conservatism would not
alter, and could not be altered much, but its pretensions would have to be pitched in a lower
key." "Here we seem to get within the smell of soup, the bustle of evening receptions, and the
smiles of dowagers. The cares which weigh upon this couple of patriot souls cannot be described
as august. It is hardly among such petty anxieties that the upholders of the Empire and the
pilots of the State are bred." "The solemn abjuration which is now proposed in the name of
Neo-conservatism resembles a charge of dynamite." He viewed neo-conservatives as being
let's-pretend populists, whose pretense at being democrats will jeopardize the Empire, not
strengthen it. Empire, and its rightness, were so deeply rooted in the rulers' psyche, it went
unchallenged. In fact, at that very time, in the 1880s, Sir Cecil Rhodes was
busy creating the foundation for the UK-US empire that now controls most of the world .
The modern pro-Israel neoconservatism arose in the
1960s when formerly Marxist Jewish intellectuals in New York City and Washington DC, who were
even more anti-communist than anti-nazi, became impassioned with the US empire being extended
to the entire world by spreading 'democracy' (and protection of Israel) as if this
Israel-protecting empire were a holy crusade not only against the Soviet Union, which was
demonized by them, but against Islam, which also was demonized by them (since they were
ethnocentric Jews and the people whose land the 'Israelis' had stolen were overwhelmingly
Muslims -- and now were very second-class citizens in their own long-ancestral and also
birth-land). This was how they distinguished themselves from "paleoconservatism" which wasn't nearly
so Messianic, but which was more overtly ethnocentric, though ethnic Christian, instead of
ethnic Jewish. The "paleoconservatives" were isolationists, not imperialists. They originated
from the opponents of America's entry into WW II against the imperialists of that time, who
were the fascists. Those American "isolationists" would have given us a world controlled by
Hitler and his Axis allies. All conservatism is absurd, but there are many forms of it, none of
which makes intelligent sense.
The roots of neoconservatism are 100% imperialistic, colonialist, supremacist, and blatantly
evil. They hate Russia because they still crave to
conquer it , and don't know how, short of nuclear annihilation, which would be extremely
dangerous, even for themselves. So, they endanger everyone.
Totally agree with Daniel: "Trump is president and commander in chief. The buck stops with
him. If he is too weak or stupid to prevent himself from getting manipulated by his creepy
cadaverous son-in-law and the bunch of fanatics he hired and surrounds himself with he is
unfit for the job. But given his many transgressions and war mongering ways, it's more likely
he's just another fraud like every other POTUS."
American hubris and bully-ism in the international arena has steadily grown since the end of
the Cold War, since they somehow believe their system won. With Trump, the mask is off. "I'm
taking the oil". In fact, he's taking the oil even though he can't do much with it (can't
develop it, limited selling options, etc). Pure child-like "it's mine, i'd rather break it
than give it back".
I have decreasing confidence that there will not be a nuclear war. It seems to be
increasingly likely that an overstretched American army will, at some point somewhere, be so
outmaneuvered that they will hit the panic button. The world is currently counting on the
Russians, Iranians, Chinese to be the sober ones, the cooler heads, the ones who hurriedly
clear the roads for the drunk adolescent American roaming the streets.
Back in 2003, an alternative media site based in Belgium – Indy Media, published a
rather clever article titled "Why America Needs War" drafted by a renowned political scientist,
Jacques R. Pauwels. Due to the fact that this article has recently been republished by a
well-known and respected alternative media site Global Research, a lot of attention has been
drawn to the topic of Washington's never-ending wars. In the above-mentioned article it was
stated that wars are a terrible waste of lives and resources, and for that reason most people
are in principle opposed to wars. However, with the US being locked in a state of perpetual
conflict with other international players, it's only natural to wonder what is wrong with
American politicians? Are they all suffering from some mental disease?
The reason the events we're observing on the global stage are actually taking place is the
fact that the US has been relying on the thing that Dr. Pauwels describes as the "warfare
economy" that the US has been relying on for over a century now. This economy allows wealthy
individuals and corporations to profit from violence and bloodshed, which makes them prone to
advocating wars instead of peaceful conflict resolution. Yet, the article states that without
warm or cold wars, however, this system can no longer produce the expected result in the form
of the ever-higher profits the moneyed and powerful of America consider as their birthright.
It's clear that the US couldn't escape the cold grip of the Great Depression without entering
WWII, however, as it's been stated in the above-mentioned article:
During the Second World War, the wealthy owners and top managers of the big
corporations learned a very important lesson: during a war there is money to be made, lots of
money. In other words, the arduous task of maximizing profits -- the key activity within the
capitalist American economy -- can be absolved much more efficiently through war than through
peace; however, the benevolent cooperation of the state is required.
Yet, the people of the United States didn't notice this change as they were mesmerized by
the rapidly growing wages and booming corporations that needed an ever increasing number of new
employees. That's why there's been no real opposition to America's warmongering inside the US,
which means that Washington will be looking for new enemies even when it has none. This results
in the states like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, that were willing at
one point or another to discuss their differences with the US, being antagonized and getting
designated as a threat to the US and its national security.
That's why the military expenditures in the US keep going through the roof, with research
and development programs for the US military getting unprecedented funding. However, what is
being presented as a race towards greater security represents a shameless siphoning of the
money paid by American taxpayer into the pockets of the major defence contractors. It would be
only logical if the US legal system, instead of investigating dubious reports of Russia's
alleged meddling in the US election, would take a closer look at the way blood money is shaping
the world of US politics.
Let us recall that the US military budget for 2020 has for the first time reached the
mind-numbing sum of 750 billion dollars! Over the past few decades, the United States has
invested some 30 billion dollars in various weapons programs, all of which have to one degree
or another failed,
according to The National Interest.
There's no shortage of media reports showing the complete failure of modern American
weapons, which, in spite of the massive sums wasted on their development, cannot protect either
the United States or its allies.
For instance, The National Interest has recently taken the effort to draw a comparison
between the Russian Su-35 jet-fighter and a total of four American competitors: F-15s, F-16s,
F-22s, and F-35s. The publication came to a disappointing conclusion that in spite of the
massive advertisement campaign that accompanied the development of F-35, it cannot stand its
ground against its Russian counterpart.
The ill-fated F-35 has recently been included in the list of the worst weapons ever produced
by the US Army due to its unbelievably high cost and reliability issues, says the Business
Insider. Therefore, it is not surprising that on top of Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan
announcing his intention of buying Russian Su-35 and Su-57 fighters instead of siding with the
US, Germany has also made it clear that it has no intentions of acquiring this overpriced
winged catastrophe from the United States. To add insult to injury, the American portal We Are
The Mighty has recently
listed a total of three Russian fighters in the Top 5 list of the fastest jets in the
history of military aviation.
At sea, the situation is no better. In the event of a hypothetical military conflict between
the United States and Russia, even in the Black Sea, American aircraft carrier groups would get
obliterated rather quickly by Russian diesel submarines, land mobile missile systems and small
but dangerous missile boats. That's even before land-based aviation units armed with hypersonic
anti-ship missiles dubbed the Dagger would have something to say about it,
says The National Interest. Another publication
emphasizes that Russian missile corvettes, that go at a price of 30 million dollars a pop
have four times the missile range of the latest US destroyers and cruisers that come with a
price tag of 2 billion dollars.
But it was the American missile defense systems, especially the Patriot, that have recently
covered themselves with scandalous shame. A year ago, US President Donald Trump announced that
among the new priorities of the Pentagon the sale of US missile defense systems to its allies
ranked really high. To achieve this goal, Washington tried to force those states that chose a
far more effective solutions – Russia's S-300 and S-400 to rethink their decision. These
attempts resulted in Washington introducing sanctions against some of its closest allies, such
as Turkey, India and Morocco.
Meanwhile, The National Interest
admits that the new Russian S-500 is by far the most effective air defense system in
existence, while The Hill
acknowledges that Russia's hypersonic weapons have rendered such US missile defense systems
as Patriot and THAAD meaningless.
A year ago, the United States announced that a network of ground and surface missile
interceptors, radars and communications lines at a price tag of 180 billion dollars could
protect the country from a limited attack launched by the DPRK or Iran. However, shortly after
this statement was made, US-produced air defense systems failed to
repel a surprise drone attack on Saudi oil refineries, thus demonstrating their low
efficiency. At the same time, it will not be out of place to recall that a grand total of 88
Patriot launchers cover the northern border of Saudi Arabia, with three more US NAVY destroyers
armed with the Aegis system being stationed off shore in the same area. None of these systems
responded to the attack.
Yet again, during a retaliatory strike launched by Iran, American air defense systems were
powerless to shoot down a single missile launched against two US bases in Iraq.
That is why a number of Western military clients have recently taken steps to acquire
Russian alternatives. This was the result of serious flaws in US-produced air defense systems,
such as the Patriot, the repeated failures of which have recently become apparent in Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The last of these clients was South Korea, which has long shown strong
interest in Russian military jets and air defense systems, but was unable to acquire them due
to the pressure being applied on it from Washington.
Those facts show that the military vehicles and aircraft advertised by Western media are
only good as scrap metal. Actually, this became clear to everyone, when Washington decided to
show its rusty armored vehicles on the parade assembled in celebration of last year's
Independence Day.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Vladimir Platov , an expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine
New Eastern Outlook ".
The United States has spent about $6 trillion on combat operations over the past 20 years,
according to Brown University
studies . If the warfare ends by 2023, researchers estimate the total cost will be $6.7
trillion at least, not counting the interest on debt.
In total, almost half a million people have died as a result of the wars.
The cost of 87 major programs for the purchase of weapons and military equipment conducted
by the US Department of Defense exceeded $2 trillion in 2018, according to the Pentagon's
Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), which detail the implementation of major defense purchases.
The combined cost of all procurement programs was determined by the Pentagon to be over $2
trillion. This is equivalent to almost 10% of the annual gross domestic product of the United
States ($21.3 trillion).
Trying to justify such exorbitant spending on the army, the US military and political elites
actively promote their interests, advertising the national armed forces as the main fighting
force. Recently, Joseph F. Dunford, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that
'there are no forces today capable of resisting an attack by the US Army.' Unsurprisingly, the
Department of Defense (DoD) desires even more money, although there is no logical explanation
as to why the most powerful army on the planet is in need of improvement when everyone else is
clearly lagging behind.
But what is the real face of the US Army today and how does the public feel about it?
Global Research
correctly remarked that, despite the largest military budget in the world (five times greater
than in six other countries), the highest number of military bases in the world (over 180) and
the most expensive military-industrial complex, the United States has failed to win a single
war in the 21 st century.
Every year, Pew Research Center publishes hundreds of studies on a wide range of topics.
Concerning the current problems of the US military, Pew studies note
that most American veterans and the majority of the general US public believe that the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting. Over 60% of the American public is convinced that
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not paid off, when the costs and benefits are weighed.
Responding to questions about the US military campaign in Syria, 55% of veterans and 58% of the
American public said that this campaign failed to pay off as well.
Frustration with the country's military policy has now become a big problem among active US
servicemen, veterans, and even among young soldiers who haven't participated in real
combat.
The incautious question 'How has serving impacted you?' posted by the Pentagon's official
Twitter account, has revealed the deep chasm of the US military's problems. So deep, in fact,
that the Pentagon had to urgently close and remove a huge number of subsequent replies, most of
which turned out to be very depressing in nature. US Army soldiers and officers shared the
shocking consequences of their service, including drug addiction, depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, anxiety disorders and nightmares – some admitting they had repeatedly
wanted to commit suicide.
Currently there are up to 19 million retired veterans 'in the most belligerent democratic
country in the world.' Every day, about 20 of them commit suicide. The causes of suicide cited
by experts are diverse, the main ones being depressions, nervous breakdowns, spiritual and
psychological devastation coupled with guilt for killing innocent people, post-traumatic stress
disorder, increased military operations, medical abuse, and personal financial problems. Social
media are full of horrific stories about how injured soldiers weren't provided necessary
medical attention during military operations, which drove them to shooting themselves in the
head. Meanwhile junior army members state that they are basically expendable for their
commanders, and all of them combined present an endless means of earning money for the highest
elite.
Suicides are rampant among all the branches of US troops, and their rate is increasing. US
officials deliberately hide the horrific statistics of suicides among military personnel,
seriously concerned about the increase in their number since they negatively affect the future
of the 'most powerful armed forces in the world.' To date, suicide is the second leading cause
of death among members of the US military.
Another extremely troubling statistic was revealed by experts from the American publishing
house McClatchy. They studied the health of the US servicemen who had taken part in combat
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 -- 2015. They have been literally mowed down by
cancer, which is confirmed by the sudden increase in the number of cancer patients in military
hospitals in Virginia. As it turned out, a significant cause of the disease is toxic rocket
fuel, which was used to massively burn garbage and waste near military bases. In addition, it
turned out that the fire foam used to extinguish these fires also causes cancer. It was quite
often that US soldiers had to dispose of garbage and waste in war zones, including human
corpses and animal carcasses. The Pentagon has not yet commented on the finding and is in no
hurry to grant applications for disability benefits; out of 11,000 applications only 2000 have
been 'lucky' so far.
The Heritage Foundation analysts published a report which shows that the US Army is at its
limits. One curious fact is significant: the conclusion about the decline of efficiency and
combat capability of the US Army came not from Russian or Chinese sources, but from American
analysts, which is further proof of the systemic problems in the Pentagon. The Heritage
Foundation analysts agree that right now, considering the current state of the US Army,
simultaneous participation in several wars is leading to its noticeable overexertion.
Taking this into account, Washington can only be advised to tread more carefully on the
international arena, avoid provoking armed conflicts that can lead to severe military defeats
for the US Army and result in sizable human losses, both among current servicemen and
veterans.
In the words of the Spanish newspaper El Pais , "The
Americans pose a much greater danger to themselves than the Islamists, North Koreans, Russians,
Houthis and all those who comprise the US-declared 'axis of evil' do."
Vladimir Platov, an expert on the Middle East, exclusively for the online magazine "
New Eastern Outlook ".
six
principles of political realism , found in his seminal work Politics Among Nations . The second, fourth and fifth
principles are of particular relevance to the current administration. Morgenthau's second
principle states that "the main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through
the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined as power."
Morgenthau believed that international politics is fundamentally a struggle for power
(understood in terms of the mutual relations of political control between nation-states), and
that peace is often tenuous in a world lacking a sovereign authority that can protect the
interests and survival of individual states (an insight that has been codified in the
neorealist conception of "international anarchy"). As a result, the "national interest" is
primarily concerned with the resources (especially military and economic capabilities) and
limitations (primarily the balance of power) that determine the national power of the state in
international politics.
The fourth principle states that "political realism is aware of the moral significance of
political action, but maintains that moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of
states in their abstract universal formulation." Morgenthau did not reject ethical
considerations in foreign policy (as is clear from his criticisms of the Vietnam War), but
believed that political prudence (i.e., the practical consideration of the consequences of
foreign policy) requires that moral principles be "filtered" through the "concrete
circumstances" of power politics. Moral ends should be pursued to the extent that they are
within the limits of national power and are consistent with national interests. The fifth
principle takes this one step further by stating that "political realism refuses to identify
the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe."
Morgenthau cautioned against the dangers of national "exceptionalism," which can lead to
"political folly," such as the fighting of wars that do nothing to advance or protect the
national interest, and can cause unnecessary human suffering through "moral excess." Thus,
"moderation in policies cannot fail to reflect the moderation of moral judgment."
President Trump criticized the Obama administration for getting outplayed and outsmarted by
Russian president Vladimir Putin, and yet he seems to be falling into the same trap as Obama by
thinking that he can do better vis-à-vis Russia through diplomatic rapprochement. The
problem is to see U.S. foreign-policy challenges with respect to Russia in terms of
misunderstandings between political leaders and administrations, rather than the fundamental
differences between United States and Russian national interests. Russia seeks to increase its
power and sphere of influence while the United States aims to maintain hegemony. If the current
administration seeks rapprochement by making concessions to Russia (e.g., by rolling back
sanctions), then foreign-policy analysts will soon be writing about another failed "reset." On
China, Trump broke with diplomatic precedent by accepting a phone call from Taiwanese president
Tsai Ing-wen, which called into question the United States' commitment to a "One China" policy.
The problem here is for foreign policy to extend beyond power, since the military balance
within the first island chain -- and specifically in a Taiwan war -- is rapidly shifting in
China's favor. While realism suggests that geopolitical rivalry between China and the United
States is inevitable, interest as power would suggest that picking a fight with China over
Taiwan is not a prudent course for U.S. foreign policy.
Two brothers are warning Japan not to succumb to this temptation, who were in one of the
Imperial Japanese Navy's kamikaze groups during the final stage of the war on Pacific, but the
war ended before they had the chance to fulfil their sacrificial military duty. Both elderly
veterans (97 and 99 years old) felt they needed to tell students
and teachers at Waseda University -- one of Japan's most prestigious institutions -- "what [to]
do to ensure that we don't repeat an event like the war."
They asked students to consider their speech and answers to questions as their "last
message" to the youth of today in Japan. They did not choose these words at random. Kamikaze
soldiers would write a "last message" to their closest relatives before flying or sailing out
on a mission which they would obviously not return from (these brothers were suicide vessel
pilots, so they did not fly).
The kamikaze tactic is a centuries-old, very specifically Japanese cultural and military
phenomenon. When other cultures try to copy the Japanese it turns into a parody or a
meaningless act of gang violence. One of these parodies was an attempt made by the German
Luftwaffe to do "something similar" to the Japanese kamikaze soldiers in the last days of the
Second World War.
Then there are today's Islamist terrorists (pumped up with drugs) who do not value their own
lives or anyone else's, and their acts have nothing in common with this concept.
Kamikaze volunteers were mainly undergraduates, which is reflected in the content and style
of their "last messages". The two brothers who gave their lecture at Waseda University were
both students when they voluntarily joined the Imperial Japanese Navy's kamikaze unit. This is
probably one reason why they chose to address students with the "last message" they have now
written.
Of course, we must take into account that the young sailors from 75 years ago and the
elderly people who speak today are ultimately different people. Japan has experienced a lot
since the war ended, as has the world in general, and the two brothers. All this experience has
undoubtedly affected how the former kamikaze soldiers think about what happened "then" and what
their "last message" should be, which they have now passed on. Apart from that, they will leave
this world in a very different way than the kamikaze soldiers did 75 years ago.
The first thing the audience at Waseda University were interested in hearing about were the
"last messages" written by kamikaze fighters, which make for extremely moving reading, even to
this day . They were
not dictated what to write, but the authors knew that their letters would be read by "the
relevant authorities." This is, by the way, what happens to messages sent by servicemen from
all different countries during times of war.
According to one of the brothers, not one of the kamikaze soldiers he knew really wanted to
die, and even then it was clear that the war was meaninglessness: "Do not follow my example,"
said the author in his message after 75 years had passed. "That's what I want to leave with the
young people today."
In this author's opinion, the main sentiment in the "last message" given by the two former
kamikaze fighters, namely that "war is hell", has a great measure of "the wisdom of hindsight."
That does not take away from this wisdom whatsoever, it is not something to be consigned to the
history books in today's Japan. It is very relevant considering the persistent attempts the
country's leadership has been making to "revise" Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
outlawing war, which would go directly against the prevailing sentiment in Japanese
society.
Japan and its former Axis ally Germany have managed to climb to the top of the world's
political and economic hierarchy without firing a single shot and without any bloodshed.
Without harming any enemies or allies. In today's rapidly changing world, Japan and Germany
will only strengthen their positions on the world stage if they can resist temptation and do
not get trapped in the same vicious circle they got caught up in a century ago.
Moreover, it would be a perfect time for them to reignite and lead the (mistakenly
forgotten) "world peace movement". It could not be more relevant in the current critical stage
of the "Grand Global Game".
Something similar seems to have been implied in the "last message" passed on by the two
former kamikaze soldiers.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the
online magazine "New Eastern Outlook"
.
I do not believe that for a second.
US initiated wars have been going on for decades, but I see no indication that US americans
have any issues with it. The political parties are totally aligned on foreign wars, there are
no people protesting in US cities.
Posted by: Norwegian | Jan 17 2020 21:46 utc | 27
I do not believe it either!
Since a good many Usians are morally bankrupt; they spend words like cheap cash.
Why not? It keeps them from having to actually do anything.
It's all out there; the lies, theft, murders, kidnapping, torture, and a corrupt
educational system.
'It's all out there; the lies, theft, murders, kidnapping, torture, and a corrupt
educational system.
...and the band played on..."
The band plays on folks, because of that corrupt educational system. Every school kid in
america is brainwashed from nursery school, kindergarten, even before the formal waste of
time. Then if they decide on college, unless their parents are one percenters, or hollywood
insiders the kids are in hock to the tune of six figures when they grab that diploma. No one
has time to protest anymore. 'They' have 'em by the balls and they're in a vice bein'
squeezed daily. Most have to pull two, or even three jobs, just to get by. No one has the
time to realize all of america's boogeymen are cia assets.
Besides, one's protesting against one of the most powerful militaries in the world and the
police state is ever tightening here. Protesting is pretty much a fool's errand anymore, if
it's against the government in general it's not covered by the msm, so only the protesters
and their friends are aware of it.
Life if rough for many americans struggling to get by. They don't have time to protest,
however, if the dollar were to lose it's world currency and our financial systems collapses
there could be a revolt with all the guns here, but i wouldn't count on it looking anything
like america's first revolution.
Thank you, my thoughts exactly. The USians are propagandised from cradle to grave every
state has at least one Fort xyz and every stadium has military spectacles to ogle at. No
football game without a military parade.
It will take a Herculean effort to turn that propaganda around and thankfully there are
two candidates dedicated to that effort. More strength to their arm.
On the impeachment issue my take is like this:
Trump really cant afford to lose too many of them especially if the first motion to
dismiss the impeachment case is to succeed. He can only be removed from office if there is a
two thirds senate majority on the proposal to remove.
But a simple majority is what he has to hold to succeed at defeating all other forms of
censure motions and getting the witnesses he wants dragged before the Senate.
The numbers are:
Democrazies 45
Independent 2
Repugnants 53
So three repugnant defectors would give a tied vote (assuming the independents vote with
the democrazies).
Not a comfortable position and certainly not now after assassinating Souleimani,
Afghanistan war report looking ugly and who knows what else. The 'permanent state' gangsters
can do much damage to his brittle ego by getting four repugnants to defect.
So if Trump is damaged goods going into the election cycle he could well be defeated by
Bernie Sanders IF he can overcome the jackals in the democazie party machine. Hope is all I
have.
Life is rough for many americans struggling to get by. They don't have time to
protest, however, if the dollar were to lose it's world currency and our financial systems
collapses there could be a revolt with all the guns here, but i wouldn't count on it looking
anything like america's first revolution.
Posted by: aye, myself & me | Jan 18 2020 6:35 utc | 107
Yea, I know. I have a sister living in Oregon. She's still working @ 70yo.
Revolution almost never has a good ending; in the U.S., at this time; it would be the worst,
IMO.
Probably a sizeable chunk of the people. But not the ruling class.
"Most of this carnage by the United States is done in the name of dishonest and
non-existent defense of country, of "spreading democracy" or of forced regime change based
on the lie of protecting by force the people of other lands. The truth of all these
politically motivated lies is that the brutality of U.S. aggression is purposeful slaughter
for political and geo-political gain, all at the expense of innocent populations around the
globe."
"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7
trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not winning anymore."..."I wouldn't go to war
with you people,"..."You're a bunch of dopes and babies."
If this is true, it means that Trump does not consider those ME wars useless or
unwinnables, but only the people who manage them are not clever or resolute enough, which is
quite scary, because imply that instead of "dupes and babies" if he put in charge "winners"
and "real men" may be they can "go to Theran", or "win a land war in Asia" (Montgomery
recommend not to start any never).
This language about "winners" and "losers" is so....American, it means that you do not
"win" or "lose" as a matter of life, NO, but you are inherently a "winner" (always win)or a
f**king "loser", it is the predestinationist (calvinistic) roots of the American culture and
you can see it clearly in almost all the Hollywood movies with the "good gay" ("winner")
overcoming an incredible number of obstacles, and at the end he kills all the "bad gays"
("losers"). It is all about is the Good against the Evil, the Winners (The Justs) against the
Losers (The Doomed)
May be now the "winners" start to learn (again) how to lose (as in Vietnam), and this
cultural roots make very dangerous for the US to lose a war, because it crumbles all this
narrative of the Manifest Destiny, the Chosen People, and all that BS. The blow back could be
devastating.
I think The American people love wars, they love to see in the CNN Tomahawks flying inside
the Revolucionary Guard buildings and blowing them, US helicopters piercing with missiles the
Iraqi APAC's packed with soldiers, the Abrams tanks blowing-up the Iraqi T72 with DU rounds,
the videos US planes crushing the hangars, the command centers, the A10 straffing with their
guns the "Highway of Death" and the bodies of Saddam soldiers scorched black inside the
destroyed buses...They like it, especially if you carefully hide the busted bodies of woman
and children from the cameras, or conceal the dead and injures GI's. They like the new tech
weapons and how they "work" against the "bad guys"
American people love wars, what they hate is losing wars...and Trump represents, as
someone said, what a good percentage of American people want to be, it is the archetype of
"The Winner", a populists "Caesar", the last chance of a crumbling Empire
Iran has long been viewed as central for securing US hegemony over Eurasia and the US/UK have
not recovered from the 1979 Islamic revolution. Iran has: 1) large reserves of oil and
natural gas, 2) key Geo-strategic position- near the convergence of three continents,
straddling the Middle East and Central Asia, and abutting the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of
Oman, a strategic "choke point" through which circa 25% of the world's energy transits. As
summarized by Dan Glazebrook- "The reason for this obsession with destroying Iran –
shared by all factions of the Western ruling class, despite their differences over means
– is obvious: Iran's very existence as an independent state threatens imperial control
of the region – which in turn underpins both US military power and the global role of
the dollar."
During the 2016 campaign, then candidate Trump constantly railed against the JCPOA ('Iran
nuclear deal'), as the 'worst' treaty the US ever signed. After becoming President, Trump
withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and immediately imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran,
vowing to reduce energy exports to zero, effectively declaring economic war on Iran. I
suspect Trump represents a faction in the US ruling establishment committed to regime change
in Iran. Trump may have believed that Iran would buckle under the weight of US economic
sanctions and capitulate to US demands. These include instillation of a US- friendly
government that will: 1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Bashar Assad in Syria and the
Houthi-Ansarullah movement in Yemen, and 2) allow US energy firms to loot Iran's energy
reserves. As this approach has not worked, Trump is now aggressively pursuing the military
arm of this policy.
The New Year started with a proverbial 'bang' with Trump giving the go ahead for the targeted
assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi General Abu Madhi al-Muhandis,
which had been long in planning. As pointed out by Pepe Escobar- 'It does not matter where
the green light for the assassination.... came from....This is an act of war. Unilateral,
unprovoked and illegal.' Not surprisingly, Trump's actions have been generally well received
by Congress and corporate media. We are now seeing US vassals- UK, France and Germany line up
behind Trump to enact the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) and sanctions snapback
provision, resulting in the re-imposition of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Apparently, this action was prodded by Trump's threats to apply 25% tariffs to EU auto
exports to the US.
It appears Pentagon war plans for Iran are being put in place. As per a recent piece by
William Arkin in Newsweek- prior to Trump's inauguration, the US military carried out an
exercise "Global Thunder 17", simulating a nuclear response against Iran in retaliation for
the sinking of an American aircraft carrier and use of chemical weapons against US troops.
This war scenario was chosen because it "allowed the greatest integration of nuclear weapons,
conventional military, missile defense, cyber, and space into what nuclear strategists call
'21st Century deterrence.'" The Pentagon now has a 'low yield' nuclear warhead- W76–2,
apparently developed for an Iran-type of scenario. These weapons are deliverable by
submarine-launched Trident II missiles.
So where do we stand?
It is doubtful that Trump will be convicted by the Republican- controlled Senate. This will
only embolden him more. US vassals- UK, France and Germany are lining up behind Trump to
enact the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) and sanctions snapback provision, resulting in
the re-imposition of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Apparently, this action was
prodded by Trump's threats to apply 25% tariffs to EU auto exports to the US. Canada,
Australia and New Zealand have also expressed support for Trump's position. France is
deploying her only aircraft carrier to the ME to 'fight ISIS'.
Corporate media is largely on board with Trump's plan.
Over the last two decades, the US has expended (squandered) astronomical sums of taxpayer
money (>$6 Trillion) and lives of thousands of troops on ME wars. After committing such
large amounts of financial and human capital, the Pentagon has no intention of admitting
their mistakes or changing their behavior. Doing so is an acknowledgement of failure and by
extension military weakness. Further, the strength and stability of the dollar and more
broadly US global power, is contingent on maintaining control of ME energy reserves. The
financial elite/directors of US foreign policy are well aware of continuing US economic
decline and looming strategic debacles confronting the Pentagon in Afghanistan (longest war
in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Logic dictates that the US cannot 'win' a war
with Iran, but this assumes one is dealing with rational thinking. By exiting the JCPOA,
Trump put the US on a collision course with Iran. Alea iacta est (l. 'The die is cast').
Links of potential interest follow.
Notes
1. With a New Weapon in Donald Trump's Hands, the Iran Crisis Risks Going NuclearBy William
Arkin Jan 13, 2020; Link:
www.newsweek.com/trump-iran-new-nuclear-weapon-increases-risk-crisis-nuclear-1481752
2. Washington continues war buildup against Iran By Bill Van Auken Jan 17, 2020; Link:
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/17/iran-j17.html
Jim Webb: The Iran crisis isn't a failure of the executive branch alone - When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren't even at war with?
Visitors walk around the stairs inside of the Rotunda to the top of the
Capitol dome last month in Washington. (Samuel Corum/AFP/Getty Images)
By
Jim Webb
January 9
Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, served in the U.S. Senate from 2007 to 2013
and was secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan from 1987 to 1988.
Strongly held views are unlikely to change regarding the morality and tactical wisdom
of President Trump's decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani as he traveled on a road outside
the Baghdad airport after having arrived on a
commercial flight
. But the debate regarding the long-term impact of this act on America's place in
the world, and the potential vulnerability of U.S. government officials to similar reprisals, has just
begun.
How did it become acceptable to assassinate one of the top military officers of a
country with whom we are not formally at war during a public visit to a third country that had no
opposition to his presence? And what precedent has this assassination established on the acceptable
conduct of nation-states toward military leaders of countries with which we might have strong
disagreement short of actual war -- or for their future actions toward our own people?
With respect to Iran, unfortunately, this is hardly a new issue.
In 2007, the Senate
passed a
non-binding resolution
calling on the George W. Bush administration to categorize Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps as an international terrorist organization. I opposed this proposal based on
the irrefutable fact that the organization was an inseparable arm of the Iranian government. The
Revolutionary Guards are not independent actors like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. They are part of the
Iranian government's formal military structure, with an estimated strength of
more than 150,000 members
. It is legally and logically impossible to define one part of a national
government as an international terrorist organization without applying the term to that entire
government.
Definitions define conduct. If terrorist organizations are actively involved against
us, we attack them. But a terrorist organization is by definition a nongovernmental entity that operates
along the creases of national sovereignties and international law. The Revolutionary Guards are a part of
the Iranian government. If they are attacking us, they are not a terrorist organization. They're an
attacking army.
The 2007 proposal did not succeed. But last April
the State
Department unilaterally designated
the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist entity.
Although more than 60 organizations are listed in this category, this is the only time our government has
ever identified an element of a nation-state as a terrorist organization. And the designation was by many
accounts made despite the opposition of the CIA and the Defense Department.
Which leads us to Soleimani.
The assassination of the most well-known military commander of a country with which
we are not formally at war during his visit to a third country that had not opposed his presence invites
a lax moral justification for a plethora of retaliatory measures -- and not only from Iran. It also holds
the possibility of more deeply entrenching the U.S. military in a region that most Americans would very
much prefer to deal with from a more maneuverable distance.
No thinking American would support Soleimani's conduct. But it is also indisputable
that his activities were carried out as part of his military duties. His harm to American military units
was through his role as an enabler and adviser to third-country forces. This, frankly, is a reality of
war.
I fought as a Marine in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam War
because of Vietnam's propinquity to China, which along with the Soviet Union provided continuous support
to the North Vietnamese, including most of the weapons used against us on the battlefield. China was then
a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Its leaders continually spouted anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet we did not
assassinate its military leaders for rendering tactical advice or logistical assistance. We fought the
war that was in front of us, and we created the conditions in which we engaged China aggressively through
diplomatic, economic and other means.
Now, despite Trump's previous assertions that he wants to dramatically reduce the
United States' footprint in the Middle East, it seems clear that he has been seduced into making unwise
announcements similar to the rhetoric used by his immediate predecessors of both parties. Their blunders
-- in Iraq, Libya and Syria -- destabilized the region and distracted the United States from its greatest
long-term challenge: China's military and economic expansion throughout the world.
At a time when our political debates have come to resemble Kardashian-like ego
squabbles, the United States desperately needs common-sense leadership in its foreign policy. This is not
a failure of the executive branch alone; it is the result of a breakdown in our entire foreign policy
establishment, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and even to many of our once-revered
think tanks. If partisanship in foreign policy should end at the water's edge, then such policies should
be forged through respectful, bipartisan debate.
The first such debate should focus on the administration's unilateral decision to
label an entire element of a foreign government an international terrorist organization. If Congress
wishes to hold Iran to such a standard, it should then formally authorize the use of force against Iran's
government. The failure of congressional leadership to make these kinds of decisions is an example of why
our foreign policy has become so militarized, and of how weak and even irrelevant Congress has allowed
itself to become in the eyes of our citizens.
"... In diplomatic terms, the US drive to force Iran into neo-colonial subjugation is expressed in Trump and Pompeo's demand that Tehran negotiate a replacement to the "flawed" Iran nuclear deal -- a "Trump deal" that would severely limit Iran's military, "roll back" its influence across the Middle East, and permanently bar it from a civil nuclear program. ..."
"... it is animated by the calculation that a "grand bargain" more favorable to US imperialism can be extorted from the crisis-ridden and deeply divided Iranian bourgeoisie, under conditions where it is facing not only ever-escalating external pressure, but also massive social opposition, above all from the working class. ..."
"... The Iranian regime was shaken by an explosion of popular anger against austerity and social inequality at the beginning of 2018. Last November, when massive gas price hikes sparked demonstrations in more than 100 cities, some of them violent, the Iranian government again responded with brutal repression, reportedly killing scores of protesters ..."
"... The assassination of Suleimani was itself clearly targeted at more than "just" threatening and destabilizing the Islamic Republic. It was aimed at shifting the internal dynamics of the Iranian regime. ..."
As with any sudden turn in world geopolitics, the true purpose and full implications of
Washington's criminal assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Suleimani
are emerging only with the passage of time.
The Trump administration's claims that the assassination was in response to an imminent
threat to American lives have been exposed as blatant lies. Suleimani's murder was months in
the planning and long advocated by key figures in the US military-foreign policy
establishment, including CIA head Gina Haspel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former
Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton.
The killing of the military leader, who was widely viewed as second only to Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran's power structure, constitutes a dramatic escalation of the Trump
administration's campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran. This campaign combines unrelenting
diplomatic and military pressure with devastating economic sanctions -- that are themselves
tantamount to an act of war -- cyber-warfare and other "special ops."
It is aimed at "turning" Iran and bringing to power -- whether through the reconfiguration or
outright overthrow of Iran's Shia clergy-led bourgeois nationalist regime -- a government in
Tehran, akin to the Shah's bloody quarter-century-long dictatorship, that will be at American
imperialism's beck and call.
Iran has long been viewed by US imperialist strategists as central to its drive to secure
hegemony over all Eurasia. This is because of its vast oil wealth and its geo-strategic
position, near the convergence of three continents and straddling the Middle East and Central
Asia, the world's two most important oil exporting regions.
In diplomatic terms, the US drive to force Iran into neo-colonial subjugation is
expressed in Trump and Pompeo's demand that Tehran negotiate a replacement to the "flawed"
Iran nuclear deal -- a "Trump deal" that would severely limit Iran's military, "roll back"
its influence across the Middle East, and permanently bar it from a civil nuclear
program.
Washington's maximum pressure campaign against Iran is predicated on the "credible" threat
of all-out war, and is intimately bound up with its preparations for "strategic conflict"
with Russia and China. It could rapidly cascade into a catastrophic war with Iran that would
engulf the entire Mideast and draw in the other great powers.
But it is animated by the calculation that a "grand bargain" more favorable to US
imperialism can be extorted from the crisis-ridden and deeply divided Iranian bourgeoisie,
under conditions where it is facing not only ever-escalating external pressure, but also
massive social opposition, above all from the working class.
The Iranian regime was shaken by an explosion of popular anger against austerity and
social inequality at the beginning of 2018. Last November, when massive gas price hikes
sparked demonstrations in more than 100 cities, some of them violent, the Iranian government
again responded with brutal repression, reportedly killing scores of protesters .
The assassination of Suleimani was itself clearly targeted at more than "just"
threatening and destabilizing the Islamic Republic. It was aimed at shifting the internal
dynamics of the Iranian regime. It removed the military leader responsible for
overseeing Iran's attempts to counteract US pressure through a network of foreign militia
groups, most of them based on Shia populism. Suleimani, moreover, was a leader, as the
subsequent mass demonstrations protesting his murder and the US war threats attested, who had
a broad base of popular support.
Given the manner in which Suleimani died, including his evident lack of security, it is
legitimate to ask whether factional opponents within the Iranian state facilitated his
murder.
What is incontrovertible is that in the wake of his assassination and the tumultuous
events it precipitated, the factional warfare has intensified, culminating in last week's
inadvertent downing of a Ukrainian International Airlines plane by an Iranian Revolutionary
Guard missile, its cover-up, and the outbreak of student demonstrations denouncing government
negligence and repression.
Yesterday, President Hassan Rouhani, who spearheaded the push for the rapprochement with
the European imperialist powers and Washington that resulted in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, denounced the military for failing to "apologize" for
the downing of the passenger jet. He also criticized the recent decision of the Guardian
Council to exclude many sitting parliamentarians from standing in the coming elections. He
called for "national reconciliation" -- a slogan long raised by supporters of the Greens, a
movement based in dissident sections of the bourgeoisie and upper-middle class, which, with
imperialist backing, disputed the outcome of the 2009 presidential election.
Meanwhile, on a visit to New Delhi in which he met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra
Modi, Iranian Foreign Minister Javed Zarif declared that the Indian government, a key US
ally, could play an important "role in de-escalating tensions in the Gulf."
A major element in the Trump administration's drive to leverage the crisis of the Iranian
regime and the longstanding cleavages within it has been the effort to cajole the European
imperialist powers -- Germany, France and Britain -- into joining Washington in repudiating
the Iran nuclear accord.
On Tuesday, the so-called E-3 took a giant step in this direction by initiating the
accord's disputes resolution mechanism, thereby placing themselves on a fast track to join
Washington in imposing and policing the sanctions that are strangling Iran's economy.
It is Washington that trashed the nuclear accord and is pursuing "maximum aggression"
against Iran. Through its dominance of the world financial system, it has successfully shut
down the world's trade with Iran, thereby making the quid pro quo underlying the nuclear
accord -- the removal of sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran's civil
nuclear program -- null and void.
Yet, in what could only be music to Trump and Pompeo's ears, France, Germany and Britain
are blaming Iran for violating the agreement, cynically citing Tehran's attempts to gain
leverage by exceeding various JCPOA stipulations and accusing it of seeking nuclear
weapons.
The European imperialist powers have been rattled by provocative and unilateral US actions
that cut across their interests. Suleimani's assassination was just the latest rude
shock.
Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will
spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it
doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the
European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing
working class counter-offensive.
No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump,
avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind
Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.
To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according
to a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before
Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25
percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."
That said, as in the case of Washington, a key factor in the Europeans' calculations is
the character of Iran's bourgeois regime and its manifest crisis.
The European imperialist powers have clearly been emboldened by the Iranian regime's
response to Suleimani's assassination, which was limited to missile strikes of which the
Pentagon was given advance warning and which resulted in no casualties, and by its ham-fisted
attempt to cover up its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine Air Flight 752.
For all its anti-American bluster, the Iranian regime is a bourgeois national regime. In
so far as it has come into conflict with Washington, it has always been from the standpoint
of increasing its own possibilities for exploiting the working class and boosting its
regional influence.
The growing opposition from the working class impels Iran to intensify what has been a
decades-long attempt to effect a rapprochement with every US administration, dating back at
least to that of George H.W. Bush.
If it can, the Islamic Republic's elite, or sections of it, will strike a deal with
imperialism at the expense of the masses. Even before Rouhani came to power in 2014 on a
program that coupled overtures toward Washington and Europe with further privatizations,
subsidy cuts and other anti-working class measures, the Iranian regime was involved in
behind-the-scenes talks with the Obama administration on removing the sanctions.
Similar talks could happen in the future or even be underway though back channels now.
Trump has shown in his dealings with North Korea that he is capable of pursuing such a
two-track policy.
As for the so-called Iranian "hardliners," they are no less hostile to the working class
than their factional opponents, as evidenced by the implementation of neo-liberal "reform"
measures by every Iranian government since the late 1980s, and their readiness to unite with
their factional opponents to suppress any challenge from below.
Ultimately, the "hardliners" supported the nuclear deal and the pursuit of closer
relations with the US and the EU. Even more importantly, their strategy for opposing
Washington--based on seeking close military-strategic ties with Russia and China and the use
of Shia populism and religious sectarianism to rally support across the Middle East--is a
blind alley that risks plunging the region and the world into a conflagration.
Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of
the CIA, penned a piece in the
American Herald Tribune speculating that the U.S. launched several cyber-attacks, one on an
Iranian missile defense system, and another on the transponder of the doomed Ukrainian
plane.
Giraldi explains the Iranian missile operator experienced extreme "jamming" and Ukraine
International Airlines Flight 752's transponder was switched off several minutes before the two
Russian made Tor missiles were launched.
"The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator
and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was
hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming
American cruise missiles, then fired," he said.
Giraldi said the Tor missile system used by Iran is vulnerable to being hacked or "spoofed,"
and at the same moment, Flight 752's transponder was taken offline "to create an aviation
accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government."
The Pentagon has reportedly developed technologies that can trick enemy radars with false
and deceptively moving targets, he said.
"The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a
civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location.
The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter
signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel
presumably has the same ability," Giraldi said.
Iran made the
claim Wednesday that "enemy sabotage" cannot be ruled out in the downing of the plane.
Iranian Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi suggested the U.S. hacked missile defense systems to
make it appear Flight 752 was an incoming missile.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also accused the U.S. of being responsible for the downing
of the plane, saying that:
"The root of all sorrows goes back to America... this cannot be a reason for us not to
look into all the root causes."
He added that:
"One cannot believe that a passenger plane is struck near an international airport while
flying in a [commercial] flight channel," after previously saying that IRGC commanders were
not the only ones involved in the plane downing, noting that "There were others, too."
The Iranian parliament also stated that "we are in powerful confrontation with the criminal
U.S. and do not allow a mistake to pave the ground for misusing the issue by the enemies."
Giraldi concludes by saying electronic warfare by the U.S. to bring down a civilian jet and
blame it on Iran "suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event" to create a false flag
for the next world war.
Of course, Iran and the pilot of the plane had nothing to gain and everything to lose by
turning off the transponders, which makes it more than likely a third party was involved in
the downing of the plane. You don't need to be a genius to figure out who stood to gain by
killing all those civilians. Giving the black box to Ukraine, America's puppet state, was
probably a mistake.
Interesting - I have harbored the same opinion after seeing the nationalities of the
passengers and reviewing the 2 missile video. In fact, I believe that the plane was rigged
with a unit to turn off both the transponder and the communication system, and then to
trigger an explosive in the wing tank after missile launch (triggering mechanisms likely
externally enabled). Let's look at this:
1. Nationalities - could not find references to too many American citizens, but lot's of
Canadians; ie: no real exposure at home and this gives Trudeau (Trudope..) a headache to deal
with that brings him closer to the Neocon camp - a little payback for the hot mike moment at
the G7.
2. Iranians may be poorly trained and, at that moment, itchy fingered, but planes were
coming and going from that airport all day. What made this one special - no transponder
signal. Jamming is too easy to spot; it is much easier to install a remote kill switch on the
plane in Ukraine (you know, where the US has lot's of ground assets with access to sensitive
facilities like airports) and then turn off the transponder after leaving the Tehran
airport.
3. Black box shows that there were no communications from the plane to the airport
controllers or anyone else; yet, the crew was over staffed with competent flight crew. Note
the time between when the first missile detonates and when the fire is seen on the wing of
the plane; there is plenty of time for a competent aircrew to call off the attack, yet there
was only radio silence. Somebody also killed the radios, which means this was planned.
3. The Tor system is not that great. Note that they fired one missile, it detonated, and
there was no obvious visible effect on the plane. It was at that point that a second missile
was fired; again it detonated and again there was no obvious visible effect on the plane.
From the video, it appears that while the missiles may have caused damage, they do not appear
to have been catastrophic.
4. Because of point 3 above, it appears that the planners had a fail safe; that being an
explosive in the right wing (likely in the fuel tank as that is reasonably easy to insert),
and that was detonated several seconds after the second missile did not drop the plane, and
there was no third missile being launched at the airplane (perhaps the missile ground crew
figured out something was wrong because the target was not going evasive, or maybe they had
nothing else launch ready - unknown at this time). This would have had to have been detonated
remotely (any stealthy drones hiding in that night sky??).
5. Wing burn - This sequence of events would explain the videos of the attack; I have not
seen any other explanation for why the wing waited so long to suddenly erupt in flames (the
plane just took off - lots of fuel, yet the flight was not that long, so there were plenty of
fumes as well for hot shrapnel to ignite) after the second missile detonation. This just does
not make sense on a paper thin civilian target. Also, it does not appear (from the flame
morphology) that hot jet exhaust subsequently ignited leaking fuel (which could possibly
explain the delay between the second missile detonation and the appearance of the
fireball).
Finally, why did they do this? I doubt that it was to provoke war; likely it was to keep
the Iranians from hitting any further US targets by embarrassing the them internationally,
and at the same time setting Ukraine, their regional (and after the last election less than
completely compliant) client state against Iran while at the same time getting Canada in line
with US policy and giving its "true bearded dope" of a Prime Minister a black eye.
Another interesting note; the US has in depth penetration of both Canadian and Ukrainian
institutions, which is important as these two countries have the greatest claim to being an
integral part of the investigation, which means that by proxy the US has a ringside seat to
manage the obscuring of any unhelpful facts that may be uncovered. This is the mistake they
made with MH17, in that many of the passengers were Dutch, and thus the Dutch took the
investigative lead. Getting that report properly obscured cost them a lot of gold, and they
were not going to make the same mistake twice.
Any of these issues, taken individually, can be dismissed; however, taken together, the
package is just too sweet - that many things coming together "coincidentally" is beyond any
laws of probability that I have come across.
I suspect every member of the armed forces in Iran has been drilled with the knowledge the
USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet that supposedly had its transponder turned
off.
"It is sad that this incident happened and that 176 lost their life. But if one wants to
find a person guilty for it one must look for the person who caused the whole situation. That
person is not the lowly sergeant who pressed the button. That person is U.S. President Donald
Trump."
They admitted to shooting it down, the reasons are still unclear and the fact that this
plane was shot down while the country itself was expecting an attack from the US or Israel
only lends to speculation that there was more involved with this accident. Of course, your
mind is made up that the evil Iranians killed a bunch of people because they are moral
degenerates as the US and Israhell are forever seated on moral high ground.
"... When framed across the other unknown technologies that are powering the complex avionics on the Boeing 737-800, the US-China trade war and why so many economies are investing big monies in building their own GNSS, there is just a remote possibility that something sinister may be at play. ..."
"... When we examine the final seconds of the Ukrainian PS752 based on known data at this stage of the investigation, it resembles the final seconds of MH370, just before it disappeared from the radar and remains unaccounted for to this day. Could it be just another aviation coincidence? ..."
As more data are being released, there are already some glaring discrepancies that baffle
even aviation experts. When the doomed Ukrainian airliner, Flight PS752, switched from Tehran
Iman Khomeini International Airport to Mehrabad air traffic control at 2,400 meters, at a
position about 20 kilometers from the airport, it lost contact, just minutes before it was shot
down. Flight-path records show that the aircraft was making a turn back in the direction of the
airport.
Concurrently as this was taking place, the Iranians were firing missiles at Iraqi bases that
house US forces in retaliation for the killing of their general.
If the US has the intelligence to pinpoint with such accuracy what was happening to PS752
while its troops were being fired upon, it raises the question as to whether the US has managed
to circumvent the Iranians' GPS used for the rocket attacks on their troops and inadvertently
set the missiles on a wrong course.
While the Iranians may have the capability to jam or spoof territorial intrusions like in
2011, when they managed to override an American RQ-170 stealth drone and landed it on their
territory, it does not have the capability to shield its GPS fully from the US.
Even the Israelis, known for their military strength, do not have the capability to shield
their GPS fully from foreign interference. Last June, the Israel Defense Forces suffered such a
disruption. They attributed it to the Russians using a combination of jamming and spoofing
signal. Known as "smart jamming," this is used to deter drones and incursion risks over very
specific airspace. This disruption was detected by the GRID (GNSS Radio Frequency Interference
Detection) receiver on the International Space Station owned by the Naval Research Lab, Cornell
University, the University of Texas and Aerospace Corp.
Such jamming and spoofing can create hazards for civilian and commercial navigation. It can
also block military-grade equipment, as shown by the Russians in 2018 when they disrupted US
drones operating in Syria to gather intelligence.
Should the Iranians' GPS be compromised by the US, all its rocket launches will be misguided
by false data. Whether the US could deploy such a ruthless tactic against the Iranians begs
greater scrutiny by the international community, as this unfortunate incident has just too many
coincidences.
When framed across the other unknown technologies that are powering the complex avionics on
the Boeing 737-800, the US-China trade war and why so many economies are investing big monies
in building their own GNSS, there is just a remote possibility that something sinister may be
at play.
When we examine the final seconds of the Ukrainian PS752 based on known data at this stage
of the investigation, it resembles the final seconds of MH370, just before it disappeared from
the radar and remains unaccounted for to this day. Could it be just another aviation
coincidence?
... ... ...
Joseph Nathan has been the principal consultant with several consultancy agencies for 28 years in Singapore. For
Malaysia and Indonesia, he undertakes projects via JN Advisory (M) Sdn Bhd, covering real estate and infrastructure, aviation,
project and debt financing, and general business review (non-manufacturing). He holds an MBA from Macquarie Graduate School of
Management, Australia.
Read wagelaborer (3) because what he says is the core to the understanding US Foreign
policy, everything else is unimportant, a side dish, a noise. One possible thing missing is
that in Europe the prime objective for the US is to prevent Russia and Germany coupling up,
keeping the two tribes separate is the goal, at whatever cost.
The pricing of oil (and oil derivatives) in dollars is a replacement for the gold-backed
dollar scrapped by Nixon in early 70s. The pricing is a must, losing it would undermine the
dollar as a reserve currency. Each year, those who need to buy oil plus oil derivates have to
find trillions for the buy the black gold.
Consider: Each day some 100ml barrels are produced, that's 36bn barrels a year, at a cost
of $75 per barrel it's some $2.7tr needed to buy the stuff. And that's just the crude. Add
the derivatives (per barrel more expensive than crude), and one's talking some $5-7tr to be
found. That's what allows the US to print either IOU's i.e. the Treasuries or actual cash
without any worry whatever the IOU's will ever be brought back to the mainland US in haunting
inflation.
The time the pricing of oil in dollars goes, the US hegemony gets a fatal knock, from
which it would be near impossible to recover bar staring a war.
It's clear that Trump does not understand - or has not understood until recently - the true
goals of US foreign policy (maintaining the dollar hegemony first, promoting US business
interests second). His notion of winning a war is apparently being able to send the troops
home. This is at odds with the "deep state", which has no problem spending money that it sees
as coming from others, as long as that money keeps coming in and it's being spent in the
furtherance of geopolitical goals. Hence the continued US military presence in Afghanistan
must be furthering, if not fulfilling, one or more geopolitical goals. Those goals most
likely do not include "defeating terrorism". Trump may well not be aware of what the goals
are.
It may be useful to draw a comparison between the US military presence in Afghanistan and
its presence in Vietnam. Like Afghanistan, Vietnam seems to have been a near-pointless
expenditure of resources and people - on the surface. From the "deep state's" point of view,
however, Vietnam served as a bulwark against encroachment by the non-dollar-aligned part of
the world. Vietnam was only abandoned once a much bigger prize became available - China.
Given Afghanistan's location, it stands to reason that it too is serving as a bulwark and
that its importance in the "deep state's" eyes will diminish (if not disappear) once Iran
and/or Russia experiences a "change of heart".
North Korea's cavalier rejection of its NPT membership in 2003 is
a prime example , but many saw it as a case not applicable to most member states. However,
more recently,
Saudi Arabia , and
Turkey and
Iran (which, after the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, is looking for new ways to
upset Washington), have gone so far as ti layout terms under which they would leave the treaty
and even obtain nuclear weapons, statements without precedent in the treaty's history.
A number of otherwise respectable member countries, such as South Korea , also have
political parties in their legislatures that advocate treaty withdrawal and acquisition of
nuclear weapons.
We have to take seriously the possibility that -- without international action to arrest
this tendency -- the already frayed bonds that tie countries to the NPT and the pledge not to
acquire nuclear weapons may not hold. This would presage a world with many more nuclear states
and a vastly increased risk of nuclear use.
Victor Gilinsky is program advisor for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
(NPEC) in Arlington, Virginia. He served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Presidents
Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Henry Sokolski is executive director of NPEC and the author of
Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear
Future (second edition 2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the office
of the U.S. secretary of defense in the Cheney Pentagon.
Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will
spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it
doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the
European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working
class counter-offensive.
No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump,
avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind
Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.
To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to
a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before
Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25
percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."
Why, after so many assurances to the contrary, have the three European Iran's Nuclear Deal
Partner's – Germany, France, the UK – decided to go after Iran, to follow the US
dictate again?
The short answer is because the cowards. They have zero backbone to stand up against the US
hegemony, because they are afraid to be sanctioned – as Trump indicated if they were to
honor the" Nuclear Deal". Iran is absolutely in their right to progressively increase uranium
enrichment, especially since the US dropped out unilaterally, without any specific reasons,
other than on Netanyahu's orders – of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
also called Iran's Nuclear Deal.
Just a few days ago Ms. Angela Merkel met with President Putin in Moscow, and BOTH pledged
in front of a huge press crowd that the Nuclear Deal must stay, must be maintained and
validated.
And now, because of Trump's Barbarian threats, trade threats on Europe – an increase
of up to 25% import taxes on European cars – and wanting a new deal with Iran, whatever
that means, they, the Europeans – the three Nuclear Deal partners, back down. Why not
call Trump's bluff? As China did. This Barbarian Kingpin is lashing around his deathbed with
tariffs and sanctions, it is only a sign of weakness, a sign of slowly but surely disappearing
in the – hopefully – bottomless abyss.
This threesome is a bunch of shameless and hopeless cowards. They have not realized yet that
the west, starting with the US empire, is passé. It's a sinking ship. It's high time for
Iran to orient herself towards the east. Iran is already a Middle-Eastern key hub for the
Chinese Belt and Road initiative (BRI), or the New Silk road. Iran can do without Europe; and
the US needs Europe more than vice-versa. But the 'chickens' haven't noticed that yet.
On the behest of Washington, the Trump clown, they, Germany, France and the UK, want to
start an official dispute process, bringing Iran back to where it was before the Nuclear Deal,
and reinstating all the UN sanctions of before the signature of the deal in July 2015. And this
despite the fact that Iran has adhered to their part of the deal by 100%, as several times
attested to by the Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna. Can you imagine what these abhorrent
Europeans are about to do?
This reminds of how Europe pilfered, robbed and raped Africa and the rest of the now called
developing world, for hundreds of years. No ethics, no qualms, just sheer egocentricity and
cowardice. The European Barbarians and those on the other side of the Atlantic deserve each
other. And they deserve disappearing in the same bottomless pit.
Iran may consider three ideas:
1) Call the European bluff. Let them start the dispute process – and let them drive it
all the way to the UN Security Council. Their spineless British Brother in Crime, BoJo, also
called the British Prime-Minister, Boris Johnson, will do the job for them, bringing the case
"Iran Nuclear Deal – and Sanctions" to the UN Security Council – where it will
fail, because Russia and China will not approve the motion.
2) Much more important, Dear Friends in Iran – do not trust the Europeans for even
one iota ! – They have proven time and again that they are not trustworthy. They
buckle under every time Trump is breaking wind – and
3) Dedollarize your economy even faster – move as far as possible away from the west
– join the Eastern economy, that controls at least one third of the world's GDP. You are
doing already a lot in this direction – but faster. Join the SCO – the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, comprising half of Mother Earth's population; ditch the dollar and
the SWIFT payment system, join instead the Chinese Interbank Payment System (CIPS) – and
be free of the sanction-prone western monetary system. Eastern monetary transactions are
blocking out western dollar-based sanctions. Already your hydrocarbon trades with China,
Russia, India and others are not carried out in US dollars, but in local currencies, Chinese
yuans, Russian rubles and Indian rupees.
True – Iran will have to confront Iran-internally the western (NATO) and CIA trained,
funded and bought Atlantists, the Fifth Columnists. They are the ones that create constant
virulently violent unrest in the cities of Iran; they are trained – and paid for –
to bring about Regime Change. That's what Russia and China and Venezuela and Cuba are also
confronted with. They, the Fifth Columnists have to be eradicated. It's a challenge, but it
should be doable.
Follow the Ayatollah's route. He is on the right track – looking East.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. After working for over 30 years
with the World Bank he penned Implosion
, an economic thriller, based on his first-hand experience. Exclusively for the online magazine
" New Eastern Outlook. "
Yes! The inability to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite its being published because that policy goal--to
attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world--is actually 100%
against genuine American Values as expressed by the Four Freedoms (1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear) and the articulated goals/vision of the UN Charter--World Peace arrived at via collective security and diplomacy,
not war--which are still taught in schools along with Wilson's 14 Points. Then of course, there's the war against British Tyranny
known as the Spirit of '76 and the Revolutionary War for Independence and the documents that bookend that era. In 1948, Kennan
stated, in an internal discussion that was never censored, the USA consumed 60% of global resources with only 5% of the population
and needed to somehow come up with a policy to both continue and justify that great disparity to both the domestic and international
audience. Yet, those truths were never provided in an overt manner to the American public or the international audience. The upshot
being the US federal government since it dropped the bombs on Japan has been lying or misleading its people such that it's now
habitual. And Trump's diatribe against the generals reflects the reality that he too was taken in by those lies.
In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more
disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev , had warned:
"We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an
enemy."
...Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that
confronting the lucky person who wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential
for monumental disaster.
I don't think it will be long before we see Congress in the US calling for invasion of Russia
on the grounds of a lack of diversity, lack of respect for LGBTP and so forth.
Yankistan most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US government
controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it off the gold
standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global economy.
"While the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani was an act of international barbarity,
emblematic of the thuggish nature of US foreign policy, it was neither the only de facto act
of war the United States has undertaken against Iran, nor the most harmful. Indeed, against
the total embargo Washington has imposed on Iran with the intention of starving Iranians into
submission or inducing them to overthrow their government, the killing of Soleimani is a act
of little consequence, even if its significance in provoking widespread outrage and
galvanizing opposition to US aggression is undoubted."
Significantly, events appear to have escalated from the 25 December killing of five
PMF guys on the Syria-Iraq border by an unattributed drone or missile strike. Our media
is doing its best to obscure this event as the probable starting point. Two days later on
27 December, the rocket fire near Kirkuk killed the US contractor. Then came the strike
on KH troops back out in the West and now the assassination of Soleimani et al.
[ ]
So the trigger was the 25 December attack, and all the timing flows from that, not
from any great real estate developer savvy. Frankly, in my view, you give Trump way to
much credit for systematic thought. I don't think he really does that at all.
This is also the view of the Middle-East veterans over at Patrick Lang's blog:
Last weekend, in response to a rocket attack on a base outside Kirkuk that left one US
contractor dead and four US servicemen wounded, we launched drone strikes on five Iraqi
PMU outposts in Iraq and Syria near Abukamal killing 25 members and wounding scores more
of the Kata'ib Hezbollah brigades of the PMU.
We blamed Iran and the Kata'ib Hezbollah for the rocket attack near Kirkuk. That may
be true, but the Kata'ib Hezbollah is not some rogue militia controlled out of Teheran.
It is an integral part of the PMU, its 46th and 47th brigades and has been for years. The
PMU is an integral part of the Iraqi military and has been for years. The PMU played a
major role in defeating IS in both Iraq and Syria. Our attack on the Kata'ib Hezbollah
outposts was an attack on the Iraqi military and government. We informed PM
Abdul-Mahdi of our intended attacks. Abdul-Mahadi warned us not to do it, but, of course,
we conducted the attacks despite his warning. We were proud of the attacks. The Pentagon
even released footage of the attacks. It was supposed to be a clear message to
Teheran.
Unfortunately for us, the message was also heard by Iraqis. After the funerals of
many of the victims of our attacks on the PMU outposts, a large crowd of protestors
headed for the US Embassy in the Green Zone. For weeks prior to this, Iraqi security
forces kept protestors from entering the Green Zone and approaching the US Embassy. Not
this time. The crowds, including mourners fresh from the funerals of their family
members and many PMU soldiers, unarmed but in uniform, poured into the Green Zone right
to the gates of the Embassy itself. A reception area was entered and burned. Iraqi
security forces of the PrimeMinister's Counter Terrorism Command were among the
protestors. I surmise that PM Abdul-Mahdi was sending his own message back to the US.
The protests at the American embassy, then, were over Iraqi servicemen murdered in
American drone strikes
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword.
He met a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that
he was a BAD MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile.
Were all those who fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a
BAD MAN? How about Sitting Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN?
Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a
member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we
killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly
sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb"
elections. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign
entity in international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things
that we have "paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands
them as hirelings of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
(Written on the evening of. So subject to reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we
learn more.)
I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts
outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither does anyone
else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As we've just seen.)
What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council (
Rus
)
(
Eng
) and
started off with how important it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he wants more
Russians on the planet, the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite a few more but
there are still more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after all,
not
everything works out as we hoped
does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is especially the
MENA and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is except against
lunatics
addicted to the Book of Revelation
.)
Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks. Important
officials should really be Russians and not people with a get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in
their vests. Reasonable enough: they should "inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian
people without any assumptions and allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea?
We vote for X but who does he vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by
the "
Rules-Based International Order" ("
we
make the rules
,
you
follow our orders
").
The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty big
change, actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries the head of
state is The Boss USA, Russia (now), France in others the head of government is The Boss Germany,
Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question here that has to be worked out in
detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a referendum. The President either should or should
not be bound by the no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure out what "этим" refers to in
"Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим. Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный,
но согласен с этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)
So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But I'm
confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20 years that they
don't make things up on the fly.
Then we learned that the entire government had resigned but individuals to stay in
place until replaced. Then we learned a fast few hours indeed! that Dmitri Medvedev was replaced by
somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever heard of: Mikhail Vladimirovich
Mishustin. (
Russian
Wiki entry
none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal (something predicted and
hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this: not tossed out into ignominy and
shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that there is a clear distinction between
government and presidential concerns; defence and security are clearly in the latter.
But
Medvedev has always been closely following defence and security issues and it is suitable and appropriate
that he continue to do so. So a new position, deputy heard of the security council, will be created for
him.
So what are we to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a sinecure? Or he's been
given a crucial job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?
After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any younger.
Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been
getting less and less predictable.
Lavrov
and Kerry spend hours locked up negotiating a deal in Syria
;
within
a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake"
. Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington has moved
to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies Baghdad's order to get out.
A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting smaller, are they? Washington is
certainly
недоговороспособны
it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so, it will break it.
A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
is any
foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list?
Surviving its decay is a big
job indeed.
The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the Imperium
Americanum.
So, maybe Moscow
needs more people on the job.
So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing the
Transition? (To say nothing of the what's the word?
Thucydides
trap
?
).
Mishustin looks after the nuts and
bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev looks after defence and security something
not likely to get smaller -- while Putin looks after the big picture?
But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.
NOTE 16 January. The Presidential website now has the
actual
words
on the issue of defence and security:
There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues, and there
is a Government block of issues, even though the President, of course, is responsible for everything, but
the presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence and the like.
Mr Medvedev has always been in charge of these matters. From the point of
view of increasing our defence capability and security, I consider it possible and have asked him to deal
with these matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near future, introduce the
position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council. As you are aware, the President is its Chairman.
patrickarmstrong.ca
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
Russia
Vladimir Putin
Print this article
January 18, 2020 |
Editor's Сhoice
Patrick Armstrong on the Russian Reshuffle
Patrick ARMSTRONG
(Written on the evening of. So subject to
reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we learn more.)
I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts
outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither does
anyone else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As we've just
seen.)
What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council (
Rus
)
(
Eng
)
and started off with how important it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he
wants more Russians on the planet, the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite
a few more but there are still more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after
all,
not
everything works out as we hoped
does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is especially
the MENA and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is except against
lunatics
addicted to the Book of Revelation
.)
Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks.
Important officials should really be Russians and not people with a
get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in their vests. Reasonable enough: they should
"inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and
allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea? We vote for X but who does he
vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by the "
Rules-Based
International Order" ("
we
make the rules
,
you
follow our orders
").
The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty
big change, actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries
the head of state is The Boss USA, Russia (now), France in others the head of government is The
Boss Germany, Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question here that has to be
worked out in detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a referendum. The President
either should or should not be bound by the no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure
out what "этим" refers to in "Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим. Не
считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)
So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But
I'm confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20 years
that they don't make things up on the fly.
Then we learned that the entire government had resigned but individuals to stay
in place until replaced. Then we learned a fast few hours indeed! that Dmitri Medvedev was
replaced by somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever heard of: Mikhail
Vladimirovich Mishustin. (
Russian
Wiki entry
none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal (something predicted
and hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this: not tossed out into
ignominy and shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that there is a clear
distinction between government and presidential concerns; defence and security are clearly in the
latter.
But
Medvedev has always been closely following defence and security issues and it is suitable and
appropriate that he continue to do so. So a new position, deputy heard of the security council,
will be created for him.
So what are we to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a
sinecure? Or he's been given a crucial job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?
After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any
younger. Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of
Moscow, has been getting less and less predictable.
Lavrov
and Kerry spend hours locked up negotiating a deal in Syria
;
within
a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake"
. Who's in
charge? Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission,
Washington has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting smaller,
are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so, it will
break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
is
any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list?
Surviving its decay
is a big job indeed.
The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
So, maybe Moscow
needs more people on the job.
So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing
the Transition? (To say nothing of the what's the word?
Thucydides
trap
?
).
Mishustin looks after the nuts
and bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev looks after defence and security
something not likely to get smaller -- while Putin looks after the big picture?
But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.
NOTE 16 January. The Presidential website now has the
actual
words
on the issue of defence and security:
There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues,
and there is a Government block of issues, even though the President, of course, is responsible
for everything, but the presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence
and the like.
Mr Medvedev has always been in charge of these matters. From the
point of view of increasing our defence capability and security, I consider it possible and have
asked him to deal with these matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near
future, introduce the position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council. As you are aware, the
President is its Chairman.
To the top
2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture
online journal
www.strategic-culture.org
.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
<div><img src="https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/10970266" alt=""/></div>
Major announcements in this State of the Nation speech on Jan 15, 2020.
Here is a very brief summary to get the conversation started.
Immediate politics :
who reduced uncollected VAT from 20% to 1%.
Source tells me FM Sergey Lavrov rumored to be permanently retiring.
Constitutional changes :
Demographics :
continued fall in Russia's
fertility rates to 1.5 children per woman this year (up from post-Soviet peak of close to 1.8
in mid-2000s), setting 1.7 children per woman as the new target for 2024. Reaffirmed
demographics as the first national priority. Maternity capital to be increased by further
150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children,
to be annually indexed.
***
Some very tentative thoughts :
(1) I have long thought now that Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder
statesman" role, along the model of Lee Kuan Yew/PAP in Singapore [see 1 , 2 , 3 ]. This appears to be
the final confirmation that this is happening.
(2) Questions about the succession revolved around (a) The Belarus variant, in which it
effectively constitutes a new state with Russia, allowing Putin to become the supreme head of
that state; (b) A constitutional reshuffle such as the one we're seeing here. This question has
also been answered.
" Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role" –
Not always does it work: King Lear, Benedict 16.
"Lear gave up a God-given duty and right to rule his people. His tragic flaw 'hamartia' is
presumptuousness. He presumes that he can divest himself of what God invested him with (the
Elizabethan idea of the divine rights of the ruler), he grows in tragic stature as the play
progresses." – found on google.
Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role
Looks more like he plans to become a powerful Prime Minister after 2024, rather than elder
statesman. Might be good in the medium term: politicians of his caliber are rare. Still, in
the longer term Russia needs a real successor: rule by committee never works, even in smaller
and simpler countries.
@AnonFromTN
I think (and it's already been said for years) that's he too tired for the role of PM, which
is more intensive than the Presidency and involved dealing with boring domestic crap whereas
the Presidency, at least, offers more in the way of Grand Strategy, diplomacy, etc.
I think the likeliest game plan is for him to chair a much more empowered State Council
after 2024. (This is what Nazarbayev did with the Security Council after retiring last
year).
Presidential candidates should have been resident in Russia for 25 years (previously 10
years) and never had a foreign citizenship. (This rules out a large proportion of
Atlanticists and crypto-Atlanticists).
Does this imply, that they'll allow an actual election in 2024? I'm getting excited
Speaking of constitutional changes, they should just get rid of the entire Yeltsin's text,
and write a new one. Yeltsin's constitution is a mishmash of French and American
constitutions, completely detached from the country's realities and tradition.
So union with Belarus is still on the table right? But if that happens it would be
Belarus joining a continuous RF, under the newly modified constitution?
My take on this is that Lukashenka told Putin to piss off, and he did. So no union.
Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority.
How about not importing all of Central Asia, so that wages aren't depressed. Higher wages
might boost that low TFR.
Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617
rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.
Will that will help subsidize the Chechens, Avars, Laks etc. the most relative to their
population size because Russia is a "Multinational" state with equality for all of its
"constituent" nations?
Speaking of which will Uzbek and Tajik guests be able to get in on that too? A future
Russian Duma might need to grant more rights to them because Russia will need more workers to
support its aging population. They speak Russian after all, and there is a shared history.
So, they will integrate well into society. I feel like that is what a future Russian PM will
be arguing a few years down the line.
@Boswald
Bollocksworth s everything that is going to befall it.
Second, Lukashenko himself is a problem. He might be qualified to run a small agrobusiness,
but certainly nothing greater than that. Yet his outsized ego (common among morons, think
Bush Jr) won't let him fade away peacefully.
Third, Belarus is subsidized by Russia, and many Russian citizens believe that the money
would be much better spent inside Russia or helping countries that deserve this aid, like
Syria.
Maybe Putin thinks differently, but he does a lot to remain popular. So, after pension reform
hit to his support I don't think he is going to do something most people disapprove of.
@JPM
Fortunately, there's very little Central Asian breeding going on it Russia – the
pattern is for them to make their money (5-10x what they can make at home) and raise families
at home.
Chechens, Avars, etc. will benefit disproportionately, but the program is after all
primarily intended as an incentive. Personally, I think a childlessness tax will be much more
effective, since people react better to penalties than rewards – plus it will rake in a
net profit – but I don't suppose its politically feasible in the modern age.
Seems like a good balance between a liberal direction – limiting any one president to
two absolute terms while substantially increasing the say of the parliament – and some
common sense requirements (like on citizenship).
Putting it to a referendum is also welcome. The will of the people should not only be
heard but increased.
Putin bemoaned continued fall in Russia's fertility rates to 1.5 children per woman this
year (up from post-Soviet peak of close to 1.8 in mid-2000s), setting 1.7 children per
woman as the new target for 2024.
Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority.
Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles
(≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.
I doubt this will work.
The biggest problem for fertility all over the world is housing. As long as the housing
sector is neoliberalised, it will be a major impediment. Affordable housing is per definition
low-margin and hence not interesting to private developers. For them, a perpetual housing
shortage pushes up the profit margin. All firms are constantly seeking to maximise profits,
so their behaviour is rational from a purely market fundamentalist point of view. That's why
market fundamentalism need to be overthrown. There has to be a massive building spree to
lower the cost of housing to no more than 4-5 years of annual (net) wages for a median worker
to buy without debt. That would be the real game changer. Import the churkas and get it
done.
The second problem is ideology and religiosity. If you look at Israel, a major component
of their high fertility is the massively increasing Haredi sector. Even outside the Haredis,
they have a high share of genuinely religious jews. For the seculars, TFR is still a
respectable 2.5, which is likely explained by nationalism. Whatever Russian nationalism is,
it isn't very fecund. Russians aren't very religious either, though Putin seems to be. Church
attendence in Russia is quite low. At this stage, I don't believe high fertility can be
solved without going into artificial wombs and more exotic solutions. A cultural revolution
doesn't seem to be on the cards.
(2) Questions about the succession revolved around (a) The Belarus variant, in which it
effectively constitutes a new state with Russia, allowing Putin to become the supreme head
of that state; (b) A constitutional reshuffle such as the one we're seeing here. This
question has also been answered.
I still think Belarus will be swallowed by Russia within this decade.
The State Council includes the following members: the Speaker of the Federation Council of
the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal
Assembly of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoys to the federal
districts, senior officials (heads of the highest executive agencies of state power) in
Russia's federal constituent entities, and the heads of the political parties in the State
Duma.
Mishustin is a genius at reforming bureaucracies with IT systems. He is also an economist who
thinks Russia should be less autarkic. He is in the Kudrin camp. For example, he is still
scheduled to speak at the Gaidar forum. Shoigu seems to have fallen back. M is associated
witht he Union of Right Forces.
There has been a huge Twitter storm of people/trolls posting this a Putin's effort to stay
in power.
@nickels
Exactly . Kudrin and his friends want parliament to have more power so that the russian
people have less of it. They know they have 0 legitimacy , that the people hate them and that
they would never survive at the top of the political elite if a real and intelligent
nationalist comes to power in Russia one day ( Putin is a half-disapointment whose main merit
is to have benefited from the work of Primakov ). They want the presidency to be paralysed .
I hope they wont succeed and that there will always be a strong statesman on their way in
Russia.
@nickels
control away from oligarchs, but that is more due to his own force of personality rather than
the system itself.
In brief, whether a country will be beholden to oligarchs is less due to the governance
structure and more about the general culture. Some countries have a very corrupt
citizenry/culture and that will produce bad outcomes in most situations in the long run
regardless of the political system. This can only be suspended temporarily by a very strong
leader – but you only get them infrequently.
The only hope to reduce power of oligarchs when Putin leaves power is to attack corruption
in society, at both high levels and ground levels.
@Thulean
Friend 'The only institution ever devised by men for mastering the money powers in the
state is the Monarchy.'
Napolean.
Belloc, for one, writes over and over on this theme.
Most European histories are Whig histories, and, hence, worthless on this topic. Which is
not to discount your valid point about princes becoming indebted to jews. Aristocracy had
this problem to a greater extent.
@nickels
advantage. Contrary to Thulean, I believe that universal rule of law actually weakens the
state and its ability to control merchantile factions. Of course, casual acceptance of "rule
of power" is a form of corruption and if it isn't limited to the strongman himself, results
in wasteful factionalism.
However, this essential snubbing of the merchantile factions has the very obvious result
of them working against the state, for "rule of law"(which benefits them), and of course, not
helping their rivals in the warrior factions. In the long run, lack of access to liquidity
can severely cripple governments that don't play well with potential creditors.
I believe that universal rule of law actually weakens the state and its ability to
control merchantile factions.
Yes, I think this is the key factor. Government by committee is no government, which means
the parasites will rise to take over.
Additionally, the western stupidity of tying everything to high flown abstractions, i.e.
universal law and principles, is both idiotic and impossible. History demands the
intervention of the intellect, i.e. the mind of the monarch or the autocrat.
@nickels
e was not particularly involved in planning the conquest and the company self-financed much
of the early stages of the conquest itself, ironically enough often from wealthy Indians who
were given attractive financing options. The company innovated many things we take for
granted today, such as the joint stock company. Of course, the British state did step in
eventually but by that time much of the groundwork had already been set. Adjusted for
inflation, the EIC was many times larger than either Google or Apple is today at its peak,
closer to 4+ trillion USD.
Too much of history blindly focuses on kings and rulers while ignoring many non-state
actors.
@Thulean
Friend Sounds interesting, thx.
'Why War' by Frederic Clemson Howe had a similar theme about how the 'flag followed the
dollar' in the lead up to WWI.
@Thulean
Friend money from private trading as company employees were allowed to do. The less rich
one commanded three regiments of cavalry at the 3rd siege of Seringapatam. He was elected
Prize Officer and thus had an extra share.
They returned and with other East India men built a canal to a coal mine they opened on
the hill above an iron works eventually connecting Clydach Gorge to the sea thus launching
the industrial revolution in South Wales. So there are very direct links between profits from
trade and the industrial revolution. They fed off each other. South Wales at one time
produced most of the world's copper. This was in great demand in India for making brass.
The unreformable Soviet Union of the
1980s which turned into a "cake" of sorts for the Soviet " Nomenklatura " which, when it realized
that it would lose control of the country, decided to break up the Soviet Union into 15
different countries (including quite a few totally fictional ones) and re-branded itself from
"defenders of the Party and the USSR" into "fervent nationalists". That was just about as fake
a rebranding as ever but there was nothing the majority of the people ( who wanted to maintained the
Soviet Union ) could do about it.
Then came the horrors of the 1990s during which
Russia (and the rest of the newly minted republics) were drowned into an orgy of lawlessness,
violence, corruption and total, absolute, subservience to the AngloZionist Empire.
Finally,
during the 2000s we saw a period of shared power between the Atlantic Integrationists lead by
Medvedev and the Eurasian Sovereignist lead by Putin. This was an uneasy partnership in which
the Atlantic Integrationists were in control of the "economic block" while the Eurasian
Sovereignists were tasked with Russia's foreign affairs and defense.
"The evening network news shows described the change as a naked grab for power so typical
of Putin."
Well, they would, because if he were a western leader that's what it would be; since they
don't really understand anything about Russia and view it as an enemy which nonetheless
governs itself more or less by western rules, they are consistently wrong. Never seems to
teach them anything, though, and they're always leaning into their next opportunity to be
wrong again.
I mostly found Dimka to be that rarity in Russian politics – a western-leaner with
obvious admiration for western ways and the western lifestyle, but who genuinely loved Russia
and wanted to do the best by it. He couldn't really hold the highest office because he was
still too easily seduced by the west, which had only to frame something as a tremendous gift
to Russia to have him eagerly grab at it, but I don't think any of his decisions were ever
meant to hurt the country. Some suggest Putin kept him on to make him serve out a sentence in
which western bait would be constantly dangled in front of him, but he didn't have enough
power to snatch it, but I don't think so and his service was mostly commendable as long as he
was not allowed to make any decisions involving the west himself. I don't know anything about
the new guy beyond what others have posted here, but you can be sure he is already the focus
of intense western interest.
The bottom line is that whatever they were hoping, Putin is not going to disappear from
politics and the very next day, Washington finally gets its man in charge. The succession
will be carefully managed to ensure there are no regime-change loopholes.
Yes, that's all true, which is why western regime-changers would be more likely to put their
money on a politically-savvy oligarch like Prokhorov, who I am only using as an example. Such
a person follows national politics closely and would be much more likely to know the insider
information the western influencers would like to know, but do not.
Mind you, that kind of meddling was always a risk, including under the previous system.
And it didn't work very well then. Then, though, Khodorkovsky did not seem to have Putin
fooled for one second. It remains to be seen if that perspicacity will survive him.
A two-term limit for Presidential candidates
Barring dual citizens, or those born outside Russia, from running for President
Increasing the powers of the Duma (Russian legislative body)
Having the Prime Minister selected by the Duma, rather than the President
Enshrining the
Russian Security Council
in the constitution
That the Russian constitution takes precedence over International Law, especially where it might infringe the legal rights of
Russian citizens
These changes are to be put to the Russian people in a referendum by the end of the year "if it all is solved quickly", according
to Russia's Central Election Commission.
Immediately following these announcements, the entire Russian government resigned including Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev
though he will be offered a new job,
reports RT
:
So, what happens next?
Why have Medvedev and his government resigned en masse?
Will the proposed reforms pass a referendum?
What is the overall aim behind these changes?
Does Putin plan to stay on past 2024, or is he strengthening the role of PM with an eye to taking that job, as some western
commentators seem to think?
Who will be the next President of Russia?
Rhys Jaggar
Given the Russia-bashing by US warmongers the past 20 years, it's been a jolly good thing for Russians that they had a very
strong President for 20 years. Otherwise, they would have been back in the 1990s with declining birth rates, mass poverty
and bloodsucking foreign oligarchs nicking everything Russian in sight.
As for the future, you can read this one of two
ways:
The first option is that Putin now genuinely believes that Russia as a state is ready for democracy, and thus he is
seeking to weaken the Presidency and strengthen the Duma as a key plank in that.
The second option is that he thinks that he needs to stay on for quite a bit longer as long as lunatics are running the
DC asylum, so he is making plans to be Prime Minister post 2024.
It could of course be that he thinks both will be true, just that democracy may only be strong enough to repel Western
rapaciousness after he has been in power for another decade or so.
What can honestly be said about Putin is that he has acted in the interests of Russia, not Zionazi oligarchs.
And as he answers to the Russian people not to Western imperialists, that is precisely what he should have been doing.
OH but Boris Johnson, his predecessors and his successors could do the same for Britain .
13
-2
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 6:29 PM
Gall
I totally agree with your assessment Rhys. I've been reading RI, RT, Fort-Russ etc and contrary to the Western "Media's"
sensationalism this transition of power seems to be fully supported by the Russian people.
What's hysterical is that
once again CIA was left out of the loop but that's no surprise. Putin once again used the idiotic Russiaphobic morons to
his advantage.
Too bad he was born in Russia and not the US because he'd make a great President.
"Putin for President" 🙂
4
-1
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 9:26 PM
Vierotchka
Had Putin been born in the US, he would have made a great Presiden only for ten years, though, not enough time to do
for the US what he has done for Russia.
0
0
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 9:36 PM
Gall
Actually 8 or 2 terms due to 22 Amendment ratified after Roosevelt won 4 terms. That said I think the Russian
voters are more intelligent than the voters in the US who exist on a diet of MSM pap served up regularly rather
than any thing substantive and live under the delusion that they have a "free press". You know 'cause the
Constitution says so which aside from the Declaration of Independence has to be the most disingenuous document
ever written in history. It took me decades to come to this conclusion.
Whereas the Russian's are pretty savvy
having lived under Communism and know what a controlled media looks like up close and personally.
Unfortunately Tocqueville was right about the place and still is today.
2
-1
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 11:36 PM
Vierotchka
Correction 8 and not 19 years.
0
0
Reply
Jan 17, 2020 1:32 AM
Vierotchka
Drat, that darned age-related macular degeneration
8 and not 10 years.
0
0
Reply
Jan 17, 2020 1:33 AM
wardropper
Agreed, Rhys and Gall.
The pathetic thing about today's U.S. is that there are plenty of shrewd, perceptive, imaginative and morally decent
Americans who would also make great Presidents, and they shouldn't have to look to Russia to find role models either.
But the simpleton-owned media routinely stop such people in their tracks.
0
0
Reply
Jan 17, 2020 2:27 AM
Berlin beerman
To me, it seems Mr. Putin is shifting strength internally to limit the power of the PM as evident with the appointing of
Mr. Mishustin.
If I were running the show I would want to transfer more power to the General Security Council , place my confidant and
trusted number two beside me ( Mr. Medvedev as evident by creating the new post and appointing him to it ) and then steer
the ship from that helm.
Mr. Putin is already the director of the RGSC and with the new changes proposed he will keep that position at the end
of his term.
Most Western reporters like the CBC's man in Russia will report blundering reports.
I predict the referendum will have the complete opposite outcome to the one Mr. Cameron tried.
This is a win win for the Russian people and the country unless Mr. Putin turns senseless and senile.
5
-1
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 4:58 PM
Dungroanin
It all sounds pretty sensible.
Meanwhile over here WE are getting started on removing the Supreme Courts legal authority over 'political' issues.
So as many illegal prorogations as JRM & the Queen wants!
I think when the prewar german elections resulted in letting in a bunch of beerhall bullies their Parliament didn't
last.
Our Weatherspoon parkbench bullies seem to be going the same way and as the ancient parliament crumbles it becomes
likely that it may never be restored!
It seems our establishment has decided it wants Nandy as the safe Blairite leader of the Opposition and are setting
the ground incase another wronguns get in.
1
-1
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 12:35 PM
Dungroanin
Ooh er upset someone eh? Get back to your park bench.
1. Dual Nationality there is no record of how many dual (or more) nationals are in government in the US or the UK.
It is evident that having more than one master leads to treachery.
2. Russia, like China,are evolving governing systems don't forget they didn't exist 100 years ago they appear to be
dovetailing towards a system less subject to the vagaries of 'western democracies' corporatists; aristocratic; pork-barrelled;
lobbied; media manufactured; owned by bankers.
Given that the systems of both countries have delivered massive growth, elimination of poverty and greater benefits
for its populations allowing free-markets, entrepreneurs and billionaires to emerge, whilst preserving their resources
from the usual global robber barons it is not surprising that they look to preserve this legacy beyond personal human
age limits by institutionalising such oversight. Compare India with it's legacy system and mass poverty still.
Putin & co are looking at strengthening their nwo that will encompass two thirds of the worlds land mass and the
majority of the planets Humans many still unnecessarily in poverty and being robbed blind as they havd been for
centuries by the cover of western 'democracies'.
4
0
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 3:59 PM
Seamus Padraig
I'm sure Putin'll be PM again after his presidential term expires. He was already PM once, from 2008-2012. Personally, I find
that reassuring. Putin is the greatest statesman aliveprobably the greatest since Bismarck.
Francis Lee
Much talk of a 'demographic' crisis needs further analysis. Russia's population fell during the Yeltsin years but has stabilised
at the present time. Fertility rate is 1.76 but needs to be at least 2.1 for population growth. But this is true of the whole of
Europe, East and West and even
a fortiori
, Japan. The real demographic crisis, however, is taking place in the
ex-Soviet republics and Eastern Europe ex-satellites, the figures from the Baltics and Ukraine are frankly disastrous and only
marginally better in Romania and Bulgaria. Low birth rates, emigration, increased death rates, drugs and health problems are a
real and present threat to the future of these states.
The substantive problem facing Russia is the ongoing struggle between the Atlantic integrationists and the Eurasian
sovereignists represented respectively on the one hand by the oligarch in chief and ultra-liberal Alexei Kudrin, and, in the Red
corner, Russia's answer to Michael Hudson, Sergei Glazyev. Putin himself balances precariously between these two factions. But
this cannot go on. To quote W.B.Yeats 'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.'
The type of long-term nation-building strategy state capitalism from above has been the proven route out of
semi-peripheral status and which is imperative for Russia is, however, being thwarted by the existence of a cosmopolitan oligarch
class whose interests run counter to any such strategy and, moreover, who are perfectly content take profits from extractive
exports and then invest them back into the centre of the capitalist system, usually in the shape of paper assets like US Treasury
Bills and/or property. Cronyism, corruption, incompetence are endemic characteristics of this powerful group and they are
unfortunately firmly ensconced in positions of influence and power in Russia.
It would be reasonable to surmise that a political, parasitic system of Yeltsin-lite is now extant in Russia and that a
domestic head of steam is, judging by its internal critics, building up in opposition. For every action there is a reaction.
(Boris Kargalitsky)
7
-1
Reply
richard le sarc
Obviously I hope that the Baltics and Ukraine quickly enjoy a decent form of governance, but at present I fear that they are
getting their just desserts for returning the spawn of WW2 fascists from emigre' communities in the West to power, and embracing
neo-liberal capitalism and licking the boots of the Empire.
Jen
The case of Maria Butina, imprisoned for 18 months for supposedly being a foreign unregistered agent of Russia, and apparently
subjected to full body searches during the five months she was in jail every time after she met with lawyers and Russian
consular officials, comes to mind.
This and other cases where Russian citizens were detained and imprisoned without correct due process in the US and other
nations, and denied consular access the case of Sergei and Julia Skripal comes to mind may have been the instigation for
this proposal.
30
-2
Reply
Jan 16, 2020 1:58 AM
richard le sarc
Sexual humiliation through forced nakedness and 'body searches' is a favourite tactic of the Israelis, to humiliate and
terrorise the Palestinians. There it is used against civilians, even children, and, with added viciousness, like the
smearing of 'menstrual blood' was gifted to the US as torture tactics in Abu Ghraib ec. And, can you believe it, it has
traveled to Australia, where strip searches of young people going to music festivals, have become a frequent and preferred
tactic of State police forces.
Roberto
Perhaps, or maybe undoubtedly, Mr Putin is familiar with the example of Sulla, who exercised power as dictator for 6 months as
allowed under Roman Law, then relinquished the dictatorship, then served as Consul. The time frame differs, and Putin is a strong
leader but no dictator; he did have an awful mess to clean up and restored Russia to self-reliant productive and stable growth
and enterprise from the looted ruins that existed at the end of the '90s.
The stated aim of these changes is to restore more power to the Duma, which cannot be a bad thing. The resignation of the entire
government allows the new Prime Minister to restructure the government. It may be that many of the preceding actors are restored
in different ministries, or not.
"... The economic/social model in the neo-liberal West is one of outright parasitism driving ever increasing inequality and elite wealth, which is the expression in real life of the psychopathic elites' INTENSE hatred of others. For Russia to follow China in creating a society of utilitarian concern for ALL the population, of poverty reduction and of social solidarity between all levels of the population, increases the risk of what Chomsky called 'the good example' ..."
"... 'He might be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch'. Surely a 'Yeltsin' must replace or join 'Quisling' in the popular lexicon as a title for a traitor, in future. ..."
The US/NATO/EU bloc is eagerly awaiting the chance to replace Putin with a pro-Western neo-liberal. One who will increase
national debt, implement austerity, privatise industry, gut the public sector, and open up Russia to the IMF just like has been done
all over the Western world.
Search
Jan 18, 2020
15
Russian Reforms: Is Putin planning for his successor?
Curbs to Presidential power could be intended to preserve Russia from a West-backed President
Kit Knightly
Kit Knightly
Last week, after Putin put forward constitutional reforms that would "empower the legislative
branch" and his entire government resigned, the Western press (and the West-backed "opposition" in Russia) went on at
length about how Putin was preparing to "extend his power", to move to an office "without term limits", or something
along those lines.
After years complaining about the amount of power the President of Russia has, the MSM decided that limiting those
powers was ALSO bad (or perhaps, never even actually read the speech itself at all).
This isn't deliberate deception on their part, they are just trained animals after all. Criticising Putin is a
Pavlovian response to the man saying, or doing absolutely anything.
There's no point in gain-saying it, or analysing it. It is dogs howling at the moon. Instinctive, base and to a
rational mind entirely meaningless.
Forget what our press says. It is white noise. They have no insight and no interest in acquiring any.
However, even the alternative media are confused on this one. MoA is a good analyst, but he's
not sure what's at play here
.
.so what IS going on in Russia? Why the constitutional reforms?
Let's take a look at the headline proposals:
Limit the Presidency to a two-term maximum
Empower the Duma to appoint the Prime Minister and cabinet, in place of the President
Anyone running for President has to have lived in Russia for 25 years
Dual-nationals are forbidden from holding public offices
Are these really steps designed centralize the power of the state in an individual? Do they logically support the
argument "Putin wants to be in power for life"?
Given that list, I would say "no". I would say, quite the opposite.
The first two points limit the powers of the Presidency, whilst empowering the legislative branch. Why would Putin
limit the powers of the President if he intends a third term?
Western "analysts" argue Putin plans to stay on as Prime Minister, but these rule changes don't empower the PM,
they only empower the Duma to
choose
the PM.
If he were going to change the constitution to keep himself in power, why not just scrap term limits? Or increase
the Presidental term length?
The third proposed change is interesting "prevent dual nationals from holding public offices" is this a way of
limiting possible Western interference in Russian politics?
In the days of the Roman Empire, upon conquering a province the Romans would take children of members of the
ruling class to back to Rome, to be fostered in Roman families and raised as Romans. Then, when they reached
adulthood, the new Romanised Celts or Assyrians or Goths would be sent back to the land of their birth and rule as
the province in Rome's name, serving Rome's interests.
The modern Rome, the United States, does exactly the same thing.
The US/NATO/EU bloc is eagerly awaiting the chance to replace Putin with a pro-Western neo-liberal. One who will
increase national debt, implement austerity, privatise industry, gut the public sector, and open up Russia to the
IMF just like has been done all over the Western world.
So: We have rules limiting the power of the office of President, and a rule clearly aimed at making it impossible
for a US-backed puppet to be inserted into said office.
Here's where we get into some hardcore speculation:
I think, having done the hard work to fix many of Russia's societal and security-related problems, Putin is
seeking to make systemic changes that prevent this work being undone.
I think Putin wants to go or is at least considering it and is trying to put rules in place to protect Russia
from his possible successors.
To demonstrate my point, we should take a look at the other parts of Putin's speech the parts no one in the
Western press is interested in discussing.
In many ways, it was a speech you could have heard coming out of Jeremy Corbyn's mouth. Laying out a vision of
Russia with improved healthcare, free (hot) school meals for all children, internet access for all Russian citizens.
(You can read the whole thing
here
.)
If a British politician made this speech, it would be considered "radical". If an American had done so, they would
be called a crazy socialist. But there's more to this than just socialist economic policies.
Here is Putin on pensions:
We have a law on this, but we should formalise this requirement in the Constitution along with the principles
of decent pensions, which implies a regular adjustment of pensions according to inflation.
On minimum wage:
Therefore, I believe that the Constitution should include a provision that the minimum wage in Russia must not
be below the subsistence minimum of the economically active people.
On local government:
the powers and practical opportunities of the local governments, a body of authority that is closest to the
people, can and should be expanded and strengthened.
On the Judiciary:
The country's fundamental law should enshrine and protect the independence of judges, and their subordination
only to the Constitution and federal law
On Russian sovereignty:
requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the
Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens
and do not contradict our Constitution.
On Constitutional law:
extending the powers of the Constitutional Court to evaluate not only laws, but also other regulatory legal
acts adopted by various authorities at the federal and regional levels for compliance with the Constitution.
Is there a pattern here?
Enshrining economic reforms in the constitution
Decentralizing the power for the federal government
Legally protecting the independence of the courts
Protecting Russian law from international bodies
Reviewing future laws to make sure they don't breach the constitution
These could be interpreted as legal backstops. Safeguards on the progress Russia has made under Putin.
Under Yeltsin, Russia was a borderline failed state. Putin pulled them back from that brink.
Yeltsin's
1993 Constitutional Referendum
drastically enhanced the powers of the President, he doesn't wield quite as
supreme executive power as the office of POTUS, but it's comparable:
The referendum approved the new constitution, which significantly expanded the powers of the president, giving
Yeltsin the right to appoint the members of the government, to dismiss the Prime Minister and, in some cases, to
dissolve the Duma.
It could be argued Putin has used that power as it was intended for the benefit of the Russian people. Perhaps
he feels he cannot rely on anyone who comes after him to be as diligent.
By disempowering the role of President before he leaves office, he ensures that anyone who follows be they a
US-educated plant, a corrupt billionaire, or a hardline hawkish nationalist can't undo all the good his
administration has accomplished.
Whether or not Putin wants to be in "power for life" is an answer known only to the man himself, but there's
nothing to suggest it in this speech, and none of the reforms put forward would appear to help in that regard at all.
It looks more like a man securing his legacy.
Perhaps the question becomes not "does Putin want another term?", but rather does Putin even intend to serve all
of this one?
Baron
,
(1) What he proposed isn't the final word, the proposals will be debated, (2) the danger of Navalny's
getting in even with a strong push by the Americans, or their NGO poodles, is minimal, the greater risk
is the communist and their fellow travellers gaining power, (3) the last twenty years have shown Putin
may not be the ideal leader, but he's as close to an ideal as the Russians may ever hope to get, his
remaining in a position of some power after his Presidency term expires should be a positive for Russia.
Putin infuriates the Western Governing Elites (GEs) because he totally contradicts their progressive,
PC, woke agenda and, to make matters worse, his stance resonates with the Western unwashed. That's
unforgivable for the GEs, but one hopes he'll continue doing so. Just as our Parliament functions best if
the opposition has some muscle, so the world also needs a strong opposition to keep the GEs of the nation
of the "exceptional people" in check.
Jen
,
The answer to KK's second question, that is, whether Putin intends to serve out his current term, is that
any constitutional reforms such as what he proposed in his speech to the Federal Assembly need time to be
discussed, analysed, put to referendum, approved and included in the Constitution. Also a succession plan
needs to be in place by 2024 when Putin leaves the Presidency. By then we'll know if Mishustin or anyone
else (Rogozhin? Glazyev?) might replace him as President....
richard le sarc
,
The economic/social model in the neo-liberal West is one of outright parasitism driving ever increasing
inequality and elite wealth, which is the expression in real life of the psychopathic elites' INTENSE
hatred of others. For Russia to follow China in creating a society of utilitarian concern for ALL the
population, of poverty reduction and of social solidarity between all levels of the population, increases
the risk of what Chomsky called 'the good example', like Cuba has been for sixty years as the rest of the
Latin American continent, under US terror, descended into a charnel-house and mass immiseration. So
'Russia delenda est', and Putin is Hannibal, and, thankfully, the rotten cadaver called the 'Home of
Free', in a fit of malignant self-delusion, ain't gonna produce no Scipios any time soon. They've been
reduced to creating Pompeo Adiposus Minors.
Brianeg
,
...Watching a documentary about poverty and homelessness in America by Deutsche Welle, it is criminal
what is going on in that country especially when it seems fit to up the military budget to $750 billion.
Surely at some point civil war will come to that country to correct the gross imbalance.
Reading about the strange actions of the liquid magma going on deep underground, you almost wish that
nature might intervene and deflect America away from its constant onslaught of war and interference in
other countries politics.
'He might be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch'. Surely a 'Yeltsin' must replace or join
'Quisling' in the popular lexicon as a title for a traitor, in future.
In fact it is classified information..highly classified according to news reports. And so
we're likely to never see it. Flynn was forced out for some reason, presumably good ones.
It's hard to say anything for certain because the White House was in disarray in Feb2017.
DJT's inexperience in government was glaringly obvious in the first couple of months of his
administration. He mishandled several issues badly, paticularly the Flynn episode and James
Comey. I said then that he should have replaced Comey on Day 1. Had he done so none of the
mess of "Russian collusion" would likely have ever come about. Although he usually gets
things right, eventually, his (early) tendencies toward delayed action cost him.
They always claim something is highly classified when they want to conceal something that
will incriminate or embarrass them before the American people.
Trump came into office without an army of bureaucrats to fill all the jobs in the
government behemoth. He had to put in people that had been vehemently opposed to him in
order to get confirmations. That's why the expression, "The new boss, same as the old
boss." And it has certainly been true of Trump regarding foreign policy.
Well, since it was under Obama that they intercepted Flynn's calls, that's where the
classification came from. The USG grows and maintains its power through myriad levels of
secrecy. (I was in the game as a CIA communications specialist for 8 years). The game is
thoroughly bipartisan.
The White House said on Friday that it was the Obama administration that authorized
former national security adviser Michael Flynn's contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak during President Trump's transition, according to CNN.
"Russiagate is a hoax" Where did I hear that before?
Oh yes, from Trump about 1000 times... strange that even though he said he was innocent he
had to keep telling us every time he opened his mouth... it makes me suspicious for some
reason. That and the fact that Trump has been caught lying a few times.
Your hatred of Russia is hilarious. Doubly when Amerilards have a history of interference in
other country's governments.
America is objectively a more violent country than Russia. It isn't Russia that has
ridicously high violent crime scores despite its wealth. Invaded Afghanistan, attacked Iraq,
provided aid for Islamists who'd go on to build ISIS.
I don't recall Putin's regime achieving a higher bodycount than America under Bush with
Obama. Keep pretending Putin's some villain from childish stories like Harry Potter or Black
Panther.
America's homicide level is Notably higher than West Europe's and Far Eastern lands like
Japan. Russia's is only somewhat higher, and is notably less wealthy.
"... The full spectrum support for the murder shows that the Establishment is firmly on board with it, which proves that it was not simply a whim of Trump's, or an action taken because a few neo-cons talked him into ordering it. Again, he can order military actions all he wants, (like the withdrawal of troops from Syria), but he isn't allowed to do anything that our rulers don't want done. ..."
"... There is no major FUNCTIONAL difference between the Rep/Dem when it comes to military/covert activities. So whether Trump or any of the Dem puppets fill the Oval Office. ..."
"... The "differences" are purely for domestic consumption, no foreign politician or diplomat with two functioning neurons is fooled by the quadrennial, prearranged "election" BS. ..."
Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if the
rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually
invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his
child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and
Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at
the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire
crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never
allow that.
The elections are a farce, by the way. We have no way to know how people vote, because
they put in electronic voting machines after the 2000 election was stolen by the Supreme
Court. We no longer have any idea how people voted, the talking heads on the TV just give us
the name of the selected on, on Election Night.
As Lavrov frequently points out, the "rules-based order" is the US attempt to overthrow
established international law, and replace it with "rules" invented by the US and changed to
suit US goals, i.e. total spectrum dominance.
Note that although Trump has been attacked by the Deep State, the Democrats and the media
24/7 since 2016, the only complaint they have about his blatantly illegal assassination of
Soleimani is that "he didn't tell us first". There is NO mention of international or national
laws which outlaw such assassinations.
The full spectrum support for the murder shows that the Establishment is firmly on
board with it, which proves that it was not simply a whim of Trump's, or an action taken
because a few neo-cons talked him into ordering it. Again, he can order military actions all
he wants, (like the withdrawal of troops from Syria), but he isn't allowed to do anything
that our rulers don't want done.
@juliania: There is no major FUNCTIONAL difference between the Rep/Dem when it comes to
military/covert activities. So whether Trump or any of the Dem puppets fill the Oval
Office.
The "differences" are purely for domestic consumption, no foreign politician or
diplomat with two functioning neurons is fooled by the quadrennial, prearranged "election"
BS.
Americans may be sick of the US' forever war policy, but not as sick of it as the rest of
the world is. And USicans aren't sick enough of it to turf out both parties and start
again...
Trump doesn't give a crap about wars killing people. He's about the bottom line. The
business of the US is business. Further consider the Belt And Road Initiative (karlof1
briefly mentioned this). There's an underlying strategy of the empire. Only thing is a
difference in how to make sure that it achieves it's goal: domination of world currency and
business. The strategy is how to break the Russia-China coalition. Some believe that making
friends with Russia could have caused them to detach from China (with the target being to
tamp down China [again, think Belt and Road Initiative]). I cannot say for sure, but I do
kind of think that this was the position that Trump had/has. This suspicion has legs if you
consider the Russia-gate crap. And, the wars in the ME that Trump has vocalized against don't
necessarily line up with being on the strategy path of using Russia to smack down China.
Others believe it's better to go directly against China (and allow Russia to just kind of be
isolated). The ME wars are, essentially, taking out the Road in Belt and Road. Having the
area in a perpetual war makes business really difficult. This go-after-China-directly
approach is seen in the Uyghur and Hong Kong battle fronts. Iran is made common to both
strategy paths because, well, because of Israel (its overarching influence over US
policies).
It's a left wing or a right wing of the same bird. The mechanism (bird) isn't the issue,
it's the strategy (which wing). Chomsky really spells this out:
Perhaps the US doesn't want China to perfect the same authoritarian system the US is
looking to achieve? The attempt to block Huawei from international markets is about who
controls information (information flow).
"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7
trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not winning anymore."
These wars where never intended to be won. If you win a war you have to go home. It's
pretty difficult to exploit natural resources and threaten other countries geopolitically
without military and covert agency bases all over the region.
I'm not sure Trump even understands this strategy. As disgusting as it may be, the thought
of someone actually believing we entered these wars for any other reason than to cripple and
control them for the interest of our (not so)leader elite class is astonishing.
But, at the same time we are left with few alternatives due to the coup de 'etat
perpetrated by the elite who stack the slate we vote from and use the legacy media to
propagandize as many as possible into supporting this sociopathic/psychopathic foreign policy
agenda.
All we are ever offered is slight changes in tactics while maintaining the original goal
of world domination and total control of everyone in order to keep those on top, on top.
Nothing will change until the enforcers begin to fight back against the people showering
them with unlimited budgets and propagandize adoration to the point of military/police
worship.
"the US is already and has been for the longest time at war with Iran. "
Add to that the fact that in 1946 (or maybe '47?) Truman specifically threatened the Red
Army in Northern Iran with the atom bomb. They withdrew. But the point is that Iran was the
first defined target after Japan nuked in a display of "Overwhelming Power" (Stimson)
deliberately to bring USSR to obey the US, or at least to intimidate Stalin.
Threatening Russians is just plain stupid. Threats are almost always stupid, unless you're
trying to force an opponent into an attack-trap. Which "attack-trap" is what the Imperial
Wizards are doing. The assumption, a chauvinist and incorrect assumption, is that the
opponent is stupider than the attacker. Don't bet on that...it's a sucker bet.
The Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly vote to acquit Trump. No concrete
evidence of wrongdoing was revealed during the House Intelligence Committee's inquiry, and none
of the second-hand witnesses to Trump's infamous phone call with Zelensky revealed any smoking
gun evidence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has ignored Democrat pleas to admit more
witnesses and more evidence, arguing that the House's case be tried as is.
Meanwhile, Republicans ridiculed Pelosi for sitting on the impeachment articles for four
weeks, despite Democrat claims that Trump posed a "clear and present danger" to national
security, and Pelosi's insistence that removing him was an "urgent concern."
Any doubt that impeachment was a partisan affair was removed by Pelosi on Wednesday night,
when she handed out souvenir pens to reporters after signing the articles, posing in front of a
lectern with a placard reading "#defendourdemocracy" on it. McConnell described the
signing ceremony as "The House's partisan process distilled into one last perfect visual.
Not solemn or serious. A transparently political exercise from beginning to end."
Yesterday, the Speaker celebrated impeachment with souvenir pens, bearing her own golden
signature, brought in on silver platters. The House's partisan process distilled into one
last perfect visual. Not solemn or serious. A transparently political exercise from beginning
to end. pic.twitter.com/AshajRLH2F
McConnell is not above partisan games either, and has openly pledged to work with the White
House to see Trump acquitted.
Which begs the question, what was it all for? If Trump is acquitted, the Democratic Party
has no political capital left to launch another impeachment campaign, even if Trump blatantly
commits the "high crimes and misdemeanors" necessary to trigger an actual, bipartisan
impeachment effort.
Trump then also gets to claim victory, with an acquittal justifying his cries of "witch
hunt" and "presidential harassment," further solidifying his base and embarrassing
the Democrats in front of undecided voters. Pelosi stated on Sunday that regardless of the
trial's outcome, Trump is "impeached for life," but Trump is louder and brasher than
Pelosi, and will milk an acquittal for all it's worth.
Even as the trial against him formally opened on Thursday, the president celebrated the
passage of his US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, his second trade win in two days. His approval
rating also rose
to 51 percent, the highest it's been since he was impeached just over a month ago. All of this
strengthens his argument against the party he's taken to calling "Do Nothing
Democrats."
For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less
predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours
locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ;
within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington
has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting
smaller, are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
– it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so,
it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
– is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving
its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some
elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced
considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched
off and stopped transmitting
several minutes before the missiles were launched .
There were also problems with
the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was
placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that
an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments
to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the
operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that
it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming
American cruise missiles, then fired.
The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated
SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a
tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an
independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system
functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given
what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone
deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the
airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be
attributed to the Iranian government.
The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be
hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take
control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can
fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also
means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also
reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that
can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.
The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a
civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location.
The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals
relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has
the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net
also notes an interested back story to those photos
and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the
Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include
the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called
' Rich Kids of
Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on
the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th
with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a
Ukrainian passenger plane ?"
Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a
premeditated and carefully planned event of which
the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to
the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people
in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel,
i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing
of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another
unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of
Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of
its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in
perpetrating such crimes.
It's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative
media" aren't likely to touch this story.
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4
news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now
accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be
put on trial.
If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani,
is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another
unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.
Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the
confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think
the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events
makes false flagging them of dubious value.
Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was
inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it
so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the
money was the chips, that's all.
(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press
(1976), p. 160)
I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others'
deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step
program.
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this
"videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in
the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The
airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to
film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests,
foreknowledge."
The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the
planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the
missiles were launched.
I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of
MH-17.
Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly
an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian
aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.
The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of
diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in
overflight fees).
However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first
missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and
irresponsible.
The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent
launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system
functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent
accidents.
Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an
IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM
operator.
Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the
shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.
You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot
down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and
only radio communication capability.
As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an
idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their
hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted
killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been
launched.
Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost.
I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani
to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice
yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The
commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real
airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with
"old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions
hinted at by the U.S. military?
@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the
claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground
when it quit./
As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly
stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis
added]
The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals
attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:
The airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can
not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting
"several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.
The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12
local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44
UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and
turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) --
four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. –
Source
Flight Radar 24
Mr. Giraldi's original claim:
The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the
planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the
missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the
air defense command, which may have been related.
4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .
Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane
was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.
The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and
above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460
– 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the
fall back to Earth relatively quick.
On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to
be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the
relative data is available.
Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched "
is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly
analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.
Interesting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in
these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on
instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.
The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could
stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other
neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a
reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still
remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every
controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on –
Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack
from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today
– can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.
Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives
lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured
Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.
More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his
treachery and stupidity.
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.
We are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil.
Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.
It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past
time for us to be comfortable with lies.
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or
by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote
end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire
group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and
private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight
Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the
cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.
Several comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground,
to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to
be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the
manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of
these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but
that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on
stated as fact on a website I visited.
Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being
used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in
London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight
control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is
during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran
airport in Iran?
My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder
is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder
disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military
to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane,
to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the
flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control
system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to
track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to
landing.
Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot
[UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance
events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated
here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide
verification ) .
(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its
flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person
disaster?
This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four
military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get
through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger
into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no
pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their
destinations.
Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course
only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the
year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as
a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the
ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out
by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.
Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is
it Russia?
War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught
before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid
for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing
American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of
course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend
and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story
of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and
celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation
that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth
celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death
from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the
celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own
turds.
ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca
they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is
they are right about that with the majority of the population.
Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for
command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then
sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air
traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly
and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both
military and civilian aircraft.
If such a capability exists would the US reveal and use it in such a minor circumstance.
Occam's razor suggests this was just another case of 'better safe than sorry' during a time
of military tensions. Not a whole lot different than the Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian
airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.
I would hate to know how many 'friendly' aircraft were shot down by over zealous AAA
gunners in WW2 but it wasn't just a handful.
Anybody who thinks that US-Israel wouldn't have been capable of staging such a horrific event
as the shooting down of the airliner by Iran hasn't been following Whitney Webb's continuing
articles which are available right here on UNZ. Israel seems to have insinuated itself into
about every computer security program worldwide.
Webb's article mentions large scale defense contractor Dell Computer's close connection to
the Israeli government. Dell computer head Michael Dell has personally made large
contributions to that curious "charity" called The Friends of The Israeli Defense Forces as
has Larry Ellison, head or Oracle Software. Interestingly enough, neither of them have made
correspondingly large contributions to American veterans however.
Michael Dell is probably one of the biggest (or the biggest) single contributors to the
Republicans from Texas, home of Dell computer. Larry Ellison (also a large government
computer contractor) is also one of the Republican Party's biggest contributors.
Ellison's $5.5 million dollar contribution to the Republican is dwarfed however, by his
recent contributions to The Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces which seem to total (as of
today) $31 million (or more).
Are both men and their companies security risks? Is there any doubt of this or are
contribution to charity connected to a foreign army now simply to be considered as being
benign and innocent.
Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for
command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and
then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian
air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as
friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by
both military and civilian aircraft.
Your Wikipedia snippet is absolutely incorrect . IFF is only used for Military
Aircraft. If you want to prove me wrong:
Provide a link to any civilian transponder with IFF capability
Provide a link to any civilian aircraft Minimum Equipment List
that requires an IFF
Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military
confrontation in the Gulf.
Doesn't it rile you, as a U.S. veteran, that American soldiers are dying in treasonous
service to an enemy nation?
Doesn't it bother you in the least, that Americans are on the hook for untold trillions of
dollars, so they can slaughter innocent people, thousands of miles away, whose only "crime"
is that a certain shitty little country, wants to see them all sent reeling into the stone
age, (which is exactly what they want for you too).
Have y0u ever bothered to notice just exactly whom it is that is driving all the
liberal-progressive shit we all see daily, with the ubiquitous homomania and Hollywood sewage
force-injected into America's culture?
I see you occasionally speak against that stuff, but then when it comes to American
soldiers dying on behalf of those rats, there you are, defending the narrative of Iran as bad
guys.
How many Iranians do you see pumping Hollywood sewage into America's veins?
How many Iranians do you see on Capital Hill, demanding Trump and all his Deplorables are
irredeemably racists? And need to have their guns taken away?
How many Iranians do you see at Goldman Sachs, (and the other 'Too big to fail Banksters)
looting the country dry?
How many Iranians do you see in our universities, force-feeding America's youth the
progressive-liberal monkey shit, they're paying to consume daily?
You'd have to be very myopic not to notice who it is behind America's depraved descent
into cultural and spiritual guano. (not to mention the Eternal Wars, that only an imbecile
could pretend not to notice ((who)) are behind them).
And I have a clue for you, it isn't the Iranians. In fact, they had a nice good taste of
((Western)) culture under the Shah, and they decided they'd rather not see their women whored
out, and their children spiritually dead husks.
It'd be good if people could lift the veils they willfully allow to cover their own eyes,
in some kind of misguided machismo about how tough "our" military are, as they're killing and
dying on behalf of their worst enemy.
@JimDandy Hpw did the instruction to "Fly direct" prove fatal to MH 17
MUMBAI: The ministry of civil aviation's claim that there was no Air India flight near the
ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 when it was shot down over Ukraine on Thursday appears
misleading.
An Air India Dreamliner flight going from Delhi to Birmingham was in fact less than 25km away
from the Malaysian aircraft,
Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the
controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called "a direct routing". This permits
an aircraft to fly straight, instead of tracking the regular route which is generally a
zig-zag track that goes from one ground-based navigation aid or way point to another. "Direct
routing saves fuel and time and is preferred by pilots. In this case, it proved fatal," said
an airline source.
1 Was India pressurized to deny the close proximity and 2 was it under pressure to deny
that it heard the controller giving the instruction to MH 17????
FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude
of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating
IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting (this is the reason that two
of the modes are used by both military and civilian aircraft).
So, did the Ukrainian plane have an IFF transponder or not? Ref?
what Giraldi has published doesn't even rise to the level of the most idiotic conspiracy
theory one can concoct.
It happened only a few months ago that an Israeli jet violated Syria's airspace and
deliberately sheltered behind a Russian Iliouchine IL-20 to get it shot down by Syrian
air defence.
It was so very clearly and simply explained by the Russian Chief of Staff than any
imbecile could understand it; the idiot is definitely you.
A civilian transponder will respond to almost any inquiry (or even a non-coded radar
pulse):
-- Standard civilian transponder code = USA military Mode 3.
-- Standard civilian transponder altitude reporting = USA military Mode C.
To reduce detectability in combat, the pilot can change the setting on a Military IFF
system to only squawk when a correctly coded interrogation signal is recieved.
Transponders are turned on and off with switches in the cockpit. Is Giraldi suggesting that
this transponder was equipped to be controlled from outside? Source of assertion that
transponder was turned off? Can he name any commercial transponder with this feature? Does he
know anythng about elctroic warfare? This sounds like the birthing of a conspiracy theory.
@DaveE The hilarious thing in Britain is that many people on the comments sections of MSM
will talk about 'Asian' or more specifically 'Muslim' child rape gangs, because these gangs
were heavily Muslim they can be referred to using the adjective 'Muslim'.
But when you point out that the ones beating the drums for war in Iran and who
successfully plunged America and UK into a long a protracted war in the Middle East are
mostly Jewish, as evidenced by this article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz
they start getting all pissy, because of the Holocaust legend, Jews are now above scrutiny
and Jewish power cannot be talked about. It is the slipperly slope fallacy, what is merely
being advocated for here is not to trust a single thing that comes out of the mouth of a Jew
regarding the Middle East as there is a clear conflict of interest, not genocide.
I also suspect that peoples understandable antagonism towards Muslims has somehow made
them more sympathetic to Israel. Tommy Robinson is for example funded by rich Jews like Ezra
Levant of Rebel Media and Robert J. Shillman – who sits on the board of Friends of
Israel Defence Forces – shills for Israel. Now the Western goyim start frothing at
the mouth when they hear Muslim and so think countries like Iran are evil and out to destory
the West, a laughable claim.
You don't have to apologise. Christian Zionists are no Christians; they are uncultured,
criminal country-bumpkins utilised by their Zionist handlers to justify the destruction of
the twice-millenary Christian Arab community.
Here is what real Christians think:
Mor Maurice Amsih, Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Euphrates, demonstrating against the murder of
General Soleimani, calling Soleimani and his companions " martyrs " who are now
" Saints in the Heavenly Kingdom" for their blood shed freeing the Syrian
people from Zio-sponsored terrorists. [@ 0:25]
The Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a
U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.
although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.
This is absolutely irrelevant since the Iranian SAM missile launcher is so old it
can not even detect and decode ADS-B signals. Note that the requirement for ADS-B transponders
only came into effect this year .
By the account of Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh:
1. Prior to the downing of the aircraft, Americans had threatened to hit 52 sites in
Iran.
2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level.
3. There were reports that cruise missles had been fired at Iran.
4. In spite of IRGC requests that airspace be cleared of commercial flights, those requests
were not met.
5. The air defense unit recognized Flight 752 as a cruise missle from a distance of 19
kilometers, but is still required to get approval to fire upon it.
6. When the operator attempts to get approval, he can not do so due to "disruption" of his
communication system.
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and
fires upon the plane.
1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,
2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated
prior to take off, and
3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.
4. In spite of all this, the flight's recording on FLIGHTRADAR24.COM , proves that the transponder was on and
working.
5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the
location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.
6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting
System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been
easily identified.
7. Flight 752 should have been identifiable as a commercial airliner by its external lights
alone.
From this information, he concludes that either there are traitors within Iran seeking to
facilitate regime change or that the downing of Flight 752 was a false flag operation
perpetrated by the usual suspects.
I'd like to see more information about this topic from those qualified to speak about
it.
2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and
fires upon the plane.
How long were the operators on alert? Tension and sleep deprivation are a bad mix. This
looks like the crew on the ground had seconds to make a decision, and in the rush got it
wrong.
I'm not sure how anyone on the outside could tell if the operator made the launch by
mistake or from ill intent. No doubt the crew will be given the Richard Jewell treatment in
an attempt to deflect blame from the religious hierarchy.
1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,
Correct
2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and
activated prior to take off, and
Incorrect The Boeing 737 aircrfat has two ATC Transponders only one of which is
activated prior to takeoff. The second ATC transponder is only activated if the first one
fails. An ATC Transponder is NOT an IFF transponder.
3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.
Incorrect . A functioning ATC transponder is part the Boeing 737 Minimum Equipment
List which is available here . The only way the Ukraine Air crew could have gotten
around this requirement was to get prior permission from the Iranian Civil Aviation Authority
and EVERY other country's Cicil Aviation Authority in its flight path which I can guarantee
you would not be forthcoming.
5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the
location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.
Incorrect The operator could determine range, range rate. and bearing if the
transponder was not function.
6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical
Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane
would have been easily identified.
The plane was at least 1.5 miles away (8000 ft altitude). You go get yourself a pair of
Night Vision/Infra Red scopes and see how well you do identifying different aircraft from
that distance
@Ron Unz One good article to show people in relation to the Israel Lobby's influence on
America's decision to go to war in Iraq is an article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled
White Man's Burden which carries the following subheading;
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish,
who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists
William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas
Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.
This comes from a reputable newspaper from Israel so cannot be dismissed as the ravings of
some neo-Nazis. I have found this to have the most success in getting people online to think
about the Iraq War more, it is impossible for detractors to label a link to an Israeli
newspaper article as "anti-Semitic" without looking absurd.
I would find the UN's review kind of hard to recommend to people in real life simple
because of the provocative nature of the stories it runs. The American Pravda series
is of course very informative but the articles require quite a bit of time to read through
and check the hyperlinks within the article itself. Without sounding like someone with a
superiority complex, most people cannot read this much information and grasp it. Many will
not touch articles relating to Holocaust Denial or race.
But anyway, you sir are doing great work with the maintenance and story selection on this
website and I wish you the best of luck in the future. It certainly has armed me with lots of
information that I can use to counter mainstream narratives in a whole host of issues.
Although my efforts in real life have not been very successful, I do seem to be getting some
success in my cyber-activism on mainstream news websites, where I am able to provide a clear
and cogent narrative with links to reputable websites and not come across as a nutjob who
raves about da jooz .
@Anon Sharpen your reading skills. Civilian aircraft have different frequency
transponders than military aircraft. Flight plans are filed, and the transponder signals
correspond to filed flight plans. When attacking, military craft turn off their transponders.
No transponder signal = no corresponding flight plan = unfriendly aircraft.
There is no need to "spoof" anything, once the transponder stops signalling. That aside, I
found it curious that this particular airplane was on its first flight after major
maintenance. Who knows what was done in servicing. If the computer in the car you drive can
be hijacked to cause sudden acceleration or brake failurs, an airplane's certainly can.
Abel Danger went into quite a discussion of this during the 9/11 event that had 2 planes
crashing into the towers. I can't find it on youtube any longer. A lot of their YTubes have
been deleted.
I saw in the Jan. 15 @2130 Teheran Times that, "TEHRAN – A possible disruption in
Iran's radar network by the U.S. may have caused the operator mistake the Ukrainian
passenger plan for an incoming American cruise missile, at top Iranian military official
said late on Tuesday."
A Canadian here... The yappy-lapdog Canadian gov't is "demanding" a whole lot of control
over the investigation, yet in the same breath demands "impartial" analysis and prosecution
of the perps... by definition, the Cdn gov't is not impartial, it is a vassal
administration of the US/ZATO/5Eyes MIC.
More importantly, will the black box show what happened regarding reports that the
plane's transponder had been shut off shortly after take-off and before the missiles were
launched. It is known from the MH370 investigation that Boeing planes automatically report
back to Boeing head office with various bits of telemetry. Is it such a stretch that Boeing
has various "backdoors" in the 737 flight computers which could allow the transponders to
be shut off remotely? The CIA/Mossad surely would know about such backdoors, being Boeing
is part and parcel of the US MIC.
The Canadian rabid response smacks of trying to hide or get ahead of any proof of the
above.
Looking at all the stories coming out, the deep state is getting pretty serious about
getting rid of Trump.
What if they get Biden as the democratic nominee too and we have a Pence/Biden matchup?
Top that with everything the Fed is doing to keep the market bubble from bursting and it
raises interesting possibilities.
Trump laughing it up from the sidelines, for one thing.
This Nariman Gharib or his commanders are straightout stupid. With this behaviour they
confirm the suspicion that the incident was staged. While proof of electronic warfare to
create the havoc may never come or is impossible to obtain the main weakness of the effort
is the fact that filming the event in the middle of the night from a rooftop is explainable
only if the camera guy has known what would happen where. - Staged to overshadow the
impressive triumph the Iranians had with the attack on the Iraqi US base.
In the European Parliament Russia is accused of distorting the history of the Second
World War
"We in the European People's Party cannot accept Putin's attempts to rewrite history.
Although the Soviet Union suffered huge losses during the war, and its soldiers showed
heroism, there is no denying that the Molotov -- Ribbentrop Pact led to the outbreak of the
Second World War".
Putin's attempts?
His own, personal, maniacal attempts??
The European People's Party -- leader, Donald Tusk.
"There is no denying " -- an appeal to ignorance.
Everybody knows this to be true!
In Poland there were the following Nazi extermination camps [ Vernichtungslager ]:
Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau, and Majdanek.
Why?
Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
After all, there's no denying that Poles are at heart anti-Semites, in that they are all
devout Roman Catholics.
If the west – and especially the Poles – could get the Russian Federation to
apologize for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, their lives would be complete. For maybe five
minutes, before they moved on to the next deep grievance. It's all about getting the former
Soviet Union to admit guilt, and the west can never get enough of that.
I wonder if those who draw up this index ever consider that the perceived violence of a
country be considered as a function of the deaths caused by the foreign policies of that
country?
There certainly are advantages to stirring up shit abroad, setting up an opposition and then
sending your soldiers haring off thereward to support it in an effort to overthrow the
government. For one, you get labeled a super-peaceful country by some jag-off index you
probably funded yourself. The USA does not fight in the USA. And until fairly recently, it
got all its military adventures rubber-stamped by the UN as 'peacekeeping'. That, alas,
proved too time-consuming, and so R2P doctrine was devised by that legendary peacekeeper,
Sammy "Genocide" Power to expedite American military adventuring while still remaining
loosely under the 'last resort, but we have to act' rubric.
Yalensis, earlier you said that Russia should restore communism to remove poverty.
How did that work the last time in 1917-1991? The Soviet Union collapsed and historical
Russia was split into many different parts.
I expect that if Russia would experiment communism the second time the outcome would be
another split of Russia. This time it would be the North Caucasus, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan
and possible Siberia and the Far East breaking away from Moscow.
And why is that? Because communism doesn't work, period. It has been tried several times
in many different parts of the world, and it has always failed.
The basics are simple. Once private ownership is banned people stop caring. Motivation to
work hard is gone If you are deprived of the possibility to make money and own private
property.
Say what you want about America but there is a good reason why basically all the greatest
companies in the world are American, or at least from countries that have practiced
capitalism for centuries: Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, Shell, Amazon, Intel, Ford, Mercedez Benz,
Toyota, Samsung etc.
You can compare how a middle class American and a middle class Soviet citizen lived in the
1980s. While a typical middle class American lived in a big house in a suburb with two cars
in the household, a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
where many families had to share the same bathroom and kitchen and a Soviet citizen had to
work a certain amount of years before being allowed a right to own his or her own car,
usually a Soviet made Lada. Most of the Soviet citizens never had a chance to get their own
car but instead of to rely on public transport.
I know you are going to say that China is a good example that communism can work. But
there is one problem: China is not really a communist country anymore. Actually the rise of
China began at the same moment when Deng Xiaoping allowed private property and private
enterprise. The horrendous communist policies of Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions of
Chinese people before that. Allowing people to work for their own well being was that made
China what it is today (China is still a poor country compared to the West, but at least
hundreds of millions of people are not starving anymore as was the case during Mao's
rule).
If Russia ever restored communism again it would be the end of Russia.
a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
Really?
I lived in a modern, built in the 1970s block in Voronezh in 1989.: 3 large rooms, largish
kitchen, bathroom and toilet, 2 balconies , 11th floor.
I live in a similar flat now, but on the 3rd floor, built 1976, central Administrative
District, Taganskiy precinct, Moskva.
The only thing communal about those 2 dwellings is the central heating, which is turned on
in October and turned off in May.
In England, during my childhood I lived in a slum street built in the 1850s: no central
heating, no hot water, no bathroom, no toilet. The toilet was in the yard at the back. The
dewelling had 2 downstairs rooms and 2 upstairs room, a so-called "two-up, two-down". I lived
there until 1960.
Wilson St. in my home town, 1969
My hometown is situated in the first capitalist country in the world.
God that picture brings back memories – we lived in similar property in Birmingham
until 1978. My family came over from Ireland in the 1960s and these type of houses were
common place for working class families.
You can still find them in the midlands and the north, although they have been modernised
to include bathrooms.
Capitalism and economic Nirvana are known to be one in the same in the minds of morons.
"Indications of this failure of capitalism are everywhere. Stagnation of investment
punctuated by bubbles of financial expansion, which then inevitably burst, now characterizes
the so-called free market.4 Soaring inequality in income and wealth has its counterpart in
the declining material circumstances of a majority of the population. Real wages for most
workers in the United States have barely budged in forty years despite steadily rising
productivity.5 Work intensity has increased, while work and safety protections on the job
have been systematically jettisoned. Unemployment data has become more and more meaningless
due to a new institutionalized underemployment in the form of contract labor in the gig
economy.6 Unions have been reduced to mere shadows of their former glory as capitalism has
asserted totalitarian control over workplaces. With the demise of Soviet-type societies,
social democracy in Europe has perished in the new atmosphere of "liberated capitalism."7
The capture of the surplus value produced by overexploited populations in the poorest
regions of the world, via the global labor arbitrage instituted by multinational
corporations, is leading to an unprecedented amassing of financial wealth at the center of
the world economy and relative poverty in the periphery.8 Around $21 trillion of offshore
funds are currently lodged in tax havens on islands mostly in the Caribbean, constituting
"the fortified refuge of Big Finance."9 Technologically driven monopolies resulting from the
global-communications revolution, together with the rise to dominance of Wall Street-based
financial capital geared to speculative asset creation, have further contributed to the
riches of today's "1 percent." Forty-two billionaires now enjoy as much wealth as half the
world's population, while the three richest men in the United States -- Jeff Bezos, Bill
Gates, and Warren Buffett -- have more wealth than half the U.S. population.10 In every
region of the world, inequality has increased sharply in recent decades.11 The gap in per
capita income and wealth between the richest and poorest nations, which has been the dominant
trend for centuries, is rapidly widening once again.12 More than 60 percent of the world's
employed population, some two billion people, now work in the impoverished informal sector,
forming a massive global proletariat. The global reserve army of labor is some 70 percent
larger than the active labor army of formally employed workers.
Adequate health care, housing, education, and clean water and air are increasingly out of
reach for large sections of the population, even in wealthy countries in North America and
Europe, while transportation is becoming more difficult in the United States and many other
countries due to irrationally high levels of dependency on the automobile and disinvestment
in public transportation. Urban structures are more and more characterized by gentrification
and segregation, with cities becoming the playthings of the well-to-do while marginalized
populations are shunted aside. About half a million people, most of them children, are
homeless on any given night in the United States.14 New York City is experiencing a major rat
infestation, attributed to warming temperatures, mirroring trends around the world."
Comrade Karl, the vast majority of poverty in this world is in capitalist countries. Latin
America and Africa will toss your silly assertions in the trash bin of history.
And saying China is not communist is equivalent to saying the US is not capitalist. I
leave it to your to figure out what the foregoing means.
says: January 15,
2020 at 6:42 pm GMT 200 Words @Shitposter
Just a few off the top of my head:
1. Lukashenko wants the prices for oil and natural gas for Belarus to be the same as for
Russian regions, but refuses to behave like a Russian region.
2. He got many loans from Russia and Russian semi-commercial entities (like Sberbank), but
behaves as if his country is living within its means.
3. He prevented Russian companies from acquiring Minsk automotive plant (MAZ). In response,
Russia switched the trucks for its mobile rockets from MAZ to domestic KaMAZ.
4. He never recognized South Ossetia and Abkhasia.
5. He refused Russian request for an airbase, suggesting that Russia gives him some fighter
planes for free and he will build an airbase of the Belarus army.
6. Belarus makes gasoline and other products from Russian oils and resells them at a huge
profit. Besides, he wants to export it all via Baltic statelets, providing their ports business
that Putin is taking away from them by building Russian deep-sea ports, like Ust-Luga.
7. Not to mention that he talks about 10 times more than is wise, saying mostly BS (the latter
is natural for a moron).
There are many more, but these are enough to explain how most Russians feel about him. Belarus
either gets rid of that idiot, or suffers because of his stupidity.
Beckow says: January
15, 2020 at 7:12 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly
Karlin All advanced countries need a no-children tax on free-loaders to survive. It is easy
to implement and mostly fair (there are a few corner cases). It is not a penalty since it is a
personal choice to be a parasite on the society and consume instead of raising children.
It can easily be implemented by including a number of children in retirement formula and in
taxes. The no-kids parasites, the assorted barren women and gays, feminists and male scoundrels
who abandon their families, would pay for the long-term support they get from the society
– for the children that they will need to get pensions, medical care, etc Or we can just
cut them off once they no longer work. No kids – no old-age benefits, unless you pay for
them. This would be automatic in a normal society in the past.
Most modern people don't have children because they are lazy and because raising children is
hard. It is a core role of any society to have families, so those who don't participate need to
pay up.
@Philip
Owen opular with the parasites who have to pay, but all taxes are unpopular.
It is fundamentally the most fair way to handle generational issues – those who
choose to be free-loaders, can't expect others' children to take care of them. This will
happen regardless, all the pension obligations are imposed on people who never agreed to
them, they will re-structure them in the future to benefit their own families.
In the West this is complicated by the diversity-migrant issue in the next generation
– why should they pay for people who invited them for cheap labor? There is an
assumption that they will pay, but why should they? This issue is coming.
@Philip
Owen In Stalin's times that tax was imposed an all and gradually reduced with the number
of children, so that only people who had three or more children did not pay "childless" tax.
In Brezhnev's USSR that tax was on childless men and married childless women (on the
assumption that marriage is male's choice, so a woman cannot be penalized when no one marries
her).
@songbird
Frankly, I don't know. I never lived in Stalin's times and never had enough siblings or three
children. What I remember in the 1960s and 1970s, every school child in grade 1 (maybe 1 and
2) received a glass of free milk at school daily, and children from poorer families received
free lunch (I never did).
@AnonFromTN
In the UK we had a small bottle, about a third of a pint, of free milk. The ones who needed
it most never drank it. (My school was in a small town and contained all social classes).
School meals were paid for by most but some had them free.
The Russian government has just introduced free school meals for all for certain years. I
forget which.
I should think that the transfer of powers from the Presidency to the position of Prime
Minister, and the holders of executive power being chosen by holders of legislative power,
will make US control of the positions of Russian President and Russian PM more difficult. It
takes time, effort and money to build up a lobbying presence in a large parliament; for one
thing, the West needs to know who are the most significant organizations and agencies in
Russia to penetrate and infiltrate, and then influence. Then these people need to know which
politicians and which parties in the Federal Assembly to target. A parliamentary system where
the holders of executive power are not chosen directly by the public but by political peers
is likely to be more resistant to foreign infiltration if only because there are more people
to target. The Russian language and alphabet, and current political culture are also likely
to be barriers to penetration.
It was much easier in the Yeltsin period when Yeltsin appropriated powers that should have
belonged to the Federal Assembly, for the US to control the Presidency; Yeltsin was moving
the country's political structure to a centralized one that to some extent the Americans
could relate to, because then it began to resemble the structures they knew and had
experience with.
Coming decade could see the US take on Russia, China and Iran over the New Silk Road
connection
The Raging Twenties started with a bang with the targeted assassination of Iran's General
Qasem Soleimani.
Yet a bigger bang awaits us throughout the decade: the myriad declinations of the New Great
Game in Eurasia, which pits the US against Russia, China and Iran, the three major nodes of
Eurasia integration.
Every game-changing act in geopolitics and geoeconomics in the coming decade will have to be
analyzed in connection to this epic clash.
The Deep State and crucial sectors of the US ruling class are absolutely terrified that
China is already outpacing the "indispensable nation" economically and that Russia has
outpaced
it militarily . The Pentagon officially designates the three Eurasian nodes as
"threats."
Hybrid War techniques – carrying inbuilt 24/7 demonization – will proliferate
with the aim of containing China's "threat," Russian "aggression" and Iran's "sponsorship of
terrorism." The myth of the "free market" will continue to drown under the imposition of a
barrage of illegal sanctions, euphemistically defined as new trade "rules."
Yet that will be hardly enough to derail the Russia-China strategic partnership. To unlock
the deeper meaning of this partnership, we need to understand that Beijing defines it as
rolling towards a "new era." That implies strategic long-term planning – with the key
date being 2049, the centennial of New China.
The horizon for the multiple projects of the Belt and Road Initiative – as in the
China-driven New Silk Roads – is indeed the 2040s, when Beijing expects to have fully
woven a new, multipolar paradigm of sovereign nations/partners across Eurasia and beyond, all
connected by an interlocking maze of belts and roads.
The Russian project – Greater Eurasia –
somewhat mirrors Belt & Road and will be integrated with it. Belt & Road, the Eurasia
Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank are all converging towards the same vision.
Realpolitik
So this "new era", as defined by the Chinese, relies heavily on close Russia-China
coordination, in every sector. Made in China 2025 is encompassing a series of techno/scientific
breakthroughs. At the same time, Russia has established itself as an unparalleled technological
resource for weapons and systems that the Chinese still cannot match.
At the latest BRICS summit in Brasilia, President Xi Jinping told Vladimir Putin that "the
current international situation with rising instability and uncertainty urge China and Russia
to establish closer strategic coordination." Putin's response: "Under the current situation,
the two sides should continue to maintain close strategic communication."
Russia is showing China how the West respects realpolitik power in any form, and Beijing is
finally starting to use theirs. The result is that after five centuries of Western domination
– which, incidentally, led to the decline of the Ancient Silk Roads – the Heartland
is back, with a bang, asserting its preeminence.
On a personal note, my travels these past two years, from West Asia to Central Asia, and my
conversations these past two months with analysts in Nur-Sultan, Moscow and Italy, have allowed
me to get deeper into the intricacies of what sharp minds define as the Double Helix. We are
all aware of the immense challenges ahead – while barely managing to track the stunning
re-emergence of the Heartland in real-time.
In soft power terms, the sterling role of Russian diplomacy will become even more paramount
– backed up by a Ministry of Defense led by Sergei Shoigu, a Tuvan from Siberia, and an
intel arm that is capable of constructive dialogue with everybody: India/Pakistan, North/South
Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.
This apparatus does smooth (complex) geopolitical issues over in a manner that still eludes
Beijing.
In parallel, virtually the whole Asia-Pacific – from the Eastern Mediterranean to the
Indian Ocean – now takes into full consideration Russia-China as a counter-force to US
naval and financial overreach.
Stakes in Southwest Asia
The targeted assassination of Soleimani, for all its long-term fallout, is just one move in
the Southwest Asia chessboard. What's ultimately at stake is a macro geoeconomic prize: a
land bridge from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean.
Last summer, an Iran-Iraq-Syria trilateral established that "the goal of negotiations is to
activate the Iranian-Iraqi-Syria load and transport corridor as part of a wider plan for
reviving the Silk Road."
There could not be a more strategic connectivity corridor, capable of simultaneously
interlinking with the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the Iran-Central
Asia-China connection all the way to the Pacific; and projecting Latakia towards the
Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
What's on the horizon is, in fact, a sub-sect of Belt & Road in Southwest Asia. Iran is
a key node of Belt & Road; China will be heavily involved in the rebuilding of Syria; and
Beijing-Baghdad signed multiple deals and set up an Iraqi-Chinese Reconstruction Fund (income
from 300,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for Chinese credit for Chinese companies
rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure).
A quick look at the map reveals the "secret" of the US refusing to pack up and leave Iraq,
as demanded by the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister: to prevent the emergence of this
corridor by any means necessary. Especially when we see that all the roads that China is
building across Central Asia – I navigated many of them in November and December –
ultimately link China with Iran.
The final objective: to unite Shanghai to the Eastern Mediterranean – overland, across
the Heartland.
As much as Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea is an essential node of the China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor, and part of China's multi-pronged "escape from Malacca" strategy, India also
courted Iran to match Gwadar via the port of Chabahar in the Gulf of Oman.
So as much as Beijing wants to connect the Arabian Sea with Xinjiang, via the economic
corridor, India wants to connect with Afghanistan and Central Asia via Iran.
Yet India's investments in Chabahar may come to nothing, with New Delhi still mulling
whether to become an active part of the US "Indo-Pacific" strategy, which would imply dropping
Tehran.
The Russia-China-Iran joint naval exercise in late December, starting exactly from Chabahar,
was a timely wake-up for New Delhi. India simply cannot afford to ignore Iran and end up losing
its key connectivity node, Chabahar.
The immutable fact: everyone needs and wants Iran connectivity. For obvious reasons, since
the Persian empire, this is the privileged hub for all Central Asian trade routes.
On top of it, Iran for China is a matter of national security. China is heavily invested in
Iran's energy industry. All bilateral trade will be settled in yuan or in a basket of
currencies bypassing the US dollar.
US neocons, meanwhile, still dream of what the Cheney regime was aiming at in the past
decade: regime change in Iran leading to the US dominating the Caspian Sea as a springboard to
Central Asia, only one step away from Xinjiang and weaponization of anti-China sentiment. It
could be seen as a New Silk Road in reverse to disrupt the Chinese vision.
Battle of the Ages
A new book, The Impact of China's Belt and Road
Initiativ e , by Jeremy Garlick of the University of Economics in Prague, carries the
merit of admitting that, "making sense" of Belt & Road "is extremely difficult."
This is an extremely serious attempt to theorize Belt & Road's immense complexity
– especially considering China's flexible, syncretic approach to policymaking, quite
bewildering for Westerners. To reach his goal, Garlick gets into Tang Shiping's social
evolution paradigm, delves into neo-Gramscian hegemony, and dissects the concept of "offensive
mercantilism" – all that as part of an effort in "complex eclecticism."
The contrast with the pedestrian Belt & Road demonization narrative emanating from US
"analysts" is glaring. The book tackles in detail the multifaceted nature of Belt & Road's
trans-regionalism as an evolving, organic process.
Imperial policymakers won't bother to understand how and why Belt & Road is setting a
new global paradigm. The NATO summit in London last month offered a few pointers. NATO
uncritically adopted three US priorities: even more aggressive policy towards Russia;
containment of China (including military surveillance); and militarization of space – a
spin-off from the 2002 Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.
So NATO will be drawn into the "Indo-Pacific" strategy – which means containment of
China. And as NATO is the EU's weaponized arm, that implies the US interfering on how Europe
does business with China – at every level.
Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005,
cuts to the chase: "America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight
years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American
Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is
doing right now, as Esper is doing right now and a host of other members of my political party,
the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it. And that's the agony of
it."
Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are working
on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from all forms
of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.
For the US, this is indeed an existential battle – against the whole Eurasia
integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those Russian
hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt against US
policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US dollar. What's
certain is that the Empire won't go quietly into the night. We should all be ready for the
battle of the ages.
There is a lot of talk here and in comment sections at forums about how the American Empire
is going to collapse soon due to its blunders and Russia and China gaining military
superiority over it. This kind of talk is a type of magical thinking and has no basis in
reality. The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it
the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took
it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy. The economist Michael Hudson in an article called A Note To China (link at
bottom) explains how this works:
The U.S. strategy is to control your economy in order to force you to sell your most
profitable industrial sectors to US investors, to force you to invest in your industry only
by borrowing from the United States.
So the question is, how do China, Russia, Iran and other countries break free of this
U.S. dollarization strategy?
There are a lot of articles on alt.media sites about how China and Russia are
de-dollarizing their economies in order to resist, and eventually end, the US domination of
the global economy that is preventing them from maintaining independent economic policies
that benefit their citizens rather than global elites and US central bankers.
Russia managed to put a stop to overt US economic imperialism after the looting spree in
the post-Soviet 1990s decimated Russia's ability to provide for its citizens and degraded the
country's ability to maintain economic independence. But it still ultimately got caught in
the neoliberal trap. Hudson again:
Yet Russia did not have enough foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for
domestic goods and services. But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble
money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining
these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless
backing. There was no need for such backing. At the end of this road the United States
convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities,
its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.
China, Hudson argues, by accepting the advice of American and IMF/World Bank economic
"experts" and through Chinese students schooled in American universities in American
neoliberal theory is in great danger of falling into the same trap.
The U.S. has discovered that it does not have to militarily invade China. It does not have
to conquer China. It does not have to use military weapons, because it has the intellectual
weapon of financialization, convincing you that you need to do this in order to have a
balanced economy. So, when China sends its students to the United States, especially when
it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited),
they are told by the U.S. "Do as we say, not as we have done."
He concludes that:
The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the
extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military
spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try
to pry China apart.
Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International
Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress
rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow
the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization.
De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.
Loosening the Empire's hold on economic and geopolitical affairs and moving to a
multipolar world order is a tough slog and the Empire will use everything it can to stop this
from happening. But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by
its armies, with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back. That's a bitter
pill for many to swallow but wishful thinking isn't going to change the world. After all, the
new world has to be imagined before it can appear and right now it's still global capitalism
all the way down.
The article in full, and Hudson's work generally, is well worth reading. He is one of only
a few genuinely anti-imperialist economists and he is able to explain in layman's terms
exactly how the US-centric global economy is a massive scam designed to benefit US empire at
the rest of the world's expense.
I was thinking about
winston2's comment in the previous thread. A good way for China and Russia to respond is
to go after those in the MIC; the CEO, lobbyists, financiers, etc... If they follow the money
and take them out, I suspect we all would see a dramatic turn of events. No need to publicize
their early retirement. Make it messy and public but not to the point of taking out
innocents.
Yes, Michael Hudson is excellent, mostly because he's rare economist, that is, one who
begins from the premise that the 'economy' is a set of historically-situated and specific
modes of exchange and forms of human relations. Aristotle located what we call the economy in
ethics and politics; we follow the fairytales of neo-classical economics and global capital
by imagining that it has some scientific autonomy from human social relations. Marx was right
in following Aristotle's insight by critiquing the very idea of an autonomous economy, which
the chief ideological fiction of late capitalism. Sam Chambers and Ellen Meiksens-Wood are
also excellent critics of this obstacle to reimagining a viable alternative to the economy as
it is propagated by the US neoliberal global apparatus.
Inkan1969 , Jan 16 2020 22:34 utc |
42S , Jan 16 2020 22:37 utc |
43
@Daniel #36:
The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US
government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it
off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy.
But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by its armies,
with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back.
Exclude me from this squad. I's always from the opinion that the USA would collapse
slowly, i.e. degenerate/decay. I won't repeat my arguments again here so as to spare people
who already know me the repetition.
However, consider this: when 2008 broke out, some people thought the USA would finally
collapse. It didn't - in great part, because the USG also thought it could collapse, so it
acted quickly and decisively. But it cost a lot: the USA fell from its "sole superpower"
status, and, for the first time since 1929, the American people had to fell in the flesh the
side effects of capitalism. It marked the end of the End of History, and the realization -
mainly by Russia and China - that the Americans were not invincible and immortals. It may
have marked the beginning of the multipolar era.
--//--
The world (bar China) never recovered from 2008. Indeed, world debt has grown to another
record high:
The world governments - specially the governments from the USA, Japan and Europe -
absorbed private debt (through purchase of rotten papers and through QE) so the system could
be saved. But this debt didn't disappear, instead, it became public debt. What's worse:
private debt has already spiked up, and already is higher than pre-2008 levels. The Too Big
To Fail philosophy of the central banks only bought them time.
--//--
Extending my previous link (from the previous Open Thread) about money laundering:
The global TV subscription streaming company, Netflix made $1.2bn in profits in 2018, of
which $430m was shifted into tax havens, reports Tax Watch UK.
The estimated revenue from UK subscribers was about $860m, but most of this was booked
offshore in a tax haven Dutch subsidiary. Netflix claims its UK parent company got only
$48m in revenue. When the costs of Netflix UK productions were put against this, Netflix
was able to avoid paying any tax at all to the UK government. Indeed, it received tax
reliefs for productions in the UK from the government.
A simple question requires a simple answer. Russia's defence expenditure in PPP terms is
probably in excess of $180 billion per year which buys a shedload of "capable military
equipment".
It should be noted that the point Hudson's trying to make in his "Note to China" is to warn
China of what if faces by using historical examples. As S points out @43, Russia's Ruble is
very sound and its dollar and T-Bill holdings are extremely low. The message to China and the
entire SCO community is to cease supporting the Outlaw US Empire's military by supporting its
balance of payments by buying T-Bills. The sooner the SCO community, or just the core
nations, can produce a new currency for use in trade, the sooner a crisis can be created
within the Outlaw US Empire--essentially by turning the "intellectual weapon of
financialization" against the global rogue nation foe.
There is a silver lining to that. If another term of Trump inspires the Europeans to
abrogate NATO and put an end to that alliance and create their own NEATO ( North East
Atlantic Treaty Organization) withOUT America and withOUT Canada and maybe withOUT some of
those no-great-bargain East European countries; then NEATO Europe could reach its own
Separate Peace with Russia and lower that tension point.
And America could bring its hundred thousand hostages ( "soldiers") back home from
not-NATO-anymore Europe.
In this sense Soleimani assassination opened such a huge can of worms that the results can
be judged only in several years.
It exposes Trump and his cronies as one trick ponies who does not think strategically or are
manipulated (for all practical purposes the hypothesis that Trump is a puppet is stronger that
then the hypothesis that he is an independent player)
In some way It might well be that Trump put the final nail into the global, led by the
USA,neoliberal empire and legitimized the existence of two competing economic blocks. That's a
huge change, if true (the fact that China folded contracts that)
He also implicitly acknowledged that the USA no longer can attack on Iran military without
the danger of suffering large losses and profound negative consequences itself. Including
Russia and China support for Iran in such a war, which would make it the second Vietnam. That's
another huge change -- the end of "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine as we know it. .
Now we known that Trump bullied EU threating auto-tariff to support him. That a clear return
to the Wild West in international relations and it another nail into the empire coffin. Esper
recently blabbed that the US has the right under Article II of its Constitution to attack
Iranian territory in response to offensive action by Iranian-backed militia in Iraq. So UN does
not matter, right ? The UN Charter was created to stop WWIII. Under Trump, it again became a
real possibility with the USA taking the central the role in creating the conditions for
unleashing it.
Here is an interesting quote from yesterday (Jan 15, 2020) article by Pepe Escobar in Asia
Times (
Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to
2005, cuts to the chase: "America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19
straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the
American Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as
Trump is doing right now, as Esper is doing right now and a host of other members of my
political party, the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal
to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it. And
that's the agony of it."
Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are
working on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from
all forms of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.
For the US, this is indeed an existential battle – against the whole Eurasia
integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those
Russian hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt
against US policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US
dollar. What's certain is that the Empire won't go quietly into the night. We should all be
ready for the battle of the ages.
.P.S. To me it looks that Trump lost all antiwar republicans and independents , as well as a
part of military who voted for him in 2016 (and who now are Tulsi supporters)
The Senate trial, if it materializes, now can become the leverage point to drive a wedge
between moderate Republicans and Trump via his Iran policies.
Pakistan should slip one across the border in a rail car of elephants.
We now shift the focus unto the Impeachment Trial. Shifty Schiff leads the prosecution.
Should be interesting spectator sport. Never be too certain of the outcome. Some are positing
Trump could be removed. Many Republicans are uneasy. The guy is unfit to have the nuclear
codes, displays impaired emotion - schizophrenia. Others, Independent and Republican
turncoats consider Trump embarrassing. Over the last days Trump's Sec. of Defense, Esper
threw him under the bus.
The events of the past twelve days since Trump murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani
prove this beyond any doubt. Impeachment was the leverage point to drive open a wedge
between Republicans and Trump through Iran.
Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the
pantomime, folks. She gets what she wants: Congress asserting more power and the Democrats
shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump.
She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made
known publicly.[.]
The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation.
The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the
decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied
Senate is further proof.
"Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen.
Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment
trial in the Senate, associates said," the newspaper reported.[.]
"That is why Trump's presidency is a blessing for Iran. "
It's real blessing to the entire world, otherwise how else the world would have come to see
the real ugly face of Americans
@Rd | Jan 15 2020 1:01 utc | 98
This is now beyond government and oligarchy , and laws, this is now about a
national/religious demand for revenge, on killing a true national shia muslim hero away from
any political or difference in opinion.
IMO, the demand for revenge can not be even controlled by military and it's leaders, the
order for revenge can even be sanctioned by a relative unknown cleric in a shia village.
@moon | Jan 15 2020 7:52 utc | 136
Thanks, PL banned me over a year ago , for calling US military (yeman) a mercenary force, Now
Trump is proud he sold 3000 US trops to Bone saw for 1 billion.
I also believe that Iranian military has understood for some time now, that US (Military) is
not willing to enter a war with Iran at this time, which makes me believe that a low
intensity, long, covert attritional war across the western Asia will finally make US to
leave. IMO pre announced without casualty attack on AalA US base by Iran Military was to
allow any future covert low intensity attack by Iranian regional allies on US forces as
non-sanctioned or related by Iranian government or military.
Which makes it hard to fight directly.
Journalism PoliticsFurther Followup
On The Soleimani Assassination I wish to point out some matters not getting a lot of
attention in the US media.
An important one of those was reported two days ago by Juan Cole . It is that
apparently it has not been determined for certain that the initial attack that set off this
current round of deaths when a militia in Iraq attacked an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk in
which an American contractor was killed, almost certainly a matter of collateral damage
although not recognized as such, was actually done by Kata'b Hezbollah, the group reported to
have done it. That group was commanded by al-Mushani, who was also assassinated with Soleimani,
with whom he was allied. But it is not certain that they did it. As it is, the Kirkuk base is
dominated by Kurdish Pesh Merga, with whom it is not at all obvious the pro-Iranian militias
like the Kat'b Hezbollah have hostile differences. This may have been cooked up to create an
excuse for assassinating Soleimani.
Indeed, it has now been reported that seven months ago Trump had approved killing Soleimani
essentially at the first instance there would be a good excuse for doing so. In fact it is now
reported that although Trump had not heard of Soleimani during th 2016 election, within five
minutes of his inauguration he suggested killing Soleimani. SecState Pompeo been encouraging
and pushing this action, but it has been something Trump has been hot to do for some time.
Going up for an impeachment trial looks like a really good time.
We have now seen quite a dance around reasons to justify this. We must keep clear that it is
a matter of both US and international law that this sort of killing of a foreign national
official such as General Soleimani is that there be an "imminent threat." I shall not drag
through the various versions of what was supposedly the imminent threat was here, but it has
finally become clear that there was none. And as of today both Pompeo and AG Barr have now
pivoted to saying that it was done for "deterrence," but that leaves this assassination as
illegal, with US troops in Iraq now declared to be"terrorists."
Now indeed the further followup has become quite a mess, although hopefully the escalation
has stopped and war will not happen, despite getting very close to the brink. So Iran made its
strike on two bases with US troops in Iraq. While it initially looked like the Iranians were
going out of their way to avoid killing any Americans, local US commanders now say that it
appears that the strikes were in fact aimed at killing some Americans, and some were in fact
injured. I do not know if this is true or not, but it is disturbing and shows how close we have
gotten to heightened war.
Then we had this disaster of the Iranians themselves shooting down a commercial Ukrainian
airplane (oh, the irony), killing 176 civilians, mostly Iranians, Canadians, and Ukrainians,
plus some others. With the admission by the regime, anti-government demonstrations have broken
out at universities especially in Tehran where many of the Iranians on the plane were from, and
many of the university students heading to Canada. Those demos have gone on for three days
bringing forth a harsh put down from the government, but with news people quitting their jobs
out of disgust. The government has now arrested some supposedly responsible for the erroneous
shootdown under heightened alert status, which would not have come to pass without the illegal
assassination. It is unclear if these arrests will bring an end to the demonstrations, but it
should be kept in mind that these involve much smaller numbers of people than turned out in the
aftermath of Soleimani's assassination.
Underlying this most recent uprising is the fact that Iran is suffering serious econoimic
problems. Much of this is due to the Trump sanctions, but they also reflect entrenched
corruption and spending on foreign adventures, such as support for foreign militias. These are
difficult times, and let us hope that all sides step back and reduce the heightened
tensions.
Barkley
run75441 , January 15, 2020 12:23 pm
Barkley:
Good post and thanks for the follow-up.
Normally when something happens in the Middle East, I head over to Informed Comment to
see what Juan is saying about the situation. You have added information I was not aware
of as I had not been over to Juan Cole's Informed Comment in several days. Also from a
January 11th column of his:
"Lest the Trumpies imply that only Obama de facto allied with Soleimani and his
Iraqi Shiite militias, it should be pointed out that they played an important role in
the defeat of ISIL at Mosul during Trump's presidency. Although they did not fight
their way into the city, they fanned out to the west and north to prevent ISIL
terrorists from escaping to Raqqa in Syria. That was why Kata'ib Hizbullah had a base
at Qa'im, a checkpoint between Iraq and Syria, where they were preventing ISIL agents
from going back and forth. Trump kicked off the current crisis by bombing his allies at
Qa'im, killing some 26 militiamen. And then he droned his sometime ally Soleimani to
death at Baghdad airport as Soleimani was about to begin covert peace talks with Saudi
Arabia."
I must walk back one speculation I made in this post. It is not the case that the base
attacked near Kirkuk held Kurdish Pesh Merga. It indeed houses US and Iraqi national troops
dedicated to fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Four US service people were injured along with two
national Iraqi troops. The US citizwn killed was naturalized and born in Iraq.
It remains possible that it was IAIA/ISIL/Daesh carried out the attack as they are active in
that area. However, most think it was Kata'b Hezbollah, enocuraged and suppliled by
Soleimani.
run75441 , January 15, 2020 8:21 pm
Barkley:
Ok, so you missed some detail. The drone attack on Soleimani and others did not have to
occur. Furthermore, it appears this was planned months earlier and just never carried through.
To me, it is just another Trump distraction away from his impeachment.
Thanks for the shrewd analysis. The problem is that Trump appears to be morphing from
the mad negotiator into someone who really is mad. I think he knows he screwed up with
Soleimani and there's no taking it back, only doubling down . You can't talk your way out
of some mistakes. Trump is shrewd, but not very smart and like most bullies he's also weak.
He gets by being such an obvious bluffer and blowhard but when you start assassinating people
and expect to be praised for it it's no longer a game.
I'd say the solution is to give Trump the heave ho this November and not play his game of me
me me. Indeed the Iranians seem to be biding their time to see what happens.
Trump was always only tolerable as long as he spent his time shooting off his mouth rather
than playing the imperial chess master. This reality show has gone on long enough.
Not sure he "screwed up" with Suleimani. He now has something to point to when Adelson
and the Israel Firsters ring up. He has red meat for his base ("look what a tough guy I
am"). He can tell the Saudis they now owe him one.
He added slightly to the fund of hatred for America in the hearts of Sunnis but that fund is
already pretty full. If they respond with a terror attack Trump wins because people will rally
around the national leader and partisan differences will be put aside. Notice how fast
de-escalation happened, certainly feels alot like pre-orchestrated kayfabe.
Search
Jan 15, 2020
14
TRANSCRIPT: Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly
Editor
Below is a full (translated) transcript of Vladimir Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly on Wednesday the 15th
of January 2020. It is taken from the Kremlin's
official website
,
and presented here for Western audiences who are curious to read it, but aren't likely to be bothered trawling the
Kremlin's website looking for it.
Members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, fellow Russians,
The Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly is delivered at the very beginning of the year for the first
time. We need to address large-scale social, economic and technological tasks facing the country more quickly and
without delay.
Their content and guidelines are reflected in the national projects, whose implementation will require a new
quality of state governance and work on the part of the Government and state bodies at all levels, as well as direct
dialogue with citizens.
Our society is clearly calling for change. People want development, and they strive to move forward in their
careers and knowledge, in achieving prosperity, and they are ready to assume responsibility for specific work. Quite
often, they have better knowledge of what, how and when should be changed where they live and work, that is, in
cities, districts, villages and all across the nation.
The pace of change must be expedited every year and produce tangible results in attaining worthy living standards
that would be clearly perceived by the people. And, I repeat, they must be actively involved in this process.
Colleagues,
Russia's future and historical perspective depend on how many of us there are (I would like to start the main part
of my Address with demography), how many children are born in Russian families in one, five or ten years, on these
children's upbringing, on what kind of people they become and what they will do for the country, as well as on the
values they choose as their mainstay in life.
There are nearly 147 million of us now. But we have entered a difficult, a very difficult demographic period. The
measures we took starting in the mid-2000s have had a positive effect on demography. We have even reached a stage of
natural increase. This is why we have more children at schools now.
However, new families are being created now by the small generation of the 1990s. And the birth rate is falling
again. This is the main problem of the current demographic period in Russia.
The aggregate birth rate, which is the key index showing the number of births per woman, was only 1.5 in 2019,
according to tentative estimates. Is this few or many? It is not enough for our country. It is approximately equal to
the figure reported in many European countries. But it is not enough for Russia.
I can tell you by way of comparison that the figure was 1.3 in 1943, during the Great Patriotic War. It was only
lower in the 1990s: 1.16 in 1999, lower even than during the Great Patriotic War. There were very few families with
two children, and some couples had to put off starting a family.
I want to say once again that we are alarmed by the negative demographic forecasts. It is our historic duty to
respond to this challenge. We must not only get out of this demographic trap but ensure a sustainable natural
population growth by 2025. The aggregate birth rate must be 1.7 in 2024.
Demography is a sector where universal or parochial solutions cannot be effective. Each step we take and each new
law or government programme we adopt must be scrutinised from the viewpoint of our top national priority the
preservation and increase of Russia's population.
As we build a long-term policy to support families, it must be based on specific life situations. We need to look
closely at difficulties faced by new families, families with many children or single-parent families.
The most sensitive and crucial issue is the opportunity to enrol one's child in a day nursery. Earlier, we
allocated funds from the federal budget to help the regions create 255,000 new places in day nurseries by the end of
2021. However, in 2018 to 2019, instead of 90,000, 78,000 new places were created, out of which only 37,500 places
can actually be provided to kids. Other places are unavailable simply because an educational licence is still not
obtained. This means that these nurseries are not ready to enrol children.
Governors, heads of other constituent entities, my dear colleagues, this is not how work is done. Come on! It
means we have created 77,700 places that are still not fully available. Half of them cannot operate and we must
create 177,300 by 2021. I am asking you to do everything (although it will be very difficult now, however, it needs
to be done) to close this gap. Once again, we must work across all areas of family support.
But there is a daunting challenge that directly threatens our demographic future and it is the low income of a
significant part of our citizens and families.
According to various estimates, roughly 70 to 80 percent of low-income families are families with children. You
are well aware of this. It often happens that even when not one but both parents work, the income of such a family is
still very modest.
What decisions have already been made? From January 2020, families with incomes below two subsistence minimums per
person will receive monthly benefits for their first and second child. Moreover, these benefits will be paid until
the child reaches the age of three rather than 18 months as was the case before. The benefit amount will depend on
the subsistence minimum in a specific region. The nationwide average is over 11,000 rubles per child per month. Once
again, this is an average and depends on a specific region.
Additionally, with the support of the federal budget we have started paying benefits for the third child and
subsequent children in 75 constituent entities, now including all regions in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East.
All of this amounts to substantial support. But the following thought has crossed my mind, and I believe that you
also realise this. Parents stop receiving payments when their child turns three, and this means that their family can
immediately face financial problems. To be honest, this is happening already. We must prevent this, especially since
I realise that mothers often find it hard to combine working and caring for their children before they start school.
We know from the experience of our own children and grandchildren that they often fall ill. Their mothers are
therefore unable to work. In this connection, I suggest we introduce monthly payments for children aged between three
and seven starting already from January 1, 2020.
Who will be covered by this measure, and how is it supposed to function?
Families whose incomes do not exceed per-capita subsistence minimum will receive these payments. That is, it
concerns families facing a very difficult situation.
To obtain these payments, they will only have to file an application and list their official legal incomes. I
would like to note that this procedure must become as convenient and simple as possible, so that people would be able
to apply without queuing and clearing hurdles. Or they should do this online on the relevant state website.
As I have already said, incomes may vary from region to region. First stage payments will amount to 5,500 rubles,
or 50 percent of the subsistence minimum. But that is not all. We will have to analyse and assess the operation of
this system. And we will take the next step, if we see that some families are unable to achieve the subsistence
minimum while receiving 5,500 rubles. From 2021, we will pay the subsistence minimum in full, or over 11,000 rubles,
that will vary from region to region. I repeat, the specific sums will vary, but on average it will amount to 11,000
rubles per child per month.
We will need substantial resources for implementing the proposed measure, and we will also have to adjust the
federal budget. I ask the Government and members of the Parliament to do this as quickly as possible. The regions
should also complete their share of regulatory work.
What else should we do equally quickly?
In my Address last year I said that we should expand the system of social contracts. It should become an
individual programme whereby every low-income family will be able to increase their income and enhance their quality
of life. Under these contracts, the state will make regular payments to such families, finance retraining and
advanced training and help them to find employment or start a small business.
While providing comprehensive assistance to low-income people, society and the state have a right to expect them
to take steps as well to deal with their problems, including finding employment and taking a responsible attitude to
their children and other family members.
The regions are already introducing the mechanism of social contracts. But it is not sufficiently effective yet,
and it is not helping much to fight poverty or to increase family incomes.
Therefore, first of all I would like to ask the Government to analyse the experience of the pilot projects and
revise the principles of social contracts. Second, we must increase financial assistance to the regions so that all
of them introduce this mechanism in 2021.
I would like all our colleagues, including the regional heads, to note that we will assess their performance not
by the number of social contracts signed but by poverty decline figures.
Colleagues,
Back in 2006, I said the following in my Address to the Federal Assembly: "And now for the most important matter.
Indeed, what I want to talk about is love." It was then that I proposed launching the maternity capital programme
aimed at helping the families that decided to have their second child.
This programme will expire on December 31, 2021. I know than many people wonder what the state will do after that.
We will extend this programme to December 31, 2026 at the least. We must do this without fail. But this measure only
is no longer enough.
We must support young people who are starting their families and, I am sure, dreaming about having children. In
this sense, I would like to introduce new, additional decisions concerning the maternity capital, which should also
come into effect on January 1, 2020.
Even when the first child is born, the family will have the right to the full amount of the maternity capital,
which is 466,617 rubles after the indexation in January 2020. This is the sum that was paid when the second or the
next child was born. This support will give families a chance to prepare for the birth of their second child.
But I believe that this is still not enough in today's conditions, considering the demographic challenges Russia
is facing. We can and must do even more. I suggest increasing the maternity capital by a further 150,000 rubles.
Families will have the right to this additional money for the maternity capital when their second child is born.
This means that the total amount of the maternity capital for a family with two children will amount to 616,617
rubles. It will be indexed annually in the future.
At the same time I believe that if a family already has a child, we must provide the new, increased maternity
capital when the second child is born, which is, as I have already said, 616,617 rubles.
Let me add that we have already made the decision that when the third child is born, the government pays 450,000
rubles towards the family's mortgage loan. This means that overall a family with three children will be able to
invest over one million rubles to solve their housing problems with the help of the government. In many regions,
cities, and even regional capitals this amounts to almost half of the cost of a house or a flat.
Let me also remind you that a reduced mortgage interest rate, six percent per year, for families with two or more
children has been extended for the entire time of the loan, which resulted in the number of people using this support
measure growing almost 10-fold at once.
A social programme for young families has been launched in the Far East: mortgage loans at 2 percent interest
rate. I ask the banks, and not just the banks with state capital, to become more actively involved in its
implementation.
And here is another highly important matter. I have already mentioned a new payment for children aged between
three and seven. But this is not all that we can and must do. Yes, when children start attending school, their
parents, especially mothers, get more opportunities to work and earn an additional income. However, families have to
pay more in order to send their children to school, they face extra problems, and we have to support them at that
stage. In this connection, I suggest providing free hot meals to all primary school students from grade one through
four.
I will not conceal the fact that we have had heated discussions on this subject. On the whole, some colleagues do
not object, but they say that it would not be very fair that people with decent incomes and low incomes should
receive the same amount of support from the state. They are not saying this because they do not want to support the
children. Indeed, this argument has its own logic. But there is another logic that prevails in our society: everyone
must have equal opportunities, and children and their parents who are often demeaned by the current situation must
not think that they are even unable to feed their children.
I believe that this is very important for our society. Yes, they tell me that these benefits were not available
even during the Soviet period, when there was large-scale social support for the people. But there was no great
social stratification at that time either. I believe that this measure will be justified.
In order to provide free hot and, most importantly, healthy meals, I suggest channelling funding from three
sources: the federal, regional and local budgets. But money is not the only thing that matters. We need to create the
required infrastructure at schools, set up cafeterias and lunchrooms and put in place a system for supplying
high-quality food. I would like to note that this was not done even during Soviet times, as I have already said.
This, of course, will require time. But free hot meals must be provided starting from September 1, 2020 in those
regions and schools that have the required level of technical equipment. I ask our colleagues to expedite this work.
Primary school students must start receiving high-quality hot meals free of charge in all regions from September 1,
2023.
So colleagues, here is the point I want to make, in short. I would like to emphasise all the steps we are taking
are aimed at creating a streamlined, large-scale and, most importantly, an effectively working family support
programme, so that people's incomes, especially for those raising children, are high enough for a decent life.
Secondly, what I said at the beginning of the Address: the steps that we took in previous years in the field of
demographic development have already brought results. They have yielded results back then: a large generation is
growing up in Russia. I am referring to children who are in preschool and primary school now. It is very important
that they adopt the true values of a large family that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and
fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by respect for the elderly and care for
children, giving everyone a sense of confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this
situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we
will be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and successful country.
Colleagues,
Supporting families and family values is always a forward-looking strategy addressing the generations that are
to live in an age of tremendous technological and social changes, and something that will determine Russia's fate in
the 21st century. So, to have these new generations participate in creating this future even now, to have them fully
reveal their potential, we must create the necessary conditions for them, primarily for every child in every region
of Russia to get a good education.
In the middle of the coming decade, Russia will have about 19 million schoolchildren, which is 6 million more than
in 2010. Some say it is too difficult to influence objective demographic processes, so it is unadvisable to channel
large resources for demographic development. However, in reality, we can see direct evidence of the opposite: family
support policies are working, and sometimes their results even exceed our wildest expectations. It is great that
there are so many children in our schools again. On the other hand, this situation should not affect the comfort and
quality of their learning.
I ask the Government to coordinate with the regions, consider the demographic and other factors, estimate how many
more children the schools need to serve, and make the necessary changes to the Education National Project. That will
require flexible solutions: not only to build more schools, but also to efficiently use the entire educational and
other infrastructure we have for these purposes, as well as the benefits of modern technology for education.
Almost all schools in Russia have internet access now. In 2021, they should no longer just be connected, but have
high-speed internet access to fully embrace the digital transformation in national education; teachers and students
should have access to advanced educational programmes; individual approach to teaching should be practiced to reveal
each child's talents.
Our network of extracurricular technology and engineering centres is developing dynamically. Our children should
also benefit from a modern environment for practicing music, art, and other forms of creativity.
Russia is allocating more than 8 billion rubles for equipment and musical instruments for children's art schools
as part of the Culture National Project. But the problem is much wider. More than 1,000 art school premises are
dilapidated and not fit for use as intended. I would like to ask the Government to help the regions improve them. And
I ask the regional authorities not to forget that this is their responsibility.
Furthermore, a modern school implies forward-looking teaching staff enjoying high social status and prestige. By
the middle of the next decade, the national professional advancement system should canvas at least half of the
country's teachers, in the future including additional professional training, along with general education workers.
Class teachers are closest to their pupils. Their ongoing daily work including mentoring children and teaching
them the right ways is a huge responsibility, and definitely requires special training and special support for these
mentors. In this regard, I consider it necessary to introduce, from September 1, at least 5,000 rubles in additional
payment to them financed from the federal budget.
There is a lot of controversy about this decision, because this is actually the responsibility of the regions.
Those present in this room are well aware of this. But what is a class teacher? A mentor and supervisor, and those
are federal functions.
But, of course, I would like to point this out: all current regional payments to class teachers should continue,
colleagues; I am calling your attention to this. And I will definitely look at what will be happening in practice, in
real life.
I pointed out more than once that the pay parameters for teachers, doctors and other public sector employees set
out in the May 2012 Executive Orders must be strictly complied with. There is a reason why I keep returning to this
subject. If we slacken control of this matter, this will create the temptation to neglect these provisions, as many
of those present here know. This must not be allowed. I would like to emphasise that the issue concerns professionals
working in the spheres of vital significance for society and the country, and they must receive good and fair pay for
their work.
The number of school graduates will be increasing in the next few years. In light of this, we must ensure equal
and fair access to free intramural university education. Therefore, I suggest that the number of university
scholarships be increased every year. Moreover what I am going to say next is very important, the priority in this
matter must be given to regional universities, especially the regions that are lacking doctors, teachers and
engineers.
Of course, we must not simply enrol more students but boost the development of regional universities with support
from businesses and employers. In particular, we must strengthen their training, research and social infrastructure,
as well as improve the system of training and advanced training of teachers for regional universities so that
students receive up-to-date knowledge and can have successful careers in their regions.
The employment market is changing rapidly, with new professions appearing and higher requirements made to the
existing ones. Our universities must be able to respond to these changes flexibly and quickly. I believe that
third-year students must be offered an opportunity to choose a new path or curriculum, including related professions.
This is not easy to do, but we must indeed do this. To ensure that talented and decent people play a major or leading
role in our national development, we have launched the Russia Land of Opportunity project. Over 3.5 million people
have taken part in its competitions and Olympiads. We will continue to improve this system.
Colleagues,
Last year life expectancy in Russia exceeded 73 years for the first time, which is eight years longer than in
2000. This is the result of social and economic changes in Russia, the development of mass sports and promotion of
healthy lifestyles. And, of course, the entire healthcare system made a significant contribution, especially the
programmes of specialised, including high-tech aid, as well as maternity and childhood welfare and protection of
health of mother and child.
The rate of infant mortality has reached a historic low. This indicator is even better than in some European
countries. I am well aware that the public in many developed countries is very critical of the state of their
national healthcare system, and you also know this. In fact, almost everywhere no, everywhere people criticise
their healthcare system, however well organised it looks from here.
Still our achievements in this area show that if we set certain goals, we can achieve results. However, let me
repeat this, people do not judge the healthcare system by figures and indicators. A person who has to travel dozens
of kilometres to a polyclinic or spend a whole day waiting in line for an appointment with a specialist is not very
interested in how life expectancy has grown on the average. People think about their lives, their health, about how
to get high-quality and timely medical aid without obstacles and when they need it. This is why now we must focus our
efforts on primary care, which all people and all families have to deal with. This is where we have the worst and
most sensitive problems.
This year we are to fully complete the creation of a network of rural paramedic centres, as stipulated in the
related national project. This does not mean, however, that all the problems of these rural paramedic centres have
been settled. I would like to point out that the mission of these centres is not to make out prescriptions or refer
patients to regional medical centres. Local specialists must be able to really help people by using modern equipment
and high-speed internet. I would like to ask the Russian Popular Front to monitor the provision of equipment,
construction and repair of rural paramedic centres.
On July 1 we will also launch a programme to modernise the system of primary healthcare. We will have to repair
and provide new equipment to outpatient clinics, rural hospitals and first-aid stations in all our regions. We have
allocated an additional 550 billion rubles for this purpose, more than 90 percent of which will come from the federal
budget.
At the same time, I ask the regional authorities to find additional funds for providing housing to doctors and
paramedics, in particular in villages, settlements and small towns, and to use all the available instruments towards
this end, including employer-rented housing and private housing projects.
Training and recruitment are key elements of medical education. By 2024, all levels of healthcare, but first of
all the primary healthcare level, must have the necessary number of specialists. In this connection, I suggest that
the admission procedure to medical universities be changed significantly. For example, 70 percent of scholarships in
the field of general medicine and 75 percent in paediatrics will be awarded to prospective students who will return
to their native regions upon graduation. The quotas will be distributed based on requests filed by the regions, which
must subsequently provide employment to the graduates who must be able to work where people need their services.
As for residency training, I suggest that almost 100 percent of scholarships be given to medical graduates in
critically important spheres. Priority during enrolment will be given to those with practical experience in the field
of primary healthcare, especially in rural areas. This system should be also stipulated for federal medical centres.
And lastly, just as we agreed, a new system of remuneration will be gradually introduced in healthcare starting
this year. It is based on clear, fair and understandable rules, with a fixed share of salary in the overall income
and a uniform list of compensation payments and commercial incentives for all regions.
I am aware that the implementation of all these goals requires extensive resources. If you go back to where I
started, every goal needs a great deal of money. In this regard, I ask the Government to once again consider
identifying priorities for our development while retaining the budget's stability. This is an advantage we have
achieved in the past few years, and we must maintain it.
I know that last year a number of regions saw a disruption in medication supplies as the regions' purchases were
not made, with certain officials treating it as if it were some sort of office supplies purchases claiming it was not
a big deal and new tenders would be announced. But people were left without essential and vitally important
medications. I should point out that such cases must never happen again.
This year, efforts will be made to launch an integrated comprehensive register of recipients of medications that
are provided to citizens free of charge or with a considerable discount through a federal or regional subsidy to
avoid any confusion in this regard in the future.
Also, certain legislative decisions have already been adopted that will allow for official and centralised imports
of certain medications to Russia that are yet to receive regulatory approval. I ask the Government to promptly
organise this work so that people, particularly the parents of sick children, do not find themselves in a desperate
situation when they cannot legally find the necessary medications.
Control over pharmaceutical drugs will also significantly change. It will be tightened both at pharmaceutical
companies and during all stages of medication circulation, including at pharmacy networks.
Colleagues,
In recent years, we have focused on strengthening macroeconomic sustainability, and it is something I just
mentioned. The federal budget has had a surplus again. Our government reserves confidently cover our gross external
debt. And here I am not talking about some abstract or theoretical indicators I would like to emphasise that these
figures are directly influencing the life of each and every person in our country, and have to do with the fulfilment
of our social commitments. We can see the problems, even shocks that citizens of other states face, where government
had no such cash cushion and their financial position turned out to be unstable.
The consistent work of the Government and the Bank of Russia has led to a stabilisation of prices. Last year,
inflation stood at 3 percent, which is below the target level of 4 percent. True, the prices of certain goods and
services have risen slightly, but overall, I repeat, inflation is at a predictably low level. The situation
fundamentally differs from what it was five or ten years ago, when double-digit inflation was a tax on all citizens
of the country, being an especially hard burden for those on a fixed salary or pension retired people and workers
in the public sector.
Now, relying on a stable macroeconomic foundation, we need to create conditions for a substantial increase in
people's real incomes. Again, this is the most important responsibility of the Government and the Central Bank. To
meet it, the national economy needs structural changes and higher efficiency. In 2021, Russia's GDP growth rates
should be higher than the global ones.
To have this kind of dynamics, it is necessary to launch a new investment cycle, to seriously increase investment
in the creation and upgrading of jobs, in infrastructure, in the development of industry, agriculture and the
services sector. Starting this year, annual investment growth should be at least 5 percent, and investment share in
the country's GDP, 25 percent by 2024 from the current 21 percent.
What needs to be done to encourage investment?
First of all, we agreed not to change the tax treatment for businesses over a period of the next six years and
thus provide a wider horizon for investment planning. The deputies and the Government should speed up the adoption of
a package of draft laws on protecting and promoting investment. As you are well aware, tax treatment for major
important projects should remain unchanged for up to 20 years, and the requirements and standards for building
production sites should remain the same for three years. These investor guarantees should become standard law.
Of course, in addition to major projects, small- and medium-sized businesses' initiatives should be supported as
well. Today, the regions are entitled to provide an investment-based tax deduction and a three-year revenue tax
break, but they rarely use them. It is clear why: they do so because regional budgets thus lose revenue. In this
regard, we would like federal funds to compensate the regions for two-thirds of the lost revenue stemming from the
use of an investment-related tax deduction.
Second, the reform of the oversight and supervisory activities must be completed in 2020, and businesses should
thus see improvements in their operating environment.
Third, I have already submitted to the State Duma the amendments to remove vague criminal law provisions in part
related to so-called frauds. Thus, entrepreneurs have repeatedly mentioned Article 210 of the Criminal Code, under
which any company whose senior executives violated the law could qualify as an organised criminal group, meaning that
almost all of its employees were liable. Tougher restrictive measures and punishment were put in place. Law
enforcement agencies will henceforth be required to prove that an organisation or a company was initially
deliberately created with an illegal purpose in mind.
Fourth. It is estimated that as soon as this summer the foreign currency reserves of the National Welfare Fund
will pass the mark of 7 percent of GDP. We have accumulated these reserves to guarantee our stability and security,
which means we can invest our additional revenue in development and the national economy.
Cost-effective projects that remove infrastructure restrictions for our territories must become our priority. This
includes bypass roads for big cities, arterial roads between regional capitals and exit roads to federal motorways.
These projects will inevitably bring about the growth of small businesses, tourism and social activity in the regions
and locally.
Fifth. For investment to grow steadily, our economy needs long-term money. We all know this very well. This is a
direct responsibility of the Central Bank. I appreciate its consistent course for making loans for the real sector of
economy more accessible.
Of course, businesses, companies (especially large ones) must remember about their social and environmental
responsibility. I would like to thank our parliament members for demonstrating integrity during their work on the
emission quota law.
Obviously, it is necessary to act upon our plans faster. Our next steps include testing and implementing the air
quality monitoring system and subsequently expanding this control system to cover the entire country. It is necessary
to monitor not only the condition of air but also water and soil that is, to develop a comprehensive environmental
monitoring system.
Next. By the end of this year, at least 80 out of the 300 largest industrial facilities must complete the
transition to best available technology and obtain complex environmental permits, which means a consistent reduction
of hazardous emissions. Sixteen permits have been issued as of now but overall this work is on schedule. No matter
what, we must not allow any disruptions here. It is necessary to drastically cut the amount of waste ending up in
landfills, implement waste sorting and generally move towards the circular economy. By 2021, we must already launch
the mechanism of extended producer responsibility when producers and importers of goods and packaging are responsible
for recycling costs. To put it simply, contaminators must pay.
Colleagues,
I would like to stress that Russia is ready to support Russian and foreign scientists' joint research on ecology,
climate change, environmental and ocean pollution. These are global development challenges shared by everyone.
Today the speed of technological change in the world is increasing manifold, and we must create our own
technologies and standards in areas that define our future, such as, first of all, artificial intelligence, genetics,
new materials, energy sources and digital technology. I am confident that we can reach a breakthrough here, as we did
in defence. I will speak about this later.
In order to solve difficult technological tasks, we will continue to develop research infrastructure, including
megascience-class facilities. I am sure that an opportunity to work with unique equipment and tackle the most
ambitious tasks will encourage talented young people to work in science. This is already happening. According to
estimates, by the middle of the decade every second scientist in Russia will be under 40.
We should give researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs the freedom they need to do their work and to conduct
innovative scientific research. I ask the Government and State Duma deputies to fast-track the discussion of the
technological legislative package. This year we must launch a flexible mechanism of experimental legal modes to
design and introduce new technologies in Russia and establish up-to-date regulation of the big data turnover.
Next, we should establish a mechanism of social support for direct and venture finance tools based on the best
global practices. The technological entrepreneur should have the right to take a risk, so that failing to implement
an idea will not automatically mean inappropriate use of funds and a possible criminal prosecution. I mean that we
should establish such legal and financial conditions that as many start-ups and pioneer teams as possible could
become strong and successful innovative companies.
We need to support the export of high-tech products and, of course, to boost domestic demand for innovative
products. In this context, I believe it would be right to fast-track the digital transformation of the real economy.
A requirement should be set that national projects are largely carried out using domestic software.
We have already put in place, say, major digital television infrastructure, which, in terms of its technical
characteristics, is one of the most advanced in the world. Currently, the digital television coverage in Russia is
more expanded than, for example, in France, Austria or Switzerland.
The internet has become a must-have for people today. Russia is one of few countries in the world which has its
own social networks, messengers, e-mail and search engines and other national resources.
Given all the things I've just mentioned, I suggest that the Affordable Internet project be developed and carried
out and that free access to socially important domestic internet services be available across Russia. I repeat that
in this case people will not have to pay for the internet service, for internet traffic.
Colleagues,
The high availability of the internet should become Russia's and our citizens' competitive advantage and create,
across the board, an environment conducive to education, creative work, communications and the implementation of
social and cultural projects. Of course, this means new opportunities for people to get involved in the life of the
country. We appreciate every creative initiative of our citizens, public associations, non-profit organisations, as
well as their willingness to contribute to national development.
It is very important that the volunteer movement is becoming more popular, and it unites schoolchildren,
university students, and people of different generations and ages. The Victory Volunteers project embodies the
tradition of mutual assistance and respect for older generations and our history.
This year, we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. For Russia, May 9 is the
greatest and sacred holiday. We are proud of the generation of victors and honour their feat, and our memory is not
only a tribute to our heroic past, but it also serves our future, inspires us and strengthens our unity.
It is our duty to defend the truth about the Victory; otherwise what shall we say to our children if a lie, like a
disease, spreads all over the world? We must set facts against outrageous lies and attempts to distort history.
Russia will create the largest and most complete set of archival documents, film and photo materials on the Second
World War, accessible both for our citizens and for the whole world. This work is our duty as a winning country and
our responsibility to the future generations.
Colleagues,
We can see how unpredictably, uncontrollably events are developing in the world, what is happening in the Middle
East and North Africa literally in recent weeks and recent days, how regional conflicts can rapidly grow into threats
to the entire international community.
I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable
world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom and
courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions.
The founding countries of the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that bear a
special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development of humankind. These five nations should first
of all start with measures to remove the prerequisites for a global war and develop updated approaches to ensuring
stability on the planet that would fully take into account the political, economic and military aspects of modern
international relations.
Russia is ready to enhance cooperation with all interested parties. We are not threatening anyone or seeking to
impose our will on anyone. At the same time, I can assure everyone that our efforts to strengthen national security
were made in a timely manner and in sufficient volume. For the first time ever I want to emphasise this for the
first time in the history of nuclear missile weapons, including the Soviet period and modern times, we are not
catching up with anyone, but, on the contrary, other leading states have yet to create the weapons that Russia
already possesses.
The country's defence capability is ensured for decades to come, but we cannot rest on our laurels and do nothing.
We must keep moving forward, carefully observing and analysing the developments in this area across the world, and
create next-generation combat systems and complexes. This is what we are doing today.
Reliable security creates the basis for Russia's progressive and peaceful development and allows us to do much
more to overcome the most pressing internal challenges, to focus on the economic and social growth of all our regions
in the interest of the people, because Russia's greatness is inseparable from dignified life of its every citizen. I
see this harmony of a strong power and well-being of the people as a foundation of our future.
Colleagues,
We can move towards this goal only with the active participation of society, our citizens and, of course, intense
and productive work of all branches and levels of government, the potential of which should be expanded.
In this regard, I would like to spend a moment discussing state structure and domestic policy, which are defined
by the Fundamental Law of our country the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I keep getting these questions
all the time, including at the most recent annual news conference.
Clearly, we cannot but agree with those who say that the Constitution was adopted over 25 years ago amidst a
severe internal political crisis and the state of affairs has completely overturned since then. Thank goodness, there
is no more armed confrontation in the capital or a hotbed of international terrorism in the North Caucasus.
Despite a number of acute unsolved problems that we talked about today, the socioeconomic situation has
stabilised, after all. Today some political public associations are raising the issue of adopting a new Constitution.
I want to answer straight off: I believe there is no need for this. Potential of the 1993 Constitution is far from
being exhausted and I hope that pillars of our constitutional system, rights and freedoms will remain the foundation
of strong values for the Russian society for decades to come.
In the meantime, statements regarding changes to the Constitution have already been made. And I find it possible
to express my view and propose a number of constitutional amendments for discussion, amendments that, in my opinion,
are reasonable and important for the further development of Russia as a rule-of-law welfare state where citizens'
freedoms and rights, human dignity and wellbeing constitute the highest value.
Firstly, Russia can be and can remain Russia only as a sovereign state. Our nation's sovereignty must be
unconditional. We have done a great deal to achieve this. We restored our state's unity. We have overcome the
situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans. Russia has returned to
international politics as a country whose opinion cannot be ignored.
We created powerful reserves, which multiplies our country's stability and capability to protect its citizens'
social rights and the national economy from any attempts of foreign pressure.
I truly believe that it is time to introduce certain changes to our country's main law, changes that will directly
guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in our legal framework.
What does it mean? It means literally the following: requirements of international law and treaties as well as
decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict
the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution.
Second, I suggest formalising at the constitutional level the obligatory requirements for those who hold positions
of critical significance for national security and sovereignty. More precisely, the heads of the constituent
entities, members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, the prime minister and his/her deputies, federal
ministers, heads of federal agencies and judges should have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other
document that allows them to live permanently in a foreign state.
The goal and mission of state service is to serve the people, and those who enter this path must know that by
doing this they inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and
allowances.
Requirements must be even stricter for presidential candidates. I suggest formalising a requirement under which
presidential candidates must have had permanent residence in Russia for at least 25 years and no foreign citizenship
or residence permit and not only during the election campaign but at any time before it too.
I know that people are discussing the constitutional provision under which one person cannot hold the post of the
President of the Russian Federation for two successive terms. I do not regard this as a matter of principle, but I
nevertheless support and share this view.
I have already said before that our goal is to ensure high living standards and equal opportunities for all
throughout the country. It is towards this goal that our national projects and development plans are aimed.
At the same time, you know about the problems to do with education, healthcare and other fields created by a
divide between the federal and municipal authorities I have pointed this out more than once. This divide and, at
the same time, the complex system of powers are having a negative effect above all on the people.
The rights, opportunities and guarantees, that are legally equal for all citizens, are not provided equally in
different regions and municipalities. This is unfair to people and is directly threatening our society and national
integrity.
I believe that the Constitution must seal the principles of a unified system of public authority and effective
interaction between the federal and municipal authorities. At the same time, the powers and practical opportunities
of the local governments, a body of authority that is closest to the people, can and should be expanded and
strengthened.
And lastly, the state must honour its social responsibility under any conditions throughout the country.
Therefore, I believe that the Constitution should include a provision that the minimum wage in Russia must not be
below the subsistence minimum of the economically active people. We have a law on this, but we should formalise this
requirement in the Constitution along with the principles of decent pensions, which implies a regular adjustment of
pensions according to inflation.
Fourth, Russia is a huge country, and every region has its specifics, problems and experience. Of course, this
must be taken into account. I believe it is necessary to cardinally increase the role of governors in decision-making
at the federal level. As you know, back in 2000 the State Council was restored at my initiative, where the heads of
all regions participate. Over the past period the State Council has proven its high effectiveness; its working groups
provide for the professional, comprehensive and qualified examination of issues that are most important for people
and Russia. I believe it would be appropriate to fix the status and role of the State Council in the Russian
Constitution.
Fifth, Russian society is becoming more mature, responsible and demanding. Despite the differences in the ways to
address their tasks, the main political forces speak from the position of patriotism and reflect the interests of
their followers and voters.
At the same time, almost all the parties represented in the State Duma and you know that I have regular meetings
with their leaders believe that the Federal Assembly is ready to take more responsibility for forming the
Government. (Applause.) I expected this round of applause, but I think you will have another opportunity for applause
now; please listen until the end.
More responsibility for forming the Government means more responsibility for the Government's policy. I completely
agree with this position.
What is the situation like now? In accordance with articles 111 and 112 of the Russian Constitution, the President
only receives the consent of the State Duma to appoint the Prime Minister, and then appoints the head of the Cabinet,
his deputies and all the ministers. I suggest changing the procedure and allowing the State Duma to appoint the Prime
Minister of the Russian Federation, and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the Prime Minister's
recommendation. At the same time the President will have to appoint them, so he will have no right to turn down the
candidates approved by the Parliament. (Applause.)
All of this means drastic changes to the political system. However, let me repeat, considering the maturity of our
main political organisations and parties as well as the reputation of civil society, I believe these proposals are
justified. This will increase the role and importance of the State Duma and parliamentary parties as well as the
independence and responsibility of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members and make cooperation between the
representative and executive branches of government more effective and substantive.
Colleagues,
I would like to emphasise that our country, with its vast territory, complex federal and administrative division
and diverse cultural and historical traditions, cannot properly advance and even exist sustainably as a parliamentary
republic.
Russia must remain a strong presidential republic. The president must undoubtedly retain the right to determine
the Government's tasks and priorities, as well as the right to dismiss the prime minister, his deputies and federal
ministers in case of improper execution of duties or due to loss of trust. The president also exercises direct
command over the Armed Forces and the entire law enforcement system. In this regard, I believe another step is
necessary to provide a greater balance between the branches of power.
In this connection, point six: I propose that the president should appoint heads of all security agencies
following consultations with the Federation Council. I believe this approach will make the work of security and law
enforcement agencies more transparent and accountable to citizens.
The principle of appointment following consultations can be applied to regional prosecutors as well. Currently
they are appointed in coordination with regional legislative assemblies. Colleagues, this may lead to certain,
including informal, obligations towards local authorities and ultimately to the risk of losing objectivity and
impartiality.
As to the territories' position regarding a prosecutor candidacy in the constituent entities of the Federation, it
can be considered during consultations in the Federation Council, which is in fact the chamber of the regions. We
cannot have different local legislative systems in different regions; the prosecutor is a supreme authority who
exercises control over the execution of laws irrespectively of any regional circumstances.
I am confident that a greater independence of prosecution agencies from local authorities would be beneficial for
citizens regardless of the region. Colleagues, let us always be governed by the interests of our people.
And my seventh and final point: the judicial system the Constitutional and Supreme courts plays a key role in
ensuring legality and citizens' rights. I would like to emphasise, along with judges' professionalism, their
credibility should be unconditional as well. Being fair and having a moral right to make decisions that affect
people's lives have always been considered of paramount importance in Russia. The country's fundamental law should
enshrine and protect the independence of judges, and their subordination only to the Constitution and federal law.
At the same time, I consider it necessary to stipulate in the Constitution the Federation Council's authority to
dismiss, on the proposal from the President, Constitutional and Supreme Court judges in the event of misconduct that
defames a judge's honour and dignity, as well as in other cases provided for by federal constitutional law, that make
it impossible for a person to maintain the status of a judge. This proposal is derived from the established practice.
This is something Russia definitely needs today.
Furthermore, to improve the quality of domestic legislation, to reliably protect citizens' interests, I propose
strengthening the role of the Constitutional Court, namely: to verify, at the President's request, the
constitutionality of draft laws adopted by the Federal Assembly before they are signed by the head of state. We might
also think about extending the powers of the Constitutional Court to evaluate not only laws, but also other
regulatory legal acts adopted by various authorities at the federal and regional levels for compliance with the
Constitution.
Colleagues,
Again, the proposals made today, by no means limit the discussion around possible amendments to the Constitution.
I am sure that public associations, parties, regions, the legal community, and Russian citizens will express their
ideas. The broadest public discussion is needed. But, opening this discussion, I would like to give it a start in a
certain direction, or at least to show what challenges we are facing.
Please, do not forget what happened to our country after 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we still
had the same ambitions and of course have preserved the colossal potential the human, intellectual, resource,
territorial, cultural and historical potential, and so on. But there were also threats, dangers of a magnitude no one
could have imagined ever before. And that was a pity, as they should have thought about it in due time.
Therefore in our further state building efforts, we are facing seemingly contradictory tasks that serve as a
guideline for values and may appear incompatible at first sight. What am I referring to? We must create a solid,
reliable and invulnerable system that will be absolutely stable in terms of the external contour and will securely
guarantee Russia's independence and sovereignty. At the same time, this system must be organic, flexible and capable
of changing quickly in line with what is happening around us, and most importantly, in response to the development of
Russian society. This system must ensure the rotation of those who are in power or occupy high positions in other
areas. This renewal is indispensable for the progressive evolution of society and stable development that may not be
infallible but ensures that the most important thing Russia's interests remains immutable.
What else do I consider important and would like to emphasise? The amendments that we will discuss do not concern
the foundations of the Constitution and, hence, can be approved by Parliament in line with the existing procedure and
law through the adoption of relevant constitutional laws.
At the same time, considering that the proposed amendments concern substantial changes in the political system and
the work of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, I believe it necessary to hold a vote of Russian
citizens on the entire package of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The final
decision must be made only on the basis of its results.
The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source of power must be decisive.
In the final analysis everything is decided by the people, both today and in the future. I am referring to both the
choice of national development strategy and daily issues in each region, city or village. We will be able to build a
strong, prosperous and modern Russia only on the basis of unconditional respect for the opinions of the people, the
opinions of the nation.
The current year of 2020 is a landmark in many respects. It is a transition to the third decade of the 21st
century. Russia is faced with breakthrough historical tasks and everyone's contribution is important for resolving
them. Working together we are bound to change our lives for the better. I often mention the word "together" because
Russia means all of us. I am referring not to the people present in this hall or rather not only to the people
present in this hall but all citizens of this country because I believe that success is determined by our will for
creation and development, for the implementation of the most ambitious plans, our labour for the sake of our families
and loved ones, our children and their future, and hence, for the sake of Russia's greatness and the dignity of its
citizens.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
Stephen Morrell
,
Putin clearly is the most informed and visionary bourgeois politician in the world today, by a country
mile. He not only is attempting to address the very real real social, demographic and economic needs
of Russia, in his usual comprehensive manner, but also and cannily is co-opting many of the
expectations that the USSR used to fulfil, attempting to neutralise any socialist political sentiments
in the Russian population. Putin is the Bismarck of Russia.
richard le sarc
,
Russia's economic situation, within the global capitalist system, with its large reserves, much in
gold, no exposure to the toilet paper of US Treasuries, and substantial local self-sufficiency in
agriculture (thank-you sanctions)means that when the Western debt Ponzi Himalaya implodes, the
Russians will be pretty much immune to the consequences.
BigB
,
Fantastic set of propositions: of which there is nothing comparable that I know of in the West.
The problem is that I strongly suspect that no one can see the problem?
Our minds have become so dematerialised, idealised, and ecologically sanitised that I doubt anyone
will agree? There are two things we cannot do going forward in the 21st century exponentially grow
the economy and/or exponentially grow the population. We have to degrow both as compassionately and
quickly as possible. We have too many people to sustain with depleting fossil fuels. We could sustain
them agroecologically without: but we are not doing that. They may not be in the right places: but if
Russia and China both try to correct demographic problems by increasing population the knock on
effect is poverty and misery elsewhere.
As for material throughput: Russia's is quite large. In fact, they are the fourth primary energy
consumer on the planet. With a pathetic renewables penetration of 3.6% of which only 1% is wind and
solar. So good luck with decarbonisation and emissions targets. Which means only one thing: increased
GDP is a function of increased hydrocarbon extraction and pollution. Russia faces another problem: its
barely cured Dutch Disease a still high correlation of GDP to fossil fuel trading. An exogenous shock
to the energy market will hit Russia badly as it did in 2008. They have diversified since then, only
not enough.
With other countries set to decarbonise (barely disguised laughter) the overall market for fossil
fuels will theoretically decrease which will hit the producers badly. And then there is the
depression of global markets and the already extant oil glut. Good plan and beautiful state socialist
sentiment only, has anyone got a spare planet?
Increasing hydrocarbon consumption plus all the other material resources allied to an industrial
high-speed capitalist economy is another fossil relict. That is, if the ecological rationale is to
survive. Growth is not an option. And population growth is irresponsible. What seems like a good state
socialist plan falls apart ecologically. Of course, Russia is not isolated the entire developed
world wants to develop more 'sustainably'. Which is a form of insanity from a planetary perspective
which too few have.
Consider, all those socialised benefits are equally viable if delinked from exponential GDP growth
and thus delinked from exponential fossil fuel consumption. The best parts of socialisation are
essentially free including the fucking for Mother Russia! Degrowth, decentralisation, decarbonisation
do not mean less socialisation. They are totally dependent on holistic socialisation and cooperative
social relations. Which are potentially permanent and truly sustainable with a just transition away
from capitalism.
Why grow when it makes you vulnerable to exogenous market shocks? Russia has the resources to be
quasi-self-sufficient internal to its own borders. There is no need to trade fossil fuels and prospect
for more. We have too much carbon as it is: of which most should remain in the ground as 'unburnable
carbon'. And there is definitely no need to make deals with despots and dictators like el-Sisi,
Kagame, Museveni who have murdered conservatively 12 million souls for corporate profit. Who now get
their arms from Russia and their troops trained for free. And I could add Netanyahu and Erdogan,
despots and murderers in their own right.
It has to start somewhere. Some group of people have to break ecological extinction's stranglehold
and demand less. To transition monetised social relations to actual real social relations
independent of exponential fossil fuel extractivism, exponential market expansion, exponential GDP
expansion, exponential population expansion (when the correct demographic is reached: will the
population debreed?). It's a progressive plan: for the wrong planet at the wrong time.
But we will continue to grow not degrow both global economies and populations (with regional
variations). Until we can't. When all those contingent and precarious market state socialisms will
disappear. When we may live to rue the day we made our plans for social integration market and fossil
fuel contingencies. We could have had it all if we were more savvy. If only everyone could see how.
Hugh O'Neill
,
Whilst I understand the gist of your argument (and you could not make it any more understandable,
so please don't try) I still hold that the world is a better place because of Putin. With any other
leader, the world would have been rendered uninhabitable by the Pentagon crazies. Russia has acted
as the essential check on their warped ambitions to rule the Earth. The biggest threat to the
planet is the US Military for the amount of oil they burn, the toxins they produce in their
chemical warfare, their attempted theft of Ukraine for industrial farming, and their never-ending
wars. Imagine if all the monies wasted on wars had gone to peaceful ends and proper support for
renewable energy.
On the question of GDP, I would refer only to the speech by Robert Kennedy, in which he totally
destroys the whole sordid concept of GDP as being a worthwhile measure of anything.
BigB
,
The world will be rendered uninhabitable by Russian extractivism, ecological expropriation, and
human exploitation. Because Russian extractivism is not isolated: the entire globalist system is
extractivist. Which is why ecologists use 'dynamic systems theory' to conceive of the emergent
planetary 'super-organism' or 'fossil fuel amoeba'. When we isolate a bounded portion of the
global extinction system; compare it with other isolated portions, and give it a human face we
are invisibilising the ecological roots and genesis of capitalism's 'wealth' oil and the
exponential depletion of resources.
So what do we do when the life-ground of the planet no
longer supports life? Celebrate the unequal distribution of rubles, pounds, yuan, and dollars?
Or wish we had come to find a greater source of wealth in who we really are, when we are not
destroying the planet and extracting surplus value from others less fortunate?
We live in a strange world when we cannot imagine life without capitalism and look beyond to
see that the real source of wealth is humanity itself in its completeness. A completeness we
will never know because of extractivism, ecological unequal exchange, and our own abdication of
our self-alienated powers that make capitalism the taken-for-granted vehicle of extinctionism.
If there is to be life after capitalism and on the planetary scale there will be, though *homo
economicus* is technologically fast bent on curtailing its species viability some provision
for systems transition has to be made now. The techno-dream bubble we can grow our way to
humanism is about to burst then what?
richard le sarc
,
I agree entirely, but Putin has no alternative. Any chink in his armour and the USA will destroy
Russia and break it up into fragments as they did in Yugoslavia, the USSR and wish to do in China.
I rather think that Putin knows full well how dire is the global ecological situation, but he needs
to balance less enlightened forces at home, and the 'Atlanticist' Quislings.
BigB
,
I don't disagree either: but that is not my point. The Atlanticists are waiting in the wings for
another four years. Last time I checked: they still command 80% of Russian private property. And
were expropriating $25bn pa annum in capital flight which has slowed slightly in the last few
years. I read the Saker too. There is a deadlock and uneasy power sharing arrangement
internally. But you may have missed the time when the Saker admitted "Putin is a neoliberal"?
It may be difficult to disentangle our vision from the neoliberal-statist-market ontology we are
being repressed by but that is what we must do. We cannot expect neoliberal capitalist social
inclusivity to save us from ecological catastrophe. Nor can we expect to grow economically into
humanism: when exponential growth is what is destroying any lasting chance of a purely
sustainable human-emancipatory freedom. Putin may not have a choice: but we do. The
neoliberal-statist-market ontology is globally self-determined to produce total failure as its
inevitable and only possible outcome. This is known a 'parametric determinism' when we
automatically follow a maladaptive 'rational' self-optimising behaviour pattern long after it
failed as it did in 2007. There is no recovery possible, and technology only speeds total
failure whilst masking the ecological destruction it is accelerating.
States have to think and act in a pre-determined way that is true. But we do not have to
think like that. Not if there is to be any alternative or succession of humanity ex-post the
neoliberal-statist-market ontology which is morally, ecologically, humanistically and most
importantly *actually* bankrupt at this point.
Do we exit a 350 year process of exponentially disproportionate wealth distribution,
deliberate maldevelopment and global dehumanisation with all the wealth in the hands of those
who benefited from the expropriation? Or do we attempt a redistribution and develop a new,
hitherto unknown (and unknowable under capitalist alienation), value set where everyone globally
has equal access to resources and a right to life as a birthright?
The decision is not beyond you or I: but it will take the development of the assessment of
capitalism on other than its own neoliberal-statist-market ontological terms. No state or state
leader can develop humanity on the path of less-is-more it needs to take but the people can.
That's all.
richard le sarc
,
Putin is either a believing neo-liberal, in which case he is part of the problem you
identify, or he is using it through necessity. I could not agree more with your diagnosis of
the omnicidal nature of capitalism, and the inability of so many to visualise the end of
capitalism-they more easily can conceive of the end of humanity. In fact I rather think that
that is the way in which the ruling parasites intend to save their own bacon, by allowing the
ecological Holocaust to cull the 90% of 'useless eaters' that the ruling elites fear and
despise, and who they see only as a threat. Their labour is no longer required in an age of
automation, robotisation and computerisation, and even their consumption is today
superfluous. The ecological Holocaust has passed numerous tipping-points and points of no
return, while the IPCC downplays the extremity of our situation, the Right still denies it is
even happening, and the public is slowly waking up, too late of course. We've just
experienced a fire Holocaust, yet the Pentecostal thug PM, 'Smoko' Morrison, who is surely
seeing it all as God's Will and the sign of the coming End Times that his cult so longs for,
utterly refuses to reduce CO2 emissions beyond a ludicrous 28% by 2030 from 2005 (base-line
creep)levels, 'target', that we will not come close to. And now it is raining, a little, so
the Great Austrayan Mediocracy can go back to their slumber. But they'll 'Wake in Fright',
again, soon.
Hugh O'Neill
,
"It is very important that they adopt the true values of a large family that family is love,
happiness, the joy of motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations,
united by respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence,
security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a moral and
an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will be able to meet
the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and successful country."
I
know very little of Russia alas, but the over-riding impression I take from this speech is President
Putin's depth and breadth grasp of detail and concern for every aspect of Russian society and his
frustration that decisions made at federal level do not transform into concrete action at regional
levels. The curse of bureaucracy and local fiefdoms jealous of their power and autonomy.
I was fully expecting him to come up a resonating phrase like: "Ask not what your country can do
for you. Ask instead what you can for your country." For Russia to have (seemingly) escaped the
rapacious talons of the vulture capitalists unleashed by the Yeltsin puppet ought to be a lesson for
us all.
Finally, in international politics, he remains impeccably diplomatic, restrained and wise. Would
that there were more world leaders of such calibre.
Vierotchka
,
Would that there were more world leaders of such calibre.
Imagine if the USA had a president like Putin
For starters, the Department of Defense would be just that, and not the Department of Offence
with lipstick on.
Then, ponder this:
Just imagine if there was a Putin-like President of the USA
Hugh O'Neill
,
Leadership and Learning are indispensable to each other. Looking at the calibre of Presidents
since JFK, it seems that all the best candidates were either killed off or scared off. All the
Unspeakable can do is kill in answer to any and all problems.
richard le sarc
,
Imagine the money freed if US military expenditure was not 90% graft and inefficiency.
Hugh O'Neill
,
In the quote I used above, how often do we hear world leaders other than the Pope speak of
love? Twisted minds might dismiss Putin's call for more Russian children as to provide cannon
fodder for the Russian military, but why would he also wish to ensure their creativity and their
arts education? It is quite refreshing to hear Humanity discussed as a desirable asset, rather than
non-stop pro-death, pro-abortion as a Human Right brigade, "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" hatred. I expect a
bit of flak for defending the unborn. I can take it.
richard le sarc
,
His manifest virtues are precisely why the vermin of the Western ruling elites hate him so
psychotically.
THE GREAT
RESHUFFLE . I do expect Putin to retire and assume him to be working on a succession plan
to keep the team's aims in operation. He's due to go in about four years. I would not be
surprised if we see something à la Kazakhstan where Nazarbayev still has a
significant advisory authority.
2. CONSTITUTION. Putin suggested constitutional tweaks. A ban on any form of dual
citizenship for certain positions: they must "inseparably connect their lives with Russia and
the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances". The Duma should appoint the PM and
the PM the government although little was said about exactly how responsibilities were to be
divvied up. (Did he support removing the two consecutive term rule? Don't know – depends
on what you think " этим " refers to.)
3. PRECEDENCE. Back when the world was simpler and happier and Russians naïve, the
Constitution (Art 15.4) said "If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes
rules other than those stipulated by the law, the rules of the international treaty apply."
Brutal reality has taught Moscow the true nature of the " Rules-Based International Order" and
Putin has proposed to reverse the authority.
WHAT'S IT MEAN? My take . Doctorow .
MacDonald . We
are broadly in step. Robinson
discusses possibilities. Those who see Russia as one man and many robots of course see this as
Putin hanging
onto power forever . But their predictive track record is pretty pathetic, isn't it?
FEDERAL ASSEMBLY ADDRESS. In addition to the constitutional matters above, Putin's address (
Rus ) ( Eng ), touched on other
subjects. He began with population – the births per woman were 1.5 and he wants to raise
that to 1.7 and proposes more day care places and greatly extending existing financial support
programs as well as spending to improve healthcare. All this is possible because "The federal
budget has had a surplus again" and inflation is low. (
Robinson points out, quite correctly, that there's a gap between what The Boss decrees and what
actually happens . Nonetheless I'd say Putin has been much more successful than most
leaders.) Foreign matters received the barest mention: situation in MENA threatening, Russia
ready to cooperate, "defence capability is ensured for decades to come".
RUSSIA INC.
Awara does a study of Russian and American earnings and demonstrates that, in purchasing
power, they're a lot closer than you would think. It's not just money: health, housing and
education – big expenses in the USA – are negligible in Russia.
NOT IN YOUR "NEWS" OUTLET.
Helmer discusses a German parliamentary report that shows that there really isn't any
evidence that Russia "invaded" Ukraine or controls the rebels: "few reliable facts and analyses
aside from the numerous speculations". It calls it a "civil war" (bürgerkriegs). Which is
what it actually is (with assistance from NATO and Russia, to be sure). (
Report, German only ).
TROUBLE IN PARADISE. A contested presidential
election led to pretty strong protests with the Supreme Court changing its ruling. The long
and the short is that Raul Khajimba , an important player and
President for six years,
resigned on Monday . New elections will be held in March. Independent Abkhazia has not been
very stable and I don't have any good sources to guide me on what's happening. Although I have
been told it is determined on real independence, joining neither Russia nor Georgia.
Life has become easier: Russia has risen in the ranking of the best countries in the
world.
Russia has moved up one point in the ranking of the best countries in the world.
Russia has moved up one place in the ranking of the best countries in the world
according to the American magazine US News & World Report, occupying a position in the
third ten best ranked. At the same time, the authors of the list stressed that amongst the
most powerful of world powers, our country was in second place, behind only the USA.
Tourists, according to the study, have begun to go more willingly to Russia, and the growth
rate of the Russian economy only appears below 11 countries in the world.
According to the 2019 results, Russia is still second amongst the world's strongest
powers. The US News & World Report reports that Russia is second only to the US in terms
of power, overtaking China.
Amongst the best countries in the world there are 73 states. The rating is compiled
every year by the publication on the basis of a variety of criteria.
The magazine's main rating is "The Best Countries in the World". First place, according
to the American edition, was taken by Switzerland, second by Canada, third by Japan. A year
ago, Japan was second.
The first five "best countries" also included Germany and Australia. Russia is in 23rd
place. Our country has risen one place.
So its true!!!!!
Rasha weeeeeaaaak!!!!!!
Amerika stronk!!!!!
Of all the countries that are "better" and "stronker" than "Rasha", I wonder how many of
them have had sanctions hurled against them by "stronk Amerika" and its lickspittle
vassals?
And how many of them lost more than 22 million citizens in WWII?
And how many of them had to endure an 80-year-old experiment whose aim was to create
socialism?
According to the current Constitution, adopted in 1993, the government exercises
executive power; it drafts and implements the federal budget and carries out the national
policy in the sphere of finance, foreign policy, education, healthcare, culture, science, and
so on.
The government may submit its resignation to the President who also has the power to
dissolve it. Another way to dissolve the government is for the Duma, the lower house of
parliament, to pass a motion of no confidence, which can be vetoed by the President.
The President appoints the Prime Minister with the Duma's consent; Vladimir Putin
appointed Dmitry Medvedev as prime minister twice, in 2012 and in 2018, after winning
presidential elections.
The President also appoints the deputy heads of government (there are 10 of them in the
current cabinet) and the federal ministers at the Prime Minister's suggestion. It is in the
President's power to dismiss both the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers.
What is to change?
In a move that looks set to significantly boost the power of parliament, Vladimir Putin
called for changes to the Constitution that would enable the Duma to select the Prime
Minister and cabinet ministers instead of the President.
Having announced the redistribution of power, Putin has stressed that Russia still
needs to remain a "strong presidential republic". According to Russian law, Putin now has two
weeks to appoint a new Prime Minister.
Lawmakers have already started drafting the legislation to put Putin's proposals into
practice.
Seems like the Yeltsin/USA constitution is being s-canned for something that gives more
power to the Duma. We can expect less cooperation with the West. Also, it will undoubtedly be
reported in the West, that Putin is trying to handcuff his successor by giving more power to
the Duma.
All in all, it would seem to bode well for greater Russian independence as Putin will be
less hampered by the Western-leaning faction.
It will depend on who is in the Duma – if they elect people with good qualities it will
be positive.
(Although looking at the parliament here in the Uk. In my lifetime I have see a real sharp
decline in the quality of people who become Members of parliament. I'm not sure why
The US has the same problem. Some of our congresspeople are devoid of common sense,
intelligence or relevant knowledge on important issues. I think that Russians are too
pragmatic to elect similar buffoons.
Voters only have the choice of those who stand for office. If the field consists of Clowns A
through D, the winner is bound to be a Clown. The quality, altruism and dedication of the
candidate pool has indeed receded, and that is throughout the western democracies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has invited the head of the Federal Tax Service (FTS),
Mikhail Mishustin, to become the new prime minister, TASS reports citing the Kremlin's press
service.
For Woden's sake! Kudrin is now spouting at the Gaidar Forum being held at RANEPA (The
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the
President of the Russian Federation, the largest federal state-funded institution of higher
professional education located in Moscow, and where my elder daughter, Yelena Denisovna is
now studying and who is going to be the first Madam President of Russia), as is Dimka,
another Western wannabe -- always was and still is.
Ye gods, I wouldn't be seen dead at a meeting that has Gaidar's name attached to it!
And that other '90s prick Chubais was spouting today, saying what they did wrong in the
'90s.
I tell you what they did wrong, arsehole: they didn't put you in prison!
Refreshing, at least, even bracing to hear someone who was in the liberal vanguard in the
90's actually say that things were done wrong in the 90's, if that's actually what he said.
Normally the liberal elite of Russia affect to believe the only thing that went wrong in the
90's was that Russian weakness caused her to falter without seeing the golden time through to
its capitalist conclusion. Some would not have made it to the celebration party, of course,
but that's reality, innit? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Russia's new (proposed) PM Mikhail Mishustin. Never heard of him before, but did quickie
research. According
to VZGLIAD reporters Andrei Rezchikov and Natalia Makarova:
This guy totally reformed the Russian tax system and implemented electronic automated
system (woo hoo!), also implemented electronic signatures and other high-tech
bling-blang.
A 100% pure-blooded technocat (yay! my kinda guy!)
Born 3 March 1966 in Moscow. Graduated from super-duper tech school in 1989. With
certification as "Engineer – System Technician."
In 2003 successfully defended his dissertation on the topic of "The mechanics of governmental
tax administration in Russia." Almost won a Pulitzer for that.
Continued on as geeky tax specialist. In 2008-2010 entered the realm of private investment
business, with UFG Capital Partners and UFG Asset Management.
Hobbies: Mishustin enjoys playing hockey, as does President Putin. One speculates they may
have encountered one another on the ice.
Religious views: Very religious, and was awarded the Order of Serafim Sarovsky.
That was the nice Russian saint who lived with a bear.
I wrote about him on my blog – little plug there, sorry
Checked his bio on Wikipedia: Mishustin did indeed attend a technological university and
graduated with an engineering degree. This suggests he had no exposure to competing political
and economic ideologies in his youth apart from what was required of him as a student living
in Soviet times.
This is about fight with fifth column... The time for those changes is long
overdue.
I truly believe that it is time to introduce certain changes to our country's main law,
changes that will directly guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in our legal
framework.
What does it mean? It means literally the following: requirements of international law and
treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory
only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens
and do not contradict our Constitution.
Second, I suggest formalising at the constitutional level the obligatory requirements for
those who hold positions of critical significance for national security and sovereignty. More
precisely, the heads of the constituent entities, members of the Federation Council, State Duma
deputies, the prime minister and his/her deputies, federal ministers, heads of federal agencies
and judges should have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other document that
allows them to live permanently in a foreign state.
The goal and mission of state service is to serve the people, and those who enter this path
must know that by doing this they inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian
people without any assumptions and allowances.
Requirements must be even stricter for presidential candidates. I suggest formalising a
requirement under which presidential candidates must have had permanent residence in Russia for
at least 25 years and no foreign citizenship or residence permit and not only during the
election campaign but at any time before it too.
I know that people are discussing the constitutional provision under which one person cannot
hold the post of the President of the Russian Federation for two successive terms. I do not
regard this as a matter of principle, but I nevertheless support and share this view.
I have already said before that our goal is to ensure high living standards and equal
opportunities for all throughout the country. It is towards this goal that our national
projects and development plans are aimed.
Stephen Morrell ,
Putin clearly is the most informed and visionary bourgeois politician in the world today, by
a country mile. He not only is attempting to address the very real real social, demographic
and economic needs of Russia, in his usual comprehensive manner, but also and cannily is
co-opting many of the expectations that the USSR used to fulfil, attempting to neutralise any
socialist political sentiments in the Russian population. Putin is the Bismarck of Russia.
richard le sarc ,
Russia's economic situation, within the global capitalist system, with its large reserves,
much in gold, no exposure to the toilet paper of US Treasuries, and substantial local
self-sufficiency in agriculture (thank-you sanctions)means that when the Western debt Ponzi
Himalaya implodes, the Russians will be pretty much immune to the consequences.
richard le sarc ,
I agree entirely, but Putin has no alternative. Any chink in his armour and the USA will
destroy Russia and break it up into fragments as they did in Yugoslavia, the USSR and wish to
do in China. I rather think that Putin knows full well how dire is the global ecological
situation, but he needs to balance less enlightened forces at home, and the 'Atlanticist'
Quislings.
BigB ,
I don't disagree either: but that is not my point. The Atlanticists are waiting in the wings
for another four years. Last time I checked: they still command 80% of Russian private
property. And were expropriating $25bn pa annum in capital flight which has slowed slightly
in the last few years. I read the Saker too. There is a deadlock and uneasy power sharing
arrangement internally. But you may have missed the time when the Saker admitted "Putin is a
neoliberal"?
It may be difficult to disentangle our vision from the neoliberal-statist-market ontology
we are being repressed by but that is what we must do. We cannot expect neoliberal capitalist
social inclusivity to save us from ecological catastrophe. Nor can we expect to grow
economically into humanism: when exponential growth is what is destroying any lasting chance
of a purely sustainable human-emancipatory freedom. Putin may not have a choice: but we do.
The neoliberal-statist-market ontology is globally self-determined to produce total failure
as its inevitable and only possible outcome. This is known a 'parametric determinism' when we
automatically follow a maladaptive 'rational' self-optimising behaviour pattern long after it
failed as it did in 2007. There is no recovery possible, and technology only speeds total
failure whilst masking the ecological destruction it is accelerating.
States have to think and act in a pre-determined way that is true. But we do not have to
think like that. Not if there is to be any alternative or succession of humanity ex-post the
neoliberal-statist-market ontology which is morally, ecologically, humanistically and most
importantly *actually* bankrupt at this point.
Do we exit a 350 year process of exponentially disproportionate wealth distribution,
deliberate maldevelopment and global dehumanisation with all the wealth in the hands of those
who benefited from the expropriation? Or do we attempt a redistribution and develop a new,
hitherto unknown (and unknowable under capitalist alienation), value set where everyone
globally has equal access to resources and a right to life as a birthright?
The decision is not beyond you or I: but it will take the development of the assessment of
capitalism on other than its own neoliberal-statist-market ontological terms. No state or
state leader can develop humanity on the path of less-is-more it needs to take but the people
can. That's all.
richard le sarc ,
Putin is either a believing neo-liberal, in which case he is part of the problem you
identify, or he is using it through necessity. I could not agree more with your diagnosis of
the omnicidal nature of capitalism, and the inability of so many to visualise the end of
capitalism-they more easily can conceive of the end of humanity. In fact I rather think that
that is the way in which the ruling parasites intend to save their own bacon, by allowing the
ecological Holocaust to cull the 90% of 'useless eaters' that the ruling elites fear and
despise, and who they see only as a threat. Their labour is no longer required in an age of
automation, robotisation and computerisation, and even their consumption is today
superfluous. The ecological Holocaust has passed numerous tipping-points and points of no
return, while the IPCC downplays the extremity of our situation, the Right still denies it is
even happening, and the public is slowly waking up, too late of course. We've just
experienced a fire Holocaust, yet the Pentecostal thug PM, 'Smoko' Morrison, who is surely
seeing it all as God's Will and the sign of the coming End Times that his cult so longs for,
utterly refuses to reduce CO2 emissions beyond a ludicrous 28% by 2030 from 2005 (base-line
creep)levels, 'target', that we will not come close to. And now it is raining, a little, so
the Great Austrayan Mediocracy can go back to their slumber. But they'll 'Wake in Fright',
again, soon.
Hugh O'Neill ,
"It is very important that they adopt the true values of a large family –
that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong
bond of several generations, united by respect for the elderly and care for children, giving
everyone a sense of confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept
this situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background support
for their adult life, then we will be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing
Russia's development as a large and successful country."
I know very little of Russia alas, but the over-riding impression I take from this speech
is President Putin's depth and breadth grasp of detail and concern for every aspect of
Russian society – and his frustration that decisions made at federal level do not
transform into concrete action at regional levels. The curse of bureaucracy and local
fiefdoms jealous of their power and autonomy.
I was fully expecting him to come up a resonating phrase like: "Ask not what your country
can do for you. Ask instead what you can for your country." For Russia to have (seemingly)
escaped the rapacious talons of the vulture capitalists unleashed by the Yeltsin puppet ought
to be a lesson for us all.
Finally, in international politics, he remains impeccably diplomatic, restrained and wise.
Would that there were more world leaders of such calibre.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Leadership and Learning are indispensable to each other. Looking at the calibre of Presidents
since JFK, it seems that all the best candidates were either killed off or scared off. All
the Unspeakable can do is kill in answer to any and all problems.
richard le sarc ,
Imagine the money freed if US military expenditure was not 90% graft and inefficiency.
richard le sarc ,
His manifest virtues are precisely why the vermin of the Western ruling elites hate him so
psychotically.
Tue 7 Jan 2020
01.00 EST
Last modified on Thu 16 Jan 2020
06.09 EST
Shares
1,002
'W
ithout the Cold War, what's the point of being an
American?" Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, the novelist John Updike's late-20th-century everyman, posed that question just as the
"long twilight struggle" was winding down. More than quarter of a century later, the plaintive query still awaits a definitive
answer.
Indeed, the passage of time has only sown confusion about whether there is a point to being an American. Even as the
cold war was ending, Updike's everyman was not alone in feeling at a loss. By the 1980s, the cold war had become more than a
mere situation or circumstance. It was a state of mind.
ss="rich-link tone-news--item rich-link--pillar-news">
Read more
Most Americans had come to take its existence for granted. Like the polar ice cap or baseball's status as the national
pastime, it had acquired an appearance of permanence. So its passing caught citizens unaware. Those charged with managing the
cold war were, if anything, even more surprised. The enterprise to which they had devoted their professional lives had suddenly
vanished. Here was a contingency that the sprawling US national security apparatus, itself a product of the anti-communist
crusade, had failed to anticipate.
On one level, of course, the surprise could not have been more gratifying. In the epic competition pitting west against east,
the god-fearing against the godless and democracy against totalitarianism, "our side" had won. All-out nuclear war had been
averted. The cause of freedom, which Americans felt certain they themselves embodied, had prevailed. Victory was decisive,
sweeping and unequivocal.
In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a
senior adviser to the Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev
, had warned: "We are going to do a terrible thing to you we are going to deprive you of an enemy."
As the Soviet Union passed out of existence, Americans were left not just without that enemy, but without even a framework for
understanding the world and their place in it. However imperfectly, the cold war had, for several decades, offered a semblance of
order and coherence. The collapse of communism shattered that framework. Where there had been purposefulness and predictability,
now there was neither.
Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that confronting the lucky person who
wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential for monumental disaster. Putting that money to good use while
avoiding the pitfalls inherent in suddenly acquired riches calls for prudence and self-awareness not easily demonstrated when
the big house, luxury car and holiday home you have always wanted are yours for the asking.
Similarly, the end of the cold war might have given Americans pause, especially since the issues at hand were of considerably
greater significance than homes and cars. At least in theory, the moment might have invited reflection on some first-order
questions, such as: what is the meaning of freedom? What does freedom allow? What obligations does it impose? Whom or what does
it exclude?
O
f course, Americans had been wrestling with such questions
since well before
1776
, the answers evolving over time. During the several decades of the cold war, however, the exigencies of the east-west
rivalry had offered a reason to throttle down impulses to explore freedom's furthermost boundaries. Except on the fringes of
American politics, most citizens accepted the word from Washington that their way of life was under grave threat. In the pecking
order of national priorities, addressing that threat defending freedom rather than enlarging it tended to take precedence
over other considerations.
This is not to suggest that cold-war Americans were a compliant lot. They were not. From the 1950s, misleadingly enshrined as
a decade of conformity, through the Ronald Reagan-dominated 80s, domestic crises and controversies were constants. Among the
issues energising or enraging Americans were civil liberties, the nuclear arms race, mismanaged wars of dubious provenance,
challenges to artistic tradition, leftwing and rightwing radicalism, crass materialism that coexisted with widespread poverty and
a host of simmering issues connected to race, sex and gender. Yet through it all, a common outlook, centred on resistance to the
"red threat", endured. For most citizens most of the time, the cold war itself sufficed to explain "the point of being an
American".
The collapse of the Soviet empire between 1989 and 1991 robbed that outlook of its last vestiges of authority. Rarely, if
ever, had the transition from one historical period to another occurred quite so abruptly, with such a precise set of
demarcations, and with such profound implications. As if in an instant, the discipline that the cold war had imposed vanished.
The absurdity of defining reality as an either/or choice red or dead, slave or free, good v evil now became blazingly
apparent. The impact on American ambitions and expectations was akin to removing the speed limiter from an internal combustion
engine. Suddenly the throttle opened up. The future appeared uniquely promising, offering Americans a seemingly endless array of
choices, while confronting them with few evident constraints. Everything seemed possible.
Confident that an era of unprecedented US economic, military and cultural ascendancy now beckoned, members of an intoxicated
elite threw caution to the winds. They devised and promulgated a new consensus consisting of four elements.
Germans on top of the Berlin Wall in front of the Brandenburg Gate on 10 November 1989. Photograph: Fabrizio
Bensch/Reuters
The first of these was globalisation or, more precisely, globalised neoliberalism. Stripped to its essence, globalisation was
all about wealth creation: unconstrained corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale in a world open to the movement of
goods, capital, ideas and people would create wealth on a hitherto unimagined scale.
The second element was global leadership, a euphemism for hegemony or, more simply still, for empire. At its core, global
leadership was all about order: unchallengeable military might would enable the US to manage and police a postcolonial yet
implicitly imperial order favourable to American interests and values. Through the exercise of global leadership, the US would
enforce globalisation. Order and abundance would go hand in hand.
The third element of the consensus was freedom, an ancient word now drastically revised. The new conception of freedom
emphasised autonomy, with traditional moral prohibitions declared obsolete and the removal of constraints maximising choice.
Order and abundance together would underwrite freedom, relieving Americans of existential concerns about safety and survival to
which those less privileged were still obliged to attend.
The final element of the consensus was presidential supremacy, with the occupant of the Oval Office accorded quasi-monarchical
prerogatives and status. Implicit in presidential supremacy was a radical revision of the political order. While still treated as
sacred writ, the constitution no longer described
the nation's existing system of governance. Effectively gone,
for example, was the concept of a federal government consisting of three equal branches. Ensuring the nation's prosperity,
keeping Americans safe from harm, and interpreting the meaning of freedom, the president became the centre around which all else
orbited, the subject of great hopes, and the target of equally great scorn should he fail to fulfil the expectations that he
brought into office.
All these elements together constituted a sort of operating system. The purpose of this operating system, unseen but widely
taken for granted, was to cement the primacy of the US in perpetuity, while enshrining the American way of life as the ultimate
destiny of humankind. According to the calendar, the end of the 20th century, frequently referred to as the American century, was
then drawing near. Yet with the cold war concluding on such favourable terms, the stage appeared set for a prolonged American
epoch.
This, however, was not to be.
T
he US wasted little time in squandering the advantages it
had gained by winning the cold war. Events at home and abroad put the post-cold war consensus to the test, unmasking its
contradictions and exposing its premises as delusional. Although globalisation did enable some to acquire great wealth, it left
behind many more, while fostering egregious inequality. The assertion of global leadership provided American soldiers with
plentiful opportunities to explore exotic and unfamiliar lands, but few would mistake the results for even an approximation of
dominion, much less peace and harmony.
Instead, Americans came to accept war as habitual. And while the drive for individual empowerment removed constraints, it did
little to promote the common good. An enlarged conception of freedom brought with it a whiff of nihilism. As for exalting the
chief executive as a visionary leader, it yielded a succession of disappointments, before imploding in November 2016.
The post-cold war moment, dating from the early 90s and spanning the administrations of
Bill Clinton
, George W Bush and Barack Obama, turned out to be remarkably brief. By 2016, large numbers of ordinary Americans
had concluded, not without reason, that the post-cold war consensus was irretrievably defective. Globalised neoliberalism,
militarised hegemony, individual empowerment and presidents elevated to the status of royalty might be working for some, but not
for them. They also discerned, again not without cause, that establishment elites subscribing to that consensus, including the
leaders of both political parties, were deaf to their complaints and oblivious to their plight.
By turning their country over to
Donald Trump
, those Americans signalled their repudiation of that very consensus. That Trump himself did not offer anything
remotely like a reasoned alternative made his elevation to the presidency all the more remarkable. He was a protest candidate
elected by a protest vote. In that regard, the 2016 presidential election marked a historical turning point comparable in
significance to the fall of the Berlin Wall a quarter of a century earlier.
As the cold war had evolved from the late 40s into the 80s, the rhetoric of freedom remained central to American political
discourse. Among members of the intelligentsia, fads came and went, but none displaced freedom as the defining issue of the age.
As the designated "leader of the free world", each US president was in turn expected to talk the talk. From Truman through to
Reagan, with differing levels of eloquence, none failed to do so.
The way it ended with euphoric young Germans dancing on the wall imparted to the entire cold war a retrospective moral
clarity that it did not deserve. The cold war tainted everything it touched. As an episode in world history, it was a tragedy of
towering proportions. So its passing ought to have called for reflection, remorse, repentance, even restitution. Yet the
prevailing mood allowed for none of these, at least as far as most Americans were concerned. Instead, out of an era punctuated
throughout by anxiety and uncertainty came a sense that a dazzling future lay just ahead.
In effect, the passing of the cold war relieved Americans of any further obligation to exhibit more than nominal cohesion.
Except as a matter of personal preference, virtues such as self-discipline and self-denial, once deemed essential to enabling a
nation to stand firm against existential threats, now became pass. The spirit of the post-cold war era prioritised
self-actualisation and self-indulgence over self-sacrifice.
The demise of communism removed the last remaining constraints on the operation of global capitalism. By leaving the US
militarily pre-eminent, the end of the cold war removed any remaining constraints on the use of American coercive power.
Similarly, for many ordinary Americans, particularly those of a progressive bent, the passing of the cold war did away with any
lingering constraints on matters related to "lifestyle". No longer would they defer to the customary arbiters of propriety and
"good taste" in determining what was permissible and what was not. For transcendent authority, progressives looked to the
autonomous self.
'A
t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own
concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." So wrote supreme court justice Anthony
Kennedy in a famous decision handed down shortly after the cold war ended.
Kennedy's reformulation of liberty, however grandiose, was well suited to the mood that swept through elite quarters at
the end of history
. By comparison, the inalienable rights specified in the famous Declaration of Independence in 1776 now
seemed cramped, stingy and inadequate. Freedom was in line for a makeover.
The emerging post-cold war conception of freedom was nothing if not expansive. It recognised few limits and imposed fewer
obligations, with one notable exception: compliance was non-negotiable. As always, the American definition of liberty, however
recently revised, was universally applicable, as valid in Bogot and Dakar as it was in Boston and Denver.
What did this signify in practice? Allowing individuals maximum latitude to reach their own conclusions regarding the concepts
of existence, meaning, the universe and the mystery of human life yielded what sort of society? The quarter-century that elapsed
between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Donald Trump's election provided a tentative answer to that question. Part of that answer
came in the form of progress towards eliminating the remaining vestiges of racism, empowering women and reducing discrimination
experienced by LGBTQ+ Americans.
Granted, progress does not imply decisive and irreversible success. Yet during the post-cold war period, American society
became more tolerant, more open, more accepting and less judgmental. Attitudes toward people of colour, women and gays that in
the 50s had been normative and remained widespread in the 60s and 70s had, by 2016, become unacceptable in polite society. Yet
for more than a few Americans, Justice Kennedy's notion of liberty as an opportunity to ponder life's ultimate questions had
little relevance. In practical terms, the exercise of freedom, undertaken in an environment in which consumption and celebrity
had emerged as preeminent values, encouraged conformity rather than independence. At least notionally, Americans now enjoyed more
freedom than ever before. Yet from every direction, but especially from Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, came cues
for how to make the most of the freedom now on offer. And however much you had, you always needed more.
President Ronald Reagan (R) with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Washington in December 1987. Photograph: Gary
Hershorn/Reuters
So along with freedom came stress, anxiety and a sense of not quite measuring up, or a fear of falling behind as the demands
of daily life seemed to multiply. For some, freedom meant alienation, anomie and despair. It did nothing to prevent, and in some
instances arguably fostered, self-destructive or antisocial behaviour.
So in 2016, as another presidential election approached, Americans were able to claim the following distinctions:
One in six were taking prescription psychiatric drugs such as antidepressants or anti-anxiety
meds.
More than 16 million adults and more than 3 million adolescents were suffering from significant
depression.
More than 1.9 million Americans were regularly using cocaine, with a half million hooked on
heroin and 700,000 on methamphetamine.
That year opioid overdoses killed 46,000, a new record.
Binge drinking had reached epidemic proportions, with one in six US adults binge drinking
several times a month and consuming seven drinks per binge; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, bingeing
was especially common among younger and more affluent Americans.
Nearly 45,000 were taking their own lives annually, the national suicide rate increased by 24%
since 1999; within the previous decade the suicide rate of teenage girls had doubled and of boys had jumped by 40%.
Smartphone addiction was joining more traditional compulsions, with the average person checking
their smartphone 110 times a day, impelled by Fomo a fear of missing out.
Compulsive-buying syndrome, AKA shopping addiction, afflicted an estimated 6% of the population;
a comparable number were compulsive hoarders.
On a daily basis, 11 million Americans, mostly women, struggled with eating disorders such as
anorexia and bulimia, while roughly 40% of adults and nearly 19% of children and adolescents were obese.
Cosmetic surgeons were performing more than 17m procedures annually, with buttock augmentation
and labiaplasty enjoying a particular spike in popularity.
Forty-million Americans were regularly visiting online porn sites.
The number of Americans infected with sexually transmitted diseases in 2016 surpassed 2 million,
according to the CDC, "the highest number ever".
An estimated 24.7 million children were growing up in fatherless households, with such children
substantially more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs and alcohol and kill themselves; girls raised without a father
present were four times more likely to get pregnant as teenagers.
Although difficult to quantify with precision, 676,000 American children in 2016 were victims of
abuse or neglect.
Exercising their right to choose, American women were terminating around 650,000 unwanted
pregnancies each year, despite the widespread availability of contraceptives.
Exercising their right to bear arms, Americans had accumulated more than 40% of the planet's
small arms; the US arsenal in private hands was larger than that of the next 25 countries combined.
Meanwhile, more than 33,000 Americans were being killed in firearms-related incidents annually.
Year in and year out, the US had the world's highest incarceration rate, no other developed
nation coming anywhere close.
Polling data showed that social trust how Americans felt about government institutions and
their fellow citizens had sunk to an all-time low. Perhaps for that reason, when it came to voting, most Americans couldn't be
bothered; voter turnout in the US lagged behind that of most other developed countries.
In an increasingly networked society, with two-thirds of Americans on Facebook, chronic
loneliness afflicted a large portion of the population.
In a phenomenon described as "deaths by despair", the life expectancy of white working-class
American males was dropping, a trend without historical precedent.
The nation's birthrate had fallen below the rate needed to sustain a stable overall population;
America had ceased to reproduce itself.
Not to be overlooked, in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, Americans were
polluting, wasting food and generating trash with abandon, leading the world in each category.
A
rguably, Americans were enjoying more freedom than ever.
Were they happier as a consequence? Polls suggested otherwise. In the 2007 "world happiness" standings, the US had ranked third
among developed countries. By 2016, its position had plummeted to 13th.
By no means am I suggesting that a single such statistic holds the key to assessing life in the US. It does not. Nor do the
various penchants and pathologies enumerated above. Yet taken together, they suggest a society in which discontent, dysfunction
and sheer perversity were rampant.
As with globalised neoliberalism, some Americans not only coped with seemingly limitless freedom, but also luxuriated in the
opportunities that it offered. For sophisticates inhabiting Brooklyn's Park Slope, radical autonomy could well prove to be a
boon; for those stuck in a ghetto on Chicago's South Side, not so much. As for the accompanying underside, those in possession of
sufficient resources could insulate themselves from its worst effects just as the affluent were able to insulate themselves
from the accumulating post-cold war military misadventures by simply allowing others to shoulder the burden.
What role did Trump play in shaping this US that worked nicely for some while leaving many others adrift and vulnerable? None
at all. Globalisation, the pursuit of militarised hegemony, a conception of freedom conferring rights without duties, and a
political system centred on a quasi-monarchical chief of state each turned out to have a substantial downside. Yet the defects of
each made their appearance well before Trump's entry into politics, even if elites, held in thrall by the post-cold war outlook,
were slow to appreciate their significance. None of those defects can be laid at his feet.
If anything, Trump himself had displayed a considerable aptitude for turning such defects to his own advantage. In the US,
post-cold war, he was prominent among those who enriched themselves, lived large and let others do the dirty work, while also
shielding themselves from the difficulties that made life a trial for many of their fellow citizens. In an era of con artists,
cowards and cynics, Trump became a modern equivalent of showman PT Barnum, parlaying the opportunities at hand into fortune,
celebrity, lots of golf, plenty of sex and eventually the highest office in the land.
Yet for our purposes, the key point is this: Trump did not create the conditions in which the campaign of 2016 was to take
place. Instead, to a far greater extent than any of his political rivals, he demonstrated a knack for translating those
conditions into votes. Here, the moment met the man.
Trump's critics saw him as an abomination. Perhaps he was. Yet he was also very much a man of his time. In the end, what won
him the presidency was his capacity to push the buttons of millions of voters who believed themselves ill-served and left behind
abandoned, even by establishment politicians of both parties.
Implicit in his promise to "make America great again" was an admission that greatness itself, which Americans had long since
come to believe was theirs by right, had been lost, with no one taking responsibility and no one, apart from Trump himself,
venturing to explain how it had even happened. The critical word that imparted to his campaign slogan its formidable persuasive
power was "again". As Tom Engelhardt has written, it represented an acknowledgment that self-congratulatory terms such as
"great", "super", "exceptional" or "indispensable" no longer reflected the actually existing American condition. Millions of
ordinary citizens recognised this as self-evidently true. Arrangements, agreements and advantages that Americans had once prized
had been squandered or thrown away. And yet no politician other than Trump dared to utter that truth aloud.
As a strategic thinker, Trump had no particular talent. Yet as a strategic sensor, he was uniquely gifted, possessing an
intuitive genius for reading the temper of his supporters and stoking their grievances. Yet by no means did Trump create those
grievances they had festered during the quarter-century after the cold war ended. He merely recognised their existence and, in
doing so, made himself the champion of the aggrieved and the one person they came to believe who might respond to their plight.
The post-cold war recipe for renewing the American century has been tried and found wanting. A patently amoral economic system
has produced neither justice nor equality, and will not. Grotesquely expensive and incoherent national security policies have
produced neither peace nor a compliant imperium, and will not. A madcap conception of freedom unmoored from any overarching moral
framework has fostered neither virtue nor nobility nor contentment, and won't anytime soon. Sold by its masterminds as a formula
for creating a prosperous and powerful nation in which all citizens might find opportunities to flourish, it has yielded no such
thing. This, at least, describes the conclusion reached by disenchanted Americans in numbers sufficient to elect as president
someone vowing to run the post-cold war consensus through a shredder.
Donald Trump's detractors charge him with dividing the country when, in fact, it was pervasive division that vaulted him to
the centre of American politics in the first place. The divide is deepest and least reconcilable between those Americans for whom
the trajectory of events since the cold war pointed upward, and those who found in those same events evidence of decline and
decay, and who sensed they had been had. At the most fundamental level, the inhabitants of one camp believe that talent, skills
and connections will enable them to determine their own destiny; they are masters of their own fate. In the other camp are those
who see themselves as victims. As Obama put it while campaigning for the presidency in 2008, "they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations".
Trump did not create this cleavage. He merely turned it to his personal advantage. So, regardless of the date or terms of
Trump's departure from office, the schism that allowed him to become president is likely to persist after he is gone. It's that
schism, rather than the antics of the tycoon/reality TV star/demagogue who exploited it, that merits far more attention than it
has received.
This is an edited extract from The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory by Andrew Bacevich,
published by Metropolitan Books/Holt
Follow the Long Read on Twitter at
@gdnlongread
, and sign up to the long read weekly email
here
.
America faces an epic choice...
... in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the
last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened democracy, civility, truth. This US
administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is
commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage.
Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform
the American public in 2020. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your support we
can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight. Our journalism is free and open
for all, but it's made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers like you across America in all 50 states.
"America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness.
Many vital aspects of American public life are in play the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth
inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher. As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has
done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear facts,
science, diversity, equality and fairness."
US editor, John Mulholland
On the occasion of its 100th birthday in 1921 the editor of the Guardian said, "Perhaps the chief virtue of a
newspaper is its independence. It should have a soul of its own." That is more true than ever. Freed from the influence
of an owner or shareholders, the Guardian's editorial independence is our unique driving force and guiding principle.
What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some
elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced
considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched
off and stopped transmitting
several minutes before the missiles were launched .
There were also problems with
the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was
placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that
an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments
to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the
operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that
it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming
American cruise missiles, then fired.
The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated
SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a
tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an
independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system
functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given
what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone
deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the
airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be
attributed to the Iranian government.
The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be
hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take
control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can
fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also
means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also
reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that
can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.
The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a
civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location.
The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals
relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has
the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net
also notes an interested back story to those photos
and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the
Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include
the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called
' Rich Kids of
Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on
the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th
with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a
Ukrainian passenger plane ?"
Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a
premeditated and carefully planned event of which
the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to
the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people
in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel,
i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing
of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another
unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of
Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of
its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in
perpetrating such crimes.
It's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative
media" aren't likely to touch this story.
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4
news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now
accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be
put on trial.
If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani,
is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another
unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.
Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the
confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think
the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events
makes false flagging them of dubious value.
Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was
inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it
so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the
money was the chips, that's all.
(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press
(1976), p. 160)
I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others'
deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step
program.
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this
"videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in
the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The
airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to
film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests,
foreknowledge."
The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the
planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the
missiles were launched.
I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of
MH-17.
Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly
an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian
aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.
The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of
diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in
overflight fees).
However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first
missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and
irresponsible.
The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent
launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system
functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent
accidents.
Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an
IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM
operator.
Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the
shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.
You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot
down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and
only radio communication capability.
As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an
idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their
hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted
killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been
launched.
Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost.
I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani
to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice
yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The
commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real
airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with
"old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions
hinted at by the U.S. military?
@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the
claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground
when it quit./
As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly
stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis
added]
The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals
attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:
The airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can
not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting
"several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.
The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12
local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44
UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and
turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) --
four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. –
Source
Flight Radar 24
Mr. Giraldi's original claim:
The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the
planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the
missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the
air defense command, which may have been related.
4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .
Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane
was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.
The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and
above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460
– 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the
fall back to Earth relatively quick.
On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to
be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the
relative data is available.
Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched "
is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly
analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.
Interesting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in
these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on
instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.
The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could
stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other
neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a
reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still
remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every
controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on –
Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack
from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today
– can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.
Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives
lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured
Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.
More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his
treachery and stupidity.
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.
We are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil.
Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.
It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past
time for us to be comfortable with lies.
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or
by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote
end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire
group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and
private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight
Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the
cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.
Several comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground,
to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to
be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the
manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of
these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but
that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on
stated as fact on a website I visited.
Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being
used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in
London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight
control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is
during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran
airport in Iran?
My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder
is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder
disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military
to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane,
to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the
flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control
system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to
track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to
landing.
Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot
[UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance
events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated
here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide
verification ) .
(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its
flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person
disaster?
This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four
military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get
through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger
into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no
pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their
destinations.
Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course
only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the
year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as
a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the
ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out
by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.
Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is
it Russia?
War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught
before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid
for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing
American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of
course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend
and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story
of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and
celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation
that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth
celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death
from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the
celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own
turds.
ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca
they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is
they are right about that with the majority of the population.
"U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are assessing whether Russia is trying to
undermine Joe Biden in its ongoing disinformation efforts with the former vice president still the
front-runner in the race to challenge President Donald Trump, according to two officials familiar
with the matter
Part of the inquiry is to determine whether Russia is trying to weaken Biden by promoting
controversy over his past involvement in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while his son worked for an
energy company there."
So how exactly does Russia, in a scene straight out of A Clockwork Orange, tap into the frontal
lobe section of the U.S. electorate and cause them to lose all confidence in their political
favorites?
"A signature trait of Russian President Vladimir Putin 'is his ability to convince people of
outright falsehoods,' William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security
Center, said in a statement. 'In America, [the Russians are] using social media and many other
tools to inflame social divisions, promote conspiracy theories and sow distrust in our democracy
and elections.'"
Yes, somehow those dastardly Russians have outsmarted the brightest and best-paid political
strategists in Washington, D.C. by brandishing what amounts to some really persuasive memes over
social media, and for just rubles on the dollar.
The techies at Wired
went
so far
as to call this epic assault on the fragile American cranium, "meme warfare to divide
America." By way of evidence, it cited a very creative meme that screamed, "F*CK THE ELECTIONS," which
was intended, as the ironclad argument goes, to cause a number of impressionable Americans to throw up
their hands in a fit of collective exasperation and say, 'Ok, that's it. I'm staying at home on
Election Day.'
Yes, it's really that easy! Imagine all the money the Russians and their radical new
political technologies could have saved guys like casino tycoon, Sheldon Adelson, who
showered
the
Trump campaign with $100 million dollars.
Many of those divisive Russian messages wormed their way onto Facebook, purportedly, where God only
knows how many voter brains' turned to maggots and mush just staring at them. Yet one individual who
actually recalls seeing one or two of these dangerous memes was Rob Goldman, former Vice President for
Advertising on Facebook, who revealed via Twitter, another infected social media platform, some
interesting information:
"Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the
2016 U.S. election.
I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that
swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal
."
Clearly, Goldman seems to have been under the sway of some folk Russian brainwashing technique,
probably passed down from the time of Rasputin. In any case, Donald Trump himself took great
satisfaction from that particular revelation, retweeting it to his millions of minions.
Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves
their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and
I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.
Incidentally, it may or may not be relevant, but Goldman
retired
from
Facebook in October 2019 after seven years with the company.
Russia, the gift that keeps on giving
Not only have the Democrats been able to use the Russia bogeyman as their excuse for losing the
White House in 2016, they are able to summon this distant nuclear power whenever they wish to curb
internet freedoms, which is pretty much every day now.
Now, fun-loving memes are under attack and may soon go the way of the DoDo bird
("A small office of Russian trolls could derail 241 years of U.S. political history with a handful of
dank memes and an advertising budget that would barely buy you a billboard in Brooklyn," screamed
insanely
The
Guardian
). At the same time, the freedom of speech is getting
destroyed
by
vapid accusations of 'hate speech,' which, unless used to incite violence, is a totally meaningless
term used to eliminate any conversation that is undesirable to the elite.
Meanwhile,
only the mainstream media these days are
permitted
to dabble
in 'conspiracy theories'
even as their own false narratives have contributed to
the pulverization of entire nations, as was the case in Iraq, for example, which sustained a
full-blown U.S. military invasion in 2003 following debunked claims that Saddam Hussein was harboring
weapons of mass destruction. That was the mother of all conspiracy theories that was pushed
unchallenged by the mainstream media.
So back to Joe Biden.
Do intelligent Americans really need help from Russia to prove that just maybe the former Vice
President is mentally and physically unfit to stand for the White House? Probably not. From whispering
sweet nothings into the ears of any female within groping distance, to sucking on his wife's
fingertips at a political rally, something just doesn't seem altogether right upstairs with Joe Biden.
So what is the real story for dragging Russia, once again, into the internal swamp pit known as
Washington, D.C.?
The Bloomberg article provides a big hint:
"This time around, the narrative about Biden
and Ukraine is well-publicized and being advanced by Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and
the president's Republican allies in Congress."
And that "narrative" has everything to do with not only the Democrats' frozen impeachment
proceedings against the U.S. leader, which promises to have major connections to Ukraine, Joe Biden
and his son Hunter, and quite possibly dozens of other top Democrats. In other words, the Democrats
understand that pushing ahead with impeachment could be their ultimate downfall.
Although few Americans seem to remember that back in May of 2019, Trump
granted
U.S.
Attorney General William Barr "full and complete authority" to investigate exactly how claims that
Trump was 'conspiring with the Kremlin' in the 2016 presidential election had originated, the
Democrats certainly have not.
Their bogus 'Russian collusion' claim provided the rationale for a four-year-long 'witch hunt' that
began when the Democrats, relying on the flimsy findings contained in the so-called 'Steele dossier,
managed to get approval from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign. Now, some top-ranking
Democrats never imagining Hillary Clinton would actually lose in 2016 are understandably nervous
as to what Barr and his assistant, federal attorney John Durham will divulge to the public in the
coming months.
With so much riding on the line in 2020
, is anyone surprised that Bloomberg, the
news affiliate owned and operated by Democratic contender Michael Bloomberg, is now reporting "U.S.
officials are warning that Russia's election interference in 2020 could be more brazen than in the
2016 presidential race or the 2018 midterm election."
In other words, the racist ploy used by Democrats to explain their monumental defeat
in 2016 did not end with the Mueller Report.
The conspiracy theory, promulgated by a media that is in effect just another branch of the
Democratic National Committee, is being
primed to explain not only possible criminal charges
aimed at top Democrats in the coming months, but how Democrats, like Michael Bloomberg, failed once
again to beat the seemingly unstoppable incumbent, Donald Trump.
Tags
Politics
Notice on Racial Discrimination
.
Copyright 2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD
Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else?
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right
to your inbox.
Please enter a valid email
Copeland@100
Orwell's problem was that the Soviet Union was pursuing Russia's strategic interests. Much of
his criticism was justifiable but only in a context in which the malignant and pro-fascist
attitudes of the 'neutral'"democracies" (UK, France US) were taken for granted. Looking back
on the Soviet Union's foreign policy in the 1930s it is entirely understandable that a
cardinal objective was to rebuild the Entente of 1914 to deter Germany. This excellent
article
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/12/what-poland-has-to-hide-about-the-origins-of-world-war-ii/
that karlofi linked to the other day is a reminder of this.
The Soviet Union was desperately trying to prevent the alliance between Nazis and Liberals
that it realised was, in ideological terms, almost inevitable.
As we look around the world today it can be seen that they were right then. But that the
alliance was not really between the, related, ideologies of liberalism and fascism but the
geo-political realities that they masked. Namely the imperialism of western Europe and the
maritime Empire (now HQ'd in Washington, then centred in London, previously in
Amsterdam).
Nothing is changed- Eurasia is still, as it has been since Vasco da Gama's time, the main
dish on the imperialist menu. And the Empire is determined to treat China, Russia and the
vast lands (including Iran) that depend on their protection, as the enemy.
That is what Pompeo and Trump are about and that is why the poodles (who actually form a pack
of hunting hounds kept by the Master of the Washington-Wall St Hunt) are doing what they
do.
And that too is why the Trudeau-Freeland axis continues to pursue the policies of using
Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic statelets, to weaken and harass Russia. Trudeau's sympathy for
fascism, incidentally, is inherited from his father who, in his youth, during the War, rode a
motor bike with a wehrmacht helmet, long before Hells Angels dreamed of such things.
(Written on the evening of. So subject to reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we
learn more.)
I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts
outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither
does anyone else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As
we've just seen.)
What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council ( Rus ) ( Eng ) and started off with how important
it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he wants more Russians on the planet,
the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite a few more but there are still
more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after all,
not everything works out as we hoped does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is
– especially the MENA – and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is
except against lunatics addicted to the
Book of Revelation .)
Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks. Important
officials should really be Russians and not people with a
get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in their vests. Reasonable enough: they should
"inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and
allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea? We vote for X but who does
he vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by the " Rules-Based
International Order" ("
we make the rules ,
you follow our orders "). The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty big change,
actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries the head
of state is The Boss – USA, Russia (now), France – in others the head of government
is The Boss – Germany, Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question
here that has to be worked out in detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a
referendum. The President either should or should not be bound by the
no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure out what "этим"
refers to in "Не считаю, что
этот вопрос
принципиальный,
но согласен с
этим. Не считаю,
что этот вопрос
принципиальный,
но согласен с
этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)
So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But I'm
confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20
years that they don't make things up on the fly.
Then we learned that the entire government had resigned – but individuals to stay in
place until replaced. Then we learned – a fast few hours indeed! – that Dmitri
Medvedev was replaced by somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever
heard of: Mikhail Vladimirovich Mishustin. (
Russian Wiki entry – none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal
(something predicted and hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this:
not tossed out into ignominy and shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that
there is a clear distinction between government and presidential concerns; defence and security
are clearly in the latter. But Medvedev has always been closely following
defence and security issues and it is suitable and appropriate that he continue to do so. So a
new position, deputy heard of the security council, will be created for him. So what are we
to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a sinecure? Or he's been given a crucial
job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?
After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any younger.
Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow,
has been getting less and less predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours
locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ;
within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington
has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting
smaller, are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
– it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so,
it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
– is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving
its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
So, maybe Moscow needs more people on the job.
So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing the Transition?
(To say nothing of the – what's the word? – Thucydides trap ? ).
Mishustin looks after the nuts and bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev
looks after defence and security – something not likely to get smaller while Putin looks
after the big picture?
But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.
The US is trying to stop Eurasia's economic and political integration in order to delay its
own demise, say international observers, explaining what message the US sent to the
Russia-China-Iran "triumvirate" by killing Quds Commander Qasem Soleimani. The assassination of
Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and
commander of the Quds Force, in a targeted US air strike on 3 January came on the heels of
joint naval exercise launched by Russia, Iran and China in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of
Oman.
The "growing Russia-China-Iran trilateral convergence", as The Diplomat
dubbed it in late December, is seemingly
hitting a raw nerve in Washington :
speaking to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) on 2 January, Rear Admiral
Khanzadi, the Iranian navy commander, said that Washington and its allies had held an emergency
meeting aimed at disrupting the drills.
US Opposes Rapprochement of Russia, China and
Iran Amid Policy of 'Maximum Pressure'
"Recent violent US attacks against Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria, culminating in the
killing of Iran's Major General Qasem Soleimani, are, in the wider geopolitical sense, meant
to send signals to the building Eurasian triumvirate to cease their collaborative activities,
let alone longer-term strategic and Belt and Road Initiative-linked designs," says Pye Ian,
an American economic analyst and private equity executive.
According to Ian, the US decision to step up pressure on Tehran might be stemming from
Washington's apparent belief that Iran is "the 'weakest link' in the strengthening Eurasian
alliance".
However, "Russia, China and Iran cannot be attacked overtly, let alone invaded, occupied or
'regime changed'," the economic analyst highlights.
Christopher C. Black, a Toronto-based international criminal lawyer with 20 years of
experience in war crimes and international relations, echoes the American economist.
"It is in response to the close relationship between Russia, Iran and China and it is no
coincidence that this murder took place just as the joint naval exercises in the Persian Gulf
came to an end," he said. "Further, it is a threat to Russian strategic interests in Syria
and to Syria itself."
Apart from this, the move indicates that "one of the reasons for US pressure on Iran is to
control the oil supply to China in order to cripple China's development," Black suggests.
Russia and its military successes in the region have become yet another irritant for
Washington, according to Max Parry, an independent American journalist and geopolitical
analyst.
"The US likely feels the need to re-assert itself as a hegemonic power in the region,
considering it is Moscow that emerged as the new honest peace broker in the Middle East with
the Syrian conflict," Parry notes. "Russia completely outmanoeuvred Washington and by the end
of the war, Turkey was practically in Moscow's camp. Trump has reset US foreign policy with
the withdrawal from Syria and the targeting of Iran."
By killing Soleimani, the US "has completely overplayed its hand and this could be the
beginning of the end for Washington because a war with Iran would be no cakewalk", he
emphasises.
According to Ian, in addition to being a thorn in Washington's flesh, Moscow, Beijing and
Tehran have something else in common: the three nations have increasingly been drifting away
from the US dollar.
The trend followed the Trump administration's:
· unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) in
May 2018;
· trade war waged against the People's Republic of China by Washington since March
2018;
· series of anti-Russian sanctions imposed against Moscow under the pretext of the
latter's interference in the US 2016 presidential elections, something that Russia resolutely
denies.
The economic analyst explains that "the dollar's universal confidence trick requires uniform
adherence, by natural adoption or by force". While the US allies remain obedient to the dollar-
dominated system, those who resisted it such as Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Gaddafi and
Venezuela under Chavez "triggered some Atlanticist force, either overtly or clandestinely, in
order to try and put those nations back on a compliant page."
However, "the current state of dollar printing by the US Fed ad infinitum cannot last
forever," Ian stresses.
"The global East and South are already ahead of Transatlantic banking, in a sense, by
shifting further out of the dollar and Treasury securities into their own, or bilateral,
currency exchanges, gold, and/or domestic or collaborative cryptocurrency endeavours," he
says.
Russia, China, Iran, as well as India and some other Eurasian nations are switching to
trading in local currencies and
continuing to amass gold at a steady pace . Thus, for instance, Russia produced over 185.1
tonnes of gold in the first six months of 2019; the country's bullion reserves reached 72.7
million troy ounces (2,261 tonnes) as of 1 December 2019. For its part, the People's Bank of
China (PBoC) has accumulated 1,948.3 tonnes of the precious metal as of December 2019,
according to World Gold Council.
Ian foresees that if the world's nations continue to shift
out of US Treasury obligations and choose alternative currencies for energy pricing,
trading and reserves recycling, it may "cause US interest rates to fly higher, cratering
consumer, institutional and public debt obligations and re-importing an obscene level of
inflation back into the US".
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of
Sputnik.
"World War III is not going to happen because World War III already happened and the global
capitalist empire won. [Where is the "capitalism"?] Take a look at these NATO maps (make sure
to explore all the various missions). Then take a look at this Smithsonian map of where the
U.S. military is "combating terrorism." And there are plenty of other maps you can google.
What you will be looking at is the global capitalist empire. Not the American empire, the
global capitalist empire.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference well, it kind of is, and it kind of
isn't. What I mean by that is that it isn't America (i.e., America the nation-state, which
most Americans still believe they live in) that is militarily occupying much of the planet,
making a mockery of international law, bombing and invading other countries, and
assassinating heads of state and military officers with complete impunity.
Or, rather, sure,
it is America but America is not America."
Does the United States's withdrawal from the JCPOA constitute non-compliance, or not? If so,
does their non-compliance constitute breach of contract, or not?
The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs, a move one European
official equated to "extortion," represents a new level of hardball tactics with the United
States' oldest allies, underscoring the extraordinary tumult in the transatlantic
relationship.
...
U.S. officials conveyed the threat directly to officials in London, Berlin and Paris rather
than through their embassies in Washington, said a senior European official, who like
others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
Yes the US extorted their own "allies" to get them to betray Iran and destroy their own
reputations. I must say the one thing i begrudgingly like about Trump is his honest upfront
thuggist actions. After the backroom betrayals of Obama bush clinton merkel and the rest its
almost refreshingly honest. Also i can think of no quicker way of destroying the US empire
than by threatening your own allies the MIC must be desperate to start a new never ending
war, although perhaps they should be careful of what they wish for
Trumps calculations were (obviously) right. EU would have never risked a massive economic
crisis because of a breakdown in US-EU trade by siding with Iran.
Sadly, they are doing what every other country would do in this position to protect their own
self percieved national interests.
Like China,India and Russia too now more and more totally abiding by sanctions and in case
of China winding down oil trade even more.
In this time of lurking economic crisis, US sanctions could cripple Europe from one day to
the next. With our countries also being on the edge of social unrest, and mass conflict
between elites and people, a massive economic crisis would bring everything tumbling
down.
This is the sad reality. Risking the sure economic meltdown to save an already lost Iran
deal would trade the social and economic welbeing of their voters for Iran. The deal has been
lost ever since Trump annouced his opposition. This is the reality. Triggering a crisis on
the back of its own voters without a real chance to save that deal would have been an empty
gesture anyway.
Realpolitik.
Good thing is Merkel seems to have had a great day with Putin. EU will silently learn from
this and warm ties with Russia. If not for its people, for its business.
The deal was a good idea, but it always was destined to end like this. Iran will go
nuclear, and the US and Isreal will have "no alternative" for shooting war. If they dare
now.
Paragragh 14 of the UNSC resolution is worth thinking about.
"14. Affirms that the application of the provisions of previous resolutions pursuant to
paragraph 12 do not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and
Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the
activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with the JCPOA,
this resolution and the previous resolutions;"
To date, only Russia and China are holding up their ends of the deal. Iran, sticking to
the deal is on the losing side as it has no trade with the EU yet it still must stay within
the provisions of the deal. I believe there were clauses on what Iran could do if other
parties were not upholding their end.
The nuke deal is dead and Iran knows it. Under Paragragh 14, Russia China can sign up to all
deals allowed under the resolution and when snapback provisions occur, Iran Russia china can
still operate contracts it has signed before sanctions reinstated. This way, Iran gets the
benefits of trade and investment with China and Russia that could not have occurred before
the nuke deal, but at the same time, Iran will no longer be bound by the deal.
China signed up a huge oil deal with Iran not long back. Russia have also been signing a good
number of contracts. None of these will be effected by UNSC sanction.
Overall, the nuke deal was a win for Iran. Pity the US and Euro's have reneged, but still,
a win for Iran.
Does the United States's withdrawal from the JCPOA constitute non-compliance, or not? If so,
does their non-compliance constitute breach of contract, or not?
Now Peter, do you really think the Outlaw US Empire or its poodles will abide by contract
law in general and the JCPOA contract law specifically?
IMO, the JCPOA's outcome is becoming similar to the outcome of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
in that it bought time and showed who's the true aggressor. I recall writing the Eurasians
need to behave as if they're at war with the EU-3 and their master--and that includes the
Eurasian nations who so far aren't too much affected by the fallout from the JCPOA's
failure.
What has me curious is the nature of the talks between Iran and Qatar.
Piotr Berman , Jan 15 2020 3:11 utc |
119Jackrabbit , Jan 15 2020
3:12 utc |
120
Peter AU1 @114
= Under Paragragh 14, Russia China can sign up to all deals allowed under the resolution
and when snapback provisions occur, Iran Russia china can still operate contracts it has
signed before sanctions reinstated.
Not sure about that. Paragraph 14 has this constraining language:
... provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are
consistent with the JCPOA, this resolution and the previous resolutions.
My reading of this phrase is that he word "and" implies that the contracts must
satisfy provisions of ALL of these.
Put another way: When the snap back occurs, then contracts signed are exempt except
that they must comply with the provisions that are snapped back (AND) the JCPOA, AND this
resolution!?!?
Yes, it seems nonsensical. But how else can one interpret the "and"?
= Overall, the nuke deal was a win for Iran.
It was a 'win' for both sides.
I've always believed that USA entered into the JCPOA to buy time because Syrian "regime
change" was taking longer than expected. I've read many times that neocons and/or neocon
sympathizers believed that "Damascus is on the road" to Tehran."
USA-Israel want to fight Iran before it gets a bomb. Iran bought time to prepare for that
fight.
The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big
zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and
exceptional' supremacist US. by: AriusArmenian @ 15
evilempire @ 74 <= I agree the Iranians probably did not shoot down the 737.. I posted
to MOA a link to a presstv article, headlined no missile hit the passenger liner, and the
link even said --its official.. within a short few minutes after tha, the pressTV link
disappeared and PressTV replaced it with a new story , Iranians admit they had mistakenly
shot down the PS752 taking off from Tehran. This suggest either a military coup in Iran, or
Iraq double crossed Iran. killed in Iraq by Trump were the leaders of the Shia religious arm
(IRCG leaders )
The unusually harsh words and expression in anger by Khomeini, said he would severely
punish those 8 persons responsible for the mistake, <= non characteristic of Khomeini ,
suggesting a trusted friend let him down; the two arms of the Military may be at war with
each other and Trump was helping the Iranian Military (eliminate the upper leadership of the
Revolutionary guard)? Today's JCOPA by the European powers issue suggest insiders have been
at work all weekend. Russia and China silence all fit betrayal. Have the two separate
branches of Iran military been at odds with each?
Imagine the White house wiping out Qaseum Soleimani and other IRCG members drawn on false
pretense into Iraq.?
here is Bs report on the matter
The Iranian Armed Forces General Staff just admitted (in Farsi, English translation) that its
air defenses inadvertently shot down the Ukrainian flight PS 752 shortly after it took off on
January 8 in Tehran :
2- In early hours after the missile attack [on US' Ain al-Assad base in Iraq], the
military flights of the US' terrorist forces had increased around the country. The Iranian
defence units received news of witnessing flying targets moving towards Iran's strategic
centres, and then several targets were observed in some [Iranian] radars, which incited
further sensitivity at the Air Defence units.
3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline's Flight PS752 took
off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a sensitive military
site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target. In such conditions, due
to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit [by the Air Defence], which
caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the deaths of several foreign
nationals.
4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy with
the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the human error.
It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the operational procedures
of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of such errors. It will also
immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces for
prosecution.
The Pentagon had claimed that Iran shot down the airliner but the evidence it presented
was flimsy and not sufficient as the U.S. tends to spread disinformation about Iran.
The Associated Press errs when it says that the move was "stoked by the American drone
strike on Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani". The move was stoked five
days earlier when the U.S. killed 31 Iraqi security forces near the Syrian border despite the
demands by the Iraqi prime minister and president not to do so. It was further stoked when
the U.S. assassinated Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, the deputy commander of the Popular Militia
Forces and a national hero in Iraq.b at 19:09 UTC | Comments (150)
The State Department issued a rather aggressive response to Abdul-Mahdi's request:b at
19:09 UTC | Comments (150)
Very interesting post. something is up Thanks.
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jan 15 2020 2:14 utc | 113
thanks, yes, the US economic power directly and indirectly via economic laws or
extra-territorial sanctions. A company simply cannot make a deal with Iran if it doesn't want
to be ruined by US legal means. Sad, but true.
Iranian frozen assets in international accounts are calculated to be worth between $100
billion[1][2] and $120 billion.[3][4] Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in
the United States.[5] According to the Congressional Research Service, in addition to the
money locked up in foreign bank accounts, Iran's frozen assets include real estate and other
property. The estimated value of Iran's real estate in the U.S. and their accumulated rent is
$50 million.[1] Besides the assets frozen in the U.S., some parts of Iran's assets are frozen
around the world by the United Nations.[1]
***********
Now I will have to cry myself to sleep. Trump, such a poor man...
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 15 2020 3:11 utc | 119
Yes, I am getting tired of that meme too. The poor helpless king of the world, if only he
could do what he wants ... if only he could "drain the swamp"
He promised to abolish the JCPOA, he suggested he would deal with the increase of Iran's
power in the region and he promised to restore US and military power to it's old (lost) world
domination. A world domination Russia and China would need to deal with too:
He already promised he would abolish JCPOA during his 2016 election campaign. And he
promised to not only make both the American economy and military strong again. So America can
exert at least as much power as it did under the great Ronald Reagan.
Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy. The Russians and Chinese
have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look at what's happened to us. Our
nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is
desperately in need of modernization and renewal. And it has to happen immediately. Our
active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.
The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air
Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today.
These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room.
And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget
that in real dollars, cuts nearly 25 percent from what we were spending in 2011. Our military
is depleted and we're asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global
warming.
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single
investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to
mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody
and everybody.
Mao | Jan 15 2020 4:19 utc | 124
Current Europe is a selling girl of imperialism.
Indeed! The western band of galoots are captives of their white skin color...
Very unbecoming to the rest of the non-white world = majority.
Fortunately, many of us see past our skin colors, whatever that may be...
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single investment we
can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our
military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody and everybody.
Posted by: moon | Jan 15 2020 4:58 utc | 125
Oh, we'll spend the money alright; for more of the inferior, junk, weaponry already in our
arsenals.
Planes that can't fly in the rain, aircraft carriers that can't be commisioned, and battle
rifles (that's a misnomer; the M-14 was the last U.S. battle rifle) (M-4 & M-16) that are
unreliable in intense combat situations. The M-16 should have been replaced during the Viet
Nam war...
But there it still is; almost 60 years later...
Personally I thought the cartoon was pretty good. The artist even thought that the detail
of the dogs' ass holes was important enough to include. Notably none of them have any
external genitalia, hence "bitches" also being accurate. I bet if we could see the rendition
from the other side, Israel's face would be hideous despite the appealing rear view!
This is a repeat of the EU3 negotiations with Iran that ended with a EU3 deal offered to Iran
that experts called "a lot of pretty wrappig around an empty box" because as it turned out,
the EU3 had been promising the US that they would not recognize Iran's right to enrichment
contrary to what they were telling the Iranians as part of the EU3's effort to drag out
Iran's suspension of enrichment.
The result was that Khatami was embarrassed and Ahmadinejad was elected, as Jack Straw said
later:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/us-scuppered-deal-with-iran-in-2005-says-then-british-foreign-minister/
So again the Eu is playing the good cop to the US bad cop, and they keep goalposts
moving
This has been a consistent pattern going back years.
All along Iran has been making better compromise offers than the JCPOA only to see the
goalposts moved because this conflict was never really about nukes just as the invasion of
Iraq was not about WMDs, all that is just a pretext for a policy of imposed
regime-change.
NOTE That the Obama administration itself said that the JCPOA is "non-binding" funny how
Iran is accused of "breaching" or "violating" it yet Trump is only said to have "abandoned"
or even "withdrawn" from the deal
"President Rohani represent's the interests of the bourgeoisie in Tehran and Esfahan,
merchants oriented toward international trade and hard hit by US sanctions. Sheikh Rohani is
a long time friend of the US deep state: he was the first Iranian contact between the Reagan
administration and Israel during the Iran-contra affair in 1985. It was he who introduced
Hashem Rafsanjani to Oliver North's men, allowing him to buy arms, to become
commander-in-chief of the armies and incidentally the richest man in the country, and the
president of the Islamic Republic."
Thierry Meyssan. Voltairenet. org.
Wednesday morning, my first read before b's M. O. A. is Thierry. Really folks, it is
indespensible. One can support the I. R. I.,but still reserve criticism of the domestic
politics of Iran.
Outside the West, people don't see any difference between Europe and the USA. So it is known
that which ever direction the US takes, Europe will follow. Both the USA and Europe are
Israeli colonies. So unless Israel objects whatever the US does would always be the Eurooean
policy.
Annex B, paragraph 5 allows Iran to purchase weapons from Russia (for example...) after 5
years from signing of the Agreement in 2015.
So 2020 for weapons.
This is why Russia is so insistent the agreement holds together for the 5 years, at least.
If it doesn't, due to this action by Germany etc, then they can't sell to Iran as all old
sanctions will 'snap back'.
(Other restrictions are lifted on longer time frames, 8 and 10 years. Also, other matters
remain open forever until security council agrees the nuclear proliferation issue in Iran is
dead and buried.)
V , Jan 15 2020 9:05 utc |
142Russ , Jan 15
2020 11:08 utc |
143
powerandpeople 138 says:
Annex B, paragraph 5 allows Iran to purchase weapons from Russia (for example...) after
5 years from signing of the Agreement in 2015.
So 2020 for weapons.
This is why Russia is so insistent the agreement holds together for the 5 years, at
least. If it doesn't, due to this action by Germany etc, then they can't sell to Iran as all
old sanctions will 'snap back'.
There's an example of how appeasement and idiot-legality are way past their expiration
date. It's clear the UN itself, like all other existing international bodies, has been fully
weaponized with Russia the ultimate target.
In the process of "first they came for Irak, then they came for Libya [with the full
consent of Russia and China]...now they're coming for Irak again and for Iran....", well
obviously Russia is the one they'll ultimately be coming for.
It really is time to hang together or hang separately. Although Russia should remain
cautious about direct military stand-offs, it's definitely way past time to start openly
challenging and flouting war-by-sanctions, and to start constructing international bodies
alternative to the UN and other imperial weapons.
As for fighting within the UN, someone earlier said Russia and China wouldn't be able to
prevent the "snap-back" of UN sanctions on Iran. Why not? I'm not asking for a
technical-legalistic answer, but a power-based answer. Self-evidently the "legality" ship has
sunk, and anyone who still makes a fetish of it is fighting with one hand tied behind one's
back.
I don't say gratuitously flout legality; certainly there's great propaganda value in
seeming to adhere to international law in the face of the open lawlessness of the US. But
where it comes to critical battles like getting Iran out from under the sanctions, in the
process dealing a blow to the alleged impregnability of the sanctions weapon, the most
important thing is the real result.
Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other
president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)
and his assassination of Soleimani..
Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other
president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)
and his assassination of Soleimani..
Russ
Russia and I think China are working towards a multi-polar world order based on international
law.
Russia is pushing this vision and to pull other countries in, it has to walk the talk.
PR information warfare play a big part in state decisions. As we have seen from the Uki plane
shootdown Euro's beginning the process to trigger snapback, A small anti Iran block sprang to
life (UK, Canada, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Sweden) that will be great PR for the US in its
anti Iran crusade.
As I put in another comment, everyone likes a winner
I also recommend the short piece by Patrick Armstrong posted by moon up there.
I've been of the opinion from the beginning of this that the main reason Russia &
China have not leapt to the aid of Iran is that Iran does not need or want them to, yet at
least. Crooke's mention of the attack on the Saudi oil facilities is a connection that needs
to be made, that was not a fluke.
But it's a very "asymmetric" situation, as Crooke points out. Interesting times.
And each consequence leads to yet another consequence. But world leaders do not recognize
where this path is leading humanity. If they did they might be able to stop – or
perhaps not. They delude themselves to the real destination of the journey. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Indeed they were, and now we know it was just a charade. Triggering the Dispute Resolution
Mechanism on basis intel supplied by Bibi is a ruse to replace the JCPOA. Where have we heard
this before? Oh, Iran is less than a year from getting the nuclear bomb.
On Tuesday, Britain, France and Germany launched the 2015 Iran nuclear deal's dispute
resolution mechanism, which they said was partly prompted by concerns that Tehran might be
less than a year away from developing a nuclear weapon.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has rejected a proposal for a new "Trump deal" to resolve
a nuclear spat as a "strange" offer, pointing the finger at the US President over his
failure to deliver on promises.
"This Mr. Prime Minister in London, I don't know how he thinks. He says let's put
aside the nuclear deal and put the Trump plan in action. If you take the wrong step, it
will be to your detriment. Pick the right path. The right path is to return to the nuclear
deal", Rouhani said on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Trump to replace the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal with his own
new pact to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The US president responded by
tweeting that he agreed with Johnson on a "Trump deal".
Zarif Says 'It Depends on Europe' if JCPOA Remains After Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Activation. [.]
my apologies if anyone's brought this already, but the plot now thickens. a commenter at the
site at which i cross-post brought this to my attention on my 'iran makes arrests over
accidental downing of Ukrainian airliner'.
it's a tweet leading to new york times coverage of a 'Exclusive: Security camera footage
verified by the New York Times confirms that 2 missiles, fired 30 seconds apart from an
Iranian military site, hit the Ukrainian plane'
i'd used a free click to pull text, including:
"The new video was uploaded to YouTube by an Iranian user around 2 a.m. on Tuesday.
The date visible on the footage is "2019-10-17," not Jan. 8, the day the plane was downed. We
believe this is because the camera system is using a Persian calendar, not a Gregorian one.
Jan. 8 converts to the 18th of Dey, the 10th month in the Persian calendar. Digitally that
would display as 2019-10-18 in the video. One theory is that the discrepancy of one day can
be explained by a difference between Persian and Gregorian leap years or months." "
but it's everywhere already, set in stone, the WSJ news coverage included:
"The video was verified by Storyful, a social-media-intelligence company owned by News
Corp, parent of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones. It raises new questions about how
forthcoming Iranian authorities were when, after three days of denial, they admitted they had
mistakenly struck the Ukraine International Airlines flight without mentioning a second
missile."
the video obviously bring up a dozen more questions, including what it shows, where, when,
etc., but corporate coverage assures us that 'iran has lied about the airliner thrice now:
evil iran'.
wait for even more sanctions, more assassinations.
What bothers me about this entire thread is no one can see either a way to end the
suppression every player on the field has been subjected to by the private mobsters. . War
whether by WMDs or Sanctions. produces the same, millions will die and nothing will alter the
possession of power, and the abuse of the masses, by the few.
The thesis "the nation state system is the structure that allows the mobsters (private
bankers, private corporations, and privateers) to control sufficient authority to rule the
world". Without strength from deadly force, and authority from engineered consent, ruling the
world is difficult.
No one has found a way to pin the maker of wrongdoing chaos button, or convicted criminal
button on the private mobsters. As the private mobsters dance, and side step their positions
between the 206 or so nation states, they avoid being boxed up, and they install their
puppets in every place they land. It is the puppets who deliver to the international arenas
the voting power that allow the private mobsters to control conflict outcomes; and puppets
in-service-to the private mobsters oversee and manage the regional and local political and
economic domains. In such a situation, the law becomes progressively more suppressive; it
produces a hierarchy of relative power and the hierarchy allows to order the nation states
relative to their power in the hierarchy. The world might even be safer without any
government at all than to allow itself to be victimized by the private mobster use of the
nation state system. Clearly the mightier the actor in the system, the less the system can or
will hold the mighty actor to conform to the rule of law. So the rule of law suppresses the
little guy and enhances the big guy.. If there were no nation state system, there would not
be any push button suppression.
There has to be an answer.. that is not war or decimation of more humanity.
The only goal of Europe in sticking to the JPCoA when Trump walks out is to keep Tehran from
developping its nuke while excruciating sanctions hinder all normal life. Regime change is
still the goal, be it at the expense of european trade.
Think of NorthStream, or of the two-state fiction in Palestine where " there's no one to
broke peace with ".
There has to be an answer.. that is not war or decimation of more humanity.
Posted by: snake | Jan 15 2020 14:26 utc | 155
One lesson from history is that it is important that those big shots just beneath the
ultimate societal power be held to the strictest standards: The law applies to you too, big
shot. Clovis effectively adhered to this principle many centuries ago. Putin by reining in
the worst of the oligarchs operated in tune with this principle.
The prevailing principle in the West is that oligarchs, the mighty, etc are above the law,
while in the US for example swat teams kill pets that bark at their door-smashing arrival at
the homes of the little people, and those who invest in private prisons feast financially on
slave labor by millions of plebeians 'plea bargained' into servitude.
Oh, Iran is less than a year from getting the nuclear bomb.
Since Bibi, Trump and the rest of Iran's enemies and their indoctrinated populations have
been saying this for years it's time for Iran to just get on with it and pull out all stops
in putting several together to be used as an option of last resort. But they should make no
public confirmation, like Israel. If the warmongering US wants a war they and their allies
(and their populations would then be aware of the consequences and would force them to
re-assess the situation. IMO this is the only way Iran will survive. If Trump wins another
term I can almost guarantee he will forge ahead with attempting another regime change. Iran
is already a pariah state in their eyes so really nothing much more for Iran to lose.
Tim Horton's has been foreign-owned (now Brazil) since 2014, but the rot started to set in as
expansion, particularly into the US, became a major goal. Once a reasonable quality purveyor
of coffee and made-from-scratch in-store donuts, now just another hawker of industrialized
brown swill and partly-cooked/frozen-then-shipped and finish-baked chemical-laced products.
I only patronize a Timmie's if I don't know of a decent quality local bakery/restaurant in
that particular area. The devil you know...
To William Gruff: Absolutely, Canada is a vassal state of the US.
Example 1: Cretien managed to keep Cdn troops out of Iraq, but dithering Paul Martin got
forced by the US to send non-combat troops into Afghanistan, then
bribery-cash-in-brown-envelopes Harper turned it into combat roles that persist to this
day.
Ex 2, Diefenbaker scrapped the nearly-complete AVRO Arrow project on direct orders from
the US that the total-crap BOMARC missile system was to be implemented instead.
Trudeau sorta confronted the US by legalizing pot, but other than that... the foreign
policy leash is very visible on the Canadian lapdog.
Iran doesn't react like the US psychopaths do..
They follow the letter of the law, as they have done with JCPOA.
But in my opinion, Iran should get its nuke capabilities up to par asap. Why continue to want
to look as though you're following the law of JCPOA by allowing the IAEA in who reports to
the EU/US to continue intrusive inspections when they all plan war against you leaving you
nuke defenseless while Israel and Saudis have or are getting nukes?
If Iran has nukes the US will back off. Nuff said.
In 70 years of illegal and violent occupation of Palestine through deportation,eradication
and no respect for human lives adding what zionist army and services have done through these
years and this is "some nasty stuff"..no israel it's the cancer of middle-east..just it!
The AVRO Arrow fiasco was criminal... "scrapping" doesn't even begin to tell the story...
utter destruction was more like it, with welding torches, right down to the last bolt. That
plane, with it's mach 2 Iroquois engine was en route to completely embarrassing the US
MIC
As well, few people know the AVRO Jetliner story, which preceded the Arrow - the first
North American passenger jet aircraft - years ahead of anything the US produced
This panel discussion explains how Congress is bought by the military industrial (mostly
oil) complex. Then again Eisenhower included Congress in the Cabal several years after he
overthrew the democratic leader of Iran. The dialogue of these panel members links all
Mideast invasions back to the initial destruction of Iranian government in 1953. Apparently,
we cannot have democracy in the Mideast as it is bad for the mafia business.
I recently heard a story on CBC radio about the Arrow. Not only did they destroy the
prototype and all parts, they even destroyed all the drawings, except for one set which was
smuggled out by a draftsman, who kept them secret for decades. But now they are on display at
the "Diefenbaker Canada Centre at the University of Saskatchewan until April 2020" (from
Wiki)
It's interesting to learn that Uncle Sam wanted the program stopped. Why didn't some US
company just buy Avro instead? Buying out the competition is standard operating procedure for
US corporate parasites.
wendy davis @154 Rouhani's tweet when accepting responsibility for the downing of the plane
stated:
Hassan Rouhani
@HassanRouhani
·
Jan 10
Armed Forces' internal investigation has concluded that regrettably missiles fired due to
human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent
people.
Investigations continue to identify & prosecute this great tragedy & unforgivable
mistake. #PS752
As you can see, Rouhani stated 'missiles' as in plural.
Great to run into you again. Indeed by signing on to the JCPOA Iran demonstrated a number
of things. 1) Iran keeps her word. 2) The US never does. 3) Europe's role is to smile while
preparing to stab you in the back. 4) The US will sacrifice her own interests for Israel's
everytime.
I think all of us could have predicted all that. But what I could never have predicted was
the complete in your face nature of American imperialism. It is one thing for there to be
overwhelming evidence against a suspect. It's quite another for him to openly brag about his
crimes and then promise to commit even more. That is why Trump's presidency is a blessing for
Iran. If you happen to be in Iran, please share with us any information about the national
mood and how people are coping in difficult circumstances.
Didn't know that about Merkel; yet another reason she qualifies as a cowardly poodle. It's
also clear, IMO, that Merkel lied to Putin and the press about her position on the JCPOA at
their post-talks
presser :
Putin: "We certainly could not ignore another issue which is vitally important not only
for the region but also for the whole world – the issue of preserving the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme. After the United States withdrew
from this fundamental agreement, the Iranian side declared that they suspended some of their
voluntary commitments under the JCPOA. Let me underscore this – they only suspended
their voluntary commitments while they stress their readiness to go back to full compliance
with the nuclear deal.
"Russia and Germany resolutely stand for the continued implementation of the Joint Plan.
The Iranians are entitled to a support from European nations, which promised to set up a
special financial vehicle separate from the US dollar to be used in trade settlements with
Iran. The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) must finally begin working."
Merkel, statement: "Of course, we also discussed Iran. We agree that everything necessary
must be done to preserve the JCPOA. Germany believes that there should be no nuclear weapons
in Iran, and therefore we will use all the available diplomatic means to preserve this
agreement, even though it is not perfect, but it includes obligations of all the sides."
Merkel answering a question: " I have mentioned an issue on which we do not see eye to eye
with the Americans (JCPOA), even though they are our allies with whom we are working together
on many matters. But when it comes to German and European opinions, we are acting above all
in our own interests, while Russia is upholding its own interests, so we should look for
common interests in this process.
"Despite certain obstacles, we have found common interests in our bilateral relations
regarding the JCPOA with Iran. We have common opinions and different views, but a visit such
as this one is the best thing. It is better to talk with each other rather than about one
another, because it helps one to understand the other side's arguments."
It's very clear from Russia's reaction that the EU-3's action was a complete surprise. I
doubt Merkel will be invited to Moscow again. For Russians and the rest of humanity, there's
no trusting the West. IMO, it must always be treated as hostile regardless the smiles.
"
While it might work in domestic politics, this mad man negotiating tactic erodes trust in
international affairs and it will take decades for the US to recover from the harm done by
Trump's school yard bully approach.
Even the docile Europeans are beginning to tire of this and once they get their balls
stitched back on after being castrated for so long, America will have its work cut out
crossing the chasm from unreliable and untrustworthy partner to being seen as dependable and
worthy of entering into agreements with.
"... On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield." ..."
One of the new bogus explanations that the administration has been offering up is that there was a threat to one or more U.S. embassies
that led to the assassination. Rep. Justin Amash notes this morning that they have presented no evidence to Congress to back up any
of this or their original claim of an "imminent" attack:
The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally
made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval --
with respect to any of this. The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies
claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without
congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. https://t.co/Eg0vaCnqFd
-- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash)
January 12, 2020
The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president
invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated
in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite
their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility
long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and
appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what
happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by
determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing
this. John Cassidy The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what
they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because
they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important
as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have
trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there
is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are
still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are
getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the
leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading
up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action
against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened
at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined
hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John
Cassidy
reports :
On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani
months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's
Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the
Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he
moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests.
It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from
public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield."
Pompeo has Pompeo has
lied constantly
about Iran and the nuclear deal before and after he became Secretary of State, so it is not surprising that he has been the administration's
public face as they lie to Congress and the public about this illegal assassination. No wonder
he doesn't want to appear before Congress to testify.
Add to this the concomitant attempt made in Yemen, where there is no American presence other than the bombs dropping from the
sky, against an Iranian operative, and it shows the push of the administration to go for the kill as the main factor. The US is
becoming more and more like Israel: kill first, no excuses, we are the chosen ones - The "revenge" of Dinah's brothers, Genesis
34:25. This is The US of A's diplomacy nowadays. The world has really been put on notice. And the world will be reacting, see
the visit of Chancellor Merkel to Moscow immediately after that.
The question is what the American citizens are going to do? What are they going to vote for?
Why shouldn't Trump and his Administration's creatures "expect to be believed"? He and his toadies have misstated, misled, BS-ed
and outright lied to the public for three years now; and - despite a "credibility gap" of Vallis Marineris proportions - have
gotten no appreciable pushback from the media.
The right-wing media simply cheerlead him, as usual: and everybody else just sort of nods, grunts, and moves on.
On the one hand he is a creature of the technocratic neo-liberal order which is committed to
unilateralism and "post-nation-statism". On the other hand he is a creature of France – a
nation with strong (though easily forgotten) nationalist traditions stretching back to King
Louis XI, the founder of the first modern nation state, Cardinal Mazarin who organized the
Peace of Westphalia that established modern thoughts on nation states, Jean-Baptiste Colbert
who's economic theories gave meaning to economic sovereignty in the modern era, to Sadi Carnot
who's application of Colbertist economics and resistance to British manipulation got him killed
in 1895, to Charles de Gaulle, who established the 5 th Republic and devoted his
life to resisting the Deep State on the basis of peaceful relations with Russia and China.
Then there is the populist rage of the French which dates back to the colorful days of the
French revolution which established a unique tradition of mass revolts against the established
order when it becomes abusive of the people this provides a "bottom up" factor which any
politician desirous of keeping their heads attached to their necks must keep in mind.
For these two reasons (top down traditions of statecraft and bottom up traditions of freeing
corrupt leaders' of their heads from their bodies), Macron has found himself joining President
Trump's call to re-introduce Russia back into the G8, and has made major maneuvers to re-orient
France towards a pro-China policy becoming the guest of honor at China's International
Expo where $15 billion of deals were signed on energy, aerospace and agricultural
initiatives.
Macron has even enraged Europe's technocratic elite by questioning the foundations of the
European Union's viability while at the same time aptly
criticizing NATO of 'brain death' . The crisis caused by the unravelling of the globalist
vision of a post-nation state world order has resulted in an emergency conference in London to
figure out how NATO can be saved from its total irrelevance. Faced with the anti-NATO sentiment
expressed by Macron and Trump in recent months, and the emergence of the new multipolar order
which is attracting ever more nation states (including NATO members) into its sphere of
influence, Jens Stoltenberg
made the desperate assertion that China must be made a target of the military alliance
saying that China "is coming closer to us, investing heavily in infrastructure. We see them
in Africa, we see them in the Arctic, we see them in cyber space and China now has the
second-largest defense budget in the world."
The NATO Disorder and the Economic
Meltdown
Today, after decades of neoliberal practices have undermined the once powerful
agro-industrial capacities of France under the "post-industrial" Euro, it has become evident
that austerity and increased taxes are the only solutions which the technocrats running the
European Central Bank will permit. Since Euro membership forbids any nation to create a debt
which is greater than 3% of GDP, the means to generate sufficient state credit to build large
scale projects needed for an economic recovery do not exist.
In other words, from the standpoint of the Trans-Atlantic rules of the game, the situation
is hopeless.
For all of his problems, Macron isn't blind to this fact and can see that Russia and China
have successfully transformed the international order with the advent of the Belt and Road
Initiative. He can see that this system uniquely offers western leaders (who wish to keep their
heads in the face of the oncoming economic collapse), the only viable means to provide jobs,
security and long term economic growth to their people since it is rooted in long term, open
system thinking which is not connected to Hobbesian closed system geopolitics. De Gaulle would
be happy to see this shift.
The Revival of de
Gaulle
Charles de Gaulle was among a network of leaders who fought valiantly against the cancerous
deep state that had formerly supported fascism in WWII. While Franklin Roosevelt had to
do battle with such pro-fascist organizations such as the JP Morgan-funded Liberty League
and Council on Foreign Relations from 1933-1945, President De Gaulle had to contend with the
pro-Nazi Petain government whose agents immediately took over controls of France in the wake of
WWII, and didn't go away upon the General's ascension to the Presidency during the near
collapse of the 5 th republic in 1959.
De Gaulle strategically fought tooth and nail against the pro-NATO fascists led by General
Challe who attempted two coup attempts against De Gaulle in
1960 and 1961 and later worked with MI6 and the CIA using private contractors like Permindex to
arrange over
30 assassination attempts from 1961-1969.
De Gaulle was not only successful at taking France out of
the NATO cage in 1966 , but he had organized to ensure Algeria's independence against the
will of the entire deep state of France who often worked with Dulles' State Department to
preserve France's colonial possessions. De Gaulle also recognized the importance of breaking
the bipolar rules of the Cold War by reaching out to Russia calling for a renewed Europe "
from the Atlantic to the Urals " and also an alliance with China with the intent of
resolving the fires lit by western arsonists in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam whose independence
he was committed to guaranteeing. De Gaulle wrote of his plan in his Memoires:
"My aim, then, was to disengage France, not from the Atlantic Alliance, which I intended
to maintain by way of ultimate precaution, but from the integration carried out by NATO under
American command; to establish relations with each of the states of the East bloc, first and
foremost Russia, with the object of bringing about a détente, followed by understanding
and cooperation; to do likewise, when the time was ripe, with China"
After arranging a treaty with China's Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, India's Prime Minster Nehru
and the leadership of Cambodia in 1963 to create a China led block to resolve the crisis in
Southeast Asia with France's help, De Gaulle became the first western head of state to
recognize China and establish diplomatic relations with the Mainland on January 31, 1964. He
saw that China's growth would become a driving force of world development and saw a friendship
based on scientific and technological progress to be a source of France's renewal. Attacking
the false dichotomy of "Free liberal capitalism" vs "totalitarian communism", De Gaulle
expressed the Colbertist traditions of "dirigisme" which have historically driven France's
progress since the 17 th century when he said "We are not going to commit
ourselves to the empire of liberal capitalism, and nobody can believe that we are ever going to
submit to the crushing totalitarianism of communism."
The De Gaulle-Kennedy
Alliance
De Gaulle had great hopes to find like-minded anti-colonialist leaders and collaborators who
were fighting against the deep state in other countries. In America he was inspired by the
fresh leadership of the young John F. Kennedy whom he first met in Paris in May 1961. Of
Kennedy he wrote "The new President was determined to devote himself to the cause of
freedom, justice, and progress. It is true that, persuaded that it was the duty of the United
States and himself to redress wrongs, he would be drawn into ill-advised interventions. But the
experience of the statesman would no doubt have gradually restrained the impulsiveness of the
idealist. John Kennedy had the ability, and had it not been for the crime which killed him,
might have had the time to leave his mark on our age."
De Gaulle's advice to Kennedy was instrumental in the young President's decision to stay out
of a land war in Vietnam and led to Kennedy's
National Security Action Memorandum 263 to begin a phase out of American military from
Vietnam on October 2, 1963. Kenney and De Gaulle both shared the view (alongside Italian
industrialist Enrico Mattei with whom both collaborated) that Africa, Asia and South America
needed advanced scientific and technological progress, energy sovereignty and sanitation in
order to be fully liberated by the colonial structures of Europe. All three fought openly for
this vision and all three fell in the line of battle (one to a plane crash in 1961, another to
several shooters in Dallas in 1963 and the last to a staged "colour revolution" in 1969.)
[1]
If De Gaulle, Kennedy and Mattei were alive today, it is guaranteed they would recognize in
the Belt and Road Initiative and broader Eurasian alliance, the only viable pathway to a future
worth living in and the only means to save the souls of their own nations. The question is:
Will Macron continue on this Gaullist path and will other nations grow the balls to follow
suite, or will those imperial fascists who overthrew De Gaulle's vision in 1969 succeed once
more?
Footnote
[1] It is noteworthy that thesame
Montreal-based Permindex Corporationwhich was expelled from France for having
orchestrated at least two attempts on De Gaulle's life was found by New Orleans D.A. Jim
Garrison to be at the heart of the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
s the debate over presidential war powers intensifies in Congress, a coterie of key Trump
officials hit the Sunday talk shows last weekend to ratchet up the rhetoric on the "imminence"
of the attack Iranian General Qassem Soleimani had allegedly planned.
"It was this attitude that we don't have to tell Congress, we don't have to include
Congress," said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia. He added that after various scenarios
were presented by senators, the administration refused to provide any "commitment to ever come
to Congress" no matter what the circumstances.
On Friday, Pompeo said the
attacks were justified because there was "a series of imminent attacks that were being
plotted by Qasem Soleimaini, we don't know precisely when and we don't precisely where."
Members of Congress and the media seized upon the quote, charging that it does not sound
like the definition of "imminent."
President Trump himself seemed to grasp the importance of stressing that the attack was
"imminent" when he added details Friday on Fox News, asserting that Soleimani was plotting
attacks on four U.S. embassies.
"I think it would have been four embassies," Trump said. "Could have been military bases,
could have been a lot of other things too. But it was imminent."
"We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy," Trump added. "He was looking
very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad. I can reveal that I
believe it would have been four embassies."
But members of Congress say they were not told that four embassies had been targeted. And
when Trump officials were asked Sunday whether that claim was true, one by one they were left
sputtering.
Pentagon Chief Mark Esper conceded he "didn't see" intelligence indicating that on CBS's
Face the Nation .
"I didn't see one with regard to four embassies," Esper
said . "What I'm saying is I share the president's view."
"What the president said was he believed there probably and could've been attacks against
additional embassies. I shared that view," said Esper.
National Security adviser Robert O'Brien seemed to imply that members of Congress were at
fault for not extracting that information from their intelligence briefing.
"It does seem to be a contradiction. [Trump is] telling Laura Ingraham [about imminent attacks], but in
a 75-minute classified briefing, your top national security people never mentioned this to
members of Congress. Why not?" Chris Wallace asked O'Brien on Fox News Sunday .
"I wasn't at the briefing," O'Brien answered, "and I don't know how the Q&A went back
and forth. Sometimes it depends on the questions that were asked or how they were phrased."
On Meet the Press , O'Brien asserted that "exquisite" intelligence he was privy to
showed that "the threat was imminent."
When pressed by Chuck Todd about what the U.S. did to protect the other three embassies
under alleged imminent threat, O'Brien declined to give details.
"Is 'imminent' months, not weeks? Are people misinterpreting that word?" asked Todd.
"I think imminent, generally, means soon, quickly, you know, in process. So you know, I
think those threats were imminent. And I don't want to get into the definition further than
that," said O'Brien.
Pompeo's claim that an attack could be "imminent" even though the U.S. did not "know where
or when" it would come is "pretty inconsistent," Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky,
replied Sunday on Meet the Press.
"To me there's a bigger question too. This is what really infuriated me about the briefing
[Trump officials] maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or
2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do
whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from Iran," said Paul. "And I don't
think that's what Congress meant in 2002. We really need to have a debate about whether we
should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan. There needs to be authorization from Congress."
Paul argued that presidents from both parties have, for decades, usurped Congress's war
powers, and that it is time for Congress to claw them back.
Said Paul, the founders "wanted to make it difficult to go to war, and I think we've been
drifting away from that for a long time, but that's why I'm willing to stand up, not because I
distrust President Trump -- actually think he has shown remarkable restraint -- but I'm willing
to stand up even against a president of my party because we need to stand up and take back the
power."
While the debate over war powers continues, Trump supporters have counter-attacked by
questioning the patriotism of those who don't fall in line with their narrative.
Former White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee-Sanders
"can't think of anything dumber" than Congress deciding matters of war and peace. Nikki
Haley accused Democrats of "mourning" General Soleimani. Congressman Doug Collins said
Democrats are "
in love with terrorists ." And Lindsey Graham said senators like Lee and Paul are
"empowering the enemy" by trying to rein in Trump's war powers.
On Monday, Trump added on Twitter: "The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are
working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was
'imminent' or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it
doesn't really matter because of his horrible past!" If Trump's team was really in agreement,
they sure had a good way of hiding it. about the author Barbara Boland is TAC's
foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the
Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a
book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The
Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University
in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
"... Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days). ..."
"... I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror show. Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes on. ..."
"... For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war or other policy. ..."
"... They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda very well. ..."
"... Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional" leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors. ..."
"... But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. ..."
"... He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin. ..."
"... The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US Trade Representative ..."
"... oderint, dum metuant ..."
"... Führerprinzip ..."
"... Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top. ..."
"... This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all. ..."
"... Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything ..."
"... The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS or their academy. ..."
"... I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year before Trump canned him. ..."
"... I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion. ..."
"... Classic predatory behaviors: culling the herd and eating the weak. ..."
"... I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that you have room to make compromises later. ..."
"... But in domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start. Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any given compromise has no particular virtue or value. ..."
"... Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that fate. ..."
"... A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all. ..."
"... The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately and on purpose. ..."
"... It also helps him do some things quietly in the background ..."
Trump and
the Mad Negotiator Approach Posted on January
14, 2020 by Yves Smith Trump's numerous character
flaws, such as his grandiosity, his lack of interest in the truth, his impulsiveness, his
habitual lashing out at critics, have elicited boatloads of disapproving commentary. It's
disturbing to see someone so emotional and undisciplined in charge of anything, let alone the
United States.
Rather than offer yet more armchair analysis, it might be productive to ask a different
question: why hasn't Trump been an abject failure? There are plenty of rich heirs who blow
their inheritance or run the family business into the ground pretty quickly and have to knuckle
down to a much more modest lifestyle.
Trump's lack of discipline has arguably cost him. The noise regularly made about his
business bankruptcies is wildly exaggerated. Most of Trump's
bankruptcies were of casinos , and most of those took place in the nasty 1991-1992
recession. He was one of only two major New York City developers not to have to give meaningful
equity in some of their properties in that downturn. He even managed to keep Mar-a-Lago and
persuaded his lenders to let him keep enough cash to preserve a pretty flashy lifestyle because
he was able to persuade them that preserving his brand name was key to the performance of
Trump-branded assets.
The MarketWatch analysis shows a variety of lenders, all big banks or listed specialized
finance companies like Ladder Capital, that have provided lots of money to Trump over the
years in the forms of short-, medium- and long-term loans and at competitive rates, whether
fixed or variable.
"The Treasury yield that matches the term of the loan is the closest starting benchmark
for Trump-sized commercial real estate loans," said Robert Thesman, a certified public
accountant in Washington state who specializes in real estate tax issues. The 10-year
Treasury swap rate is also used and tracks the bonds closely, according to one expert.
Trump's outstanding loans were granted at rates between 2 points over and under the
matching Treasury-yield benchmark at inception. That's despite the well-documented record of
bankruptcy filings that dot Trump's history of casino investment.
The flip side is that it's not hard to make the case that Trump's self-indulgent style has
cost him in monetary terms. His contemporary Steve Ross of The Related Companies who started
out in real estate as a tax lawyer putting together Section 8 housing deals, didn't have a big
stake like Trump did to start his empire. Ross did have industrialist and philanthropist Max
Fisher as his uncle and role model, but there is no evidence that Fisher staked Ross beyond paying for his education .
Ross has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion versus Trump's $3.1 billion.
Despite Trump's heat-seeking-missile affinity for the limelight, we only get snippets of how
he has managed his business, like his litigiousness and breaking of labor laws. Yet he's kept
his team together and is pretty underleveraged for a real estate owner.
The area where we have a better view of how Trump operates is via his negotiating, where is
astonishingly transgressive. He goes out of his way to be inconsistent, unpredictable, and will
even trash prior commitments, which is usually toxic, since it telegraphs bad faith. How does
this make any sense?
One way to think of it is that Trump is effectively screening for weak negotiating
counterparties. Think of his approach as analogous to the Nigerian scam letters and the many
variants you get in your inbox. They are so patently fake that one wonders why the fraudsters
bother sending them.
Everyone knows that Nigerian scam e-mails, with their exaggerated stories of moneys tied
up in foreign accounts and collapsed national economies, sound totally absurd, but according
to research from Microsoft, that's on purpose .
As a savvy Internet user you probably think you'd never fall for the obvious trickery, but
that's the point. Savvy users are not the scammers' target audience, [Cormac] Herley notes.
Rather, the creators of these e-mails are targeting people who would believe the sort of
tales these scams involve .:
Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since
his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to
reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the
scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive
ratio in his favor.
Who would want to get in a business relationship with a guy who makes clear early on that he
might pull the rug out from under you? Most people would steer clear. So Trump's style, even if
he adopted it out of deep-seated emotional needs, has the effect of pre-selecting for weak,
desperate counterparties. It can also pull in people who think they can out-smart Trump and
shysters who identify with him, as well as those who are prepared to deal with the headaches
(for instance, the the business relationship is circumscribed and a decent contract will limit
the downside).
Mind you, it is more common than you think for businesses to seek out needy business
"partners". For instance, back in the day when General Electric was a significant player in
venture capital, it would draw out its investment commitment process. The point was to
ascertain if the entrepreneurs had any other prospects; they wouldn't tolerate GE's leisurely
process if they did. By the time GE was sure it was the only game in town, it would cram down
the principals on price and other terms. There are many variants of this playbook, such as how
Walmart treats suppliers.
Trump has become so habituated to this mode of operating that he often launches into
negotiations determined to establish that he had the dominant position when that is far from
clear, witness the ongoing China trade row. Trump did in theory hold a powerful weapon in his
ability to impose tariffs on China. But they are a blunt weapon, with significant blowback to
the US. Even though China had a glass jaw in terms of damage to its economy (there were signs
of stress, such as companies greatly stretching out when they paid their bills), Trump could
not tolerate much of a stock market downdraft, nor could he play a long-term game.
Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called
gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he
demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as
driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his
counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to
identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called
love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first
meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days).
Voters have seen another face of Trump's imperative to find or create weakness: that of his
uncanny ability to hit opponents' weak spots in ways that get them off balance, such as the way
he was able to rope a dope Warren over her Cherokee ancestry claims.
The foregoing isn't to suggest that Trump's approach is optimal. Far from it. But it does
"work" in the sense of achieving certain results that are important to Trump, of having him
appear to be in charge of the action, getting his business counterparts on the back foot. That
means Trump is implicitly seeing these encounters primarily in win-lose terms, rather than
win-win. No wonder he has little appetite for international organizations. You have to give in
order to get.
I think this is pretty astute, thanks Yves. One reason I think Trump has been so
successful for his limited range of skills is precisely that 'smart' people underestimate him
so much. He knows one thing well – how power works. Sometimes that's enough. I've known
quite a few intellectually limited people who have built very successful careers based on a
very simple set of principles (e.g. 'never disagree with anyone more senior than me').
Anecdotally, I've often had the conversation with people about 'taking Trump seriously',
as in, trying to assess what he really wants and how he has been so successful. In my
experience, the 'smarter' and more educated the person I'm talking to is, the less willing
they are to have that conversation. The random guy in the bar will be happy to talk and have
insights. The high paid professional will just mutter about stupid people and racism.
I would also add one more reason for his success – he does appear to be quite good
at selecting staff, and knowing who to delegate to.
There is another figure from recent history who displayed similar astuteness about power
while manifesting generally low intelligence: Chile's Pinochet. He had near failing grades in
school but knew how to consolidate power, dominate the other members of the junta, and weed
out the slightest hint of dissidence within the army.
To the average viewer, Trump's branding extends to the negative brands that he assigns to
opponents. Witness Lyin' Ted , Pocahontas and similar sticky names that
make their way into coverage. He induces free coverage from Fake News as if they
can't resist gawking at a car wreck, even when one of the vehicles is their own. Manipulation
has worked quite a lot on people with different world views, especially when they don't
conceive of any different approaches.
Scott Adams touted that as one of Trump's hidden persuasionological weapons . . . that
ability to craft a fine head-shot nickname for every opponent.
If Sanders were to be nominated, I suppose Trump would keep saying Crazy Bernie. Sanders
will just have to respond in his own true-to-himself way. Maybe he could risk saying
something like . . .
" so Trashy Trump is Trashy. This isn't new."
If certain key bunches of voters still have
fond memories for Crazy Eddie, perhaps Sanders could have some operatives subtly remind
people of that.
Some images of Crazy Eddie, for those who wish to stumble up Nostalgia Alley . . .
I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his
appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other
basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror
show.
Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes
on.
Another indication how bad his delegation skills are is how short his picks stay at their
job before they are fired again. Is there any POTUS which had higher staff turnover?
Its a horror show because you don't agree with their values. After the last few
Presidents, too much movement to the right would catastrophic, so there isn't much to do. His
farm bill is a disaster. The new NAFTA is window dressing. He slashed taxes. He's found a way
to make our brutal immigration system even more nefarious. His staff seems to be working out
despite it not having many members of the Bush crime family.
Even if these people were as beloved by the press as John McCain, they would still be
monsters.
It's not their values that make them a horror show, it's their plain inaptitude and
incompetency. E.g. someone like that Exxon CEO is at least somewhat capable, which is why I
didn't mention him. Though he was quite ineffective as long as he lasted and probably quite
corrupt. Pompeo in the same office on the other hand is simply a moron elevated way beyond
his station. Words fail and the Peter principle cannot explain.
The US can paper over this due to their heavy handed application of power for now, but
every day he stays in office, friends are abhorred while trying not to show it, and foes
rejoice at the utter stupidity of the US how it helps their schemes.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this
is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the
US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war
or other policy. So while I am sort of happy about the outcome, I don't see the current
monsters at the helm worse than the monsters 4 years ago under Obama. In fact I detested them
much more since they had the power to drag my governments into their evil schemes.
Evil and clearly despicable is always better than evil and sort of charismatic.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy,
this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid
the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's
war or other policy.
Indeed, if you look at the trendline from the '80's to now, trump is, in some ways, the
less effective evil.
They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long
sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by
cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda
very well.
I feel exactly the same. Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional"
leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of
democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors.
But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible
people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. But in the
behind the scenes activities, they've been very effective – as an obvious example,
witness how he's put so many conservative Republicans into the judiciary, in contrast with Obamas haplessness.
That is not a Trump thing, getting more judges is a 100% rep party thing and only rep
party thing. Sure, he is the one putting his rubber stamp on it, but the picking and
everything else is a party thing. They stopped the placement for years under Obama before
Trump was ever thought about, and now are filling it as fast as they can. Aren't they having
complicit democrats helping them or how can they get their picks beyond congress? Or am I
getting something wrong and Obama could have picked his judges but didn't?
The people he chooses to run his administration however are all horrible. Not just
horrible people but horrible picks as in incompetent buffoons without a clue. Can you show a
evil, horrible or not but actually competent pick of his in his administration?
The only one I can think of is maybe the new FAA chief Dickson. Who is a crisis manager,
after the FAA is in its worst crisis ever right now. So right now someone competent must have
this post. All the others seem to be chickenhawk blowhards with the IQ of a fruitfly but the
bluster of a texan.
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind?
She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a
intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all
the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can
helping a career lots if successful.
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one
another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par
for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent.
Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
Some time ago I heard Mulvaney answer the criticism about the Trump budget of the day
cutting so much money from EPA that EPA would have to fire half of its relevant scientists.
He replied that " this is how we drain the swamp".
Citing "corruption" was misdirection. Trump let his supporters believe that the corruption
was The Swamp. What the Trump Group ACTually means by "The Swamp" is all the career
scientists and researchers and etc. who take seriously the analyzing and restraining of Upper
Class Looter misbehavior.
I limited the post to his negotiating approach. One would think someone so erratic would
have trouble attracting people. However, Wall Street and a lot of private businesses are full
of high maintenance prima donnas at the top. Some of those operations live with a lot of
churn in the senior ranks. For others, one way to get them to stay is what amounts to a
combat pay premium, they get paid more than they would in other jobs to put up with a
difficult boss. I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how
good his key lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Regarding his time as POTUS, Trump has a lot of things working against him on top of his
difficult personality and his inability to pay civil servants a hardship premium:
1. He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican
Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned
hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of
perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies
like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin.
The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US
Trade Representative
2. Another thing that undermines Trump's effectiveness in running a big bureaucracy is his
hatred for its structure. He likes very lean organizations with few layers. He can't impose
that on his administration. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole.
I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how good his key
lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Is it just me or does nobody know? Does it seem to anyone else like there has been
virtually no investigation of his organization or how it was run?
Maybe it's buried in the endless screeds against Trump, but any investigations of his
organizations always seem colored by his presidency. I'd love to see one that's strictly
historical.
I am simply saying that I have not bothered investigating that issue. There was a NY Times
Magazine piece on the Trump Organization before his election. That was where I recall the bit
about him hating having a lot of people around him, he regards them as leeches. That piece
probably had some info on how long his top people had worked for him.
Congratulations Yves, on another fine piece, one of your best. I might recommend you
append this comment to it as an update, or else pen a sequel.
While Trump has more in common stylistically with a Borgia prince out of Machiavelli, or a
Roman Emperor ( oderint, dum metuant ) than with a Hitler or a Stalin, your note
still puts me in mind of an insightful comment I pulled off a history board a while ago,
regarding the reductionist essence of Führerprinzip , mass movement or no mass
movement. It's mostly out of Shirer:
Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic
empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo
ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he
encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old
group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things
his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was
continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker
willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top.
This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit
leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did
their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all.
Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made
everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no
superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything
.
As you note, some of these tools (fortunately) aren't available to Cheeto 45 .
I hope this particular invocation of Godwin's avenger is trenchant, and not OT. Although
Godwin himself blessed the #Trump=Hitler comparison some time ago, thereby shark-jumping his
own meme.
It might be as simple as birds of a feather (blackbirds of course) flocking together.
Trump seems to have radar for corrupt cronies as we have seen his swamp draining into the
federal prison system. The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally
caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS
or their academy.
I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to
appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders
from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he
appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him
firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I
didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year
before Trump canned him.
My recollection of the Reagan years was that he had a lot of staff who left to "spend more
time with their families"; in other words they got caught being crooked and we're told to go
lest they besmirch the sterling reputation of St. Ronnie.
He early-on adopted the concept of "dismantle the Administrative State". Some of his
appointees are designed to do that from within. He appoints termites to the Department of
Lumber Integrity because he wants to leave the lumber all destroyed after he leaves the White
House.
His farm bill is only a disaster to those who support Good Farm Bill Governance. His
mission is to destroy as much of the knowledge and programs within the USDA as possible. So
his farm bill is designed to achieve the destruction he wants to achieve. If it works, it was
a good farm bill from his viewpoint. For example.
I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things
according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign
countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about
international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost
certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion.
He calculates
the risks and takes measures that show he is a strong man defending US interests (in a very symplistic and populist way) no matter if someone or many are offended, abused or even killed
as we have recently seen. Then if it is appreciated that a limit has been reached, and the
limit is not set by international reactions but perceived domestic reactions, he may do a
setback showing how sensibly magnanimous can a strongman like him be. In the domestic front,
IMO, he does not give a damn on centrists of all kinds. Particularly, smart centrists are
strictly following Trumps playbook focusing on actions that by no means debilitate his
positioning as strongman in foreign issues and divert attention from the real things that
would worry Trump. The impeachment is exactly that. Trump must be 100% confident that he
would win any contest with any "smart" centrist. Of course he also loves all the noises he
generates with, for instance, the Soleimani killing or Huawei banning that distract from his
giveaways to the oligarchs and further debilitation of remaining welfare programs and
environmental programs. This measures don't pass totally unnoticed but Hate Inc .
and public opinions/debates are not paying the attention his domestic measures deserve.
Trump's populism feeds on oligarch support and despair and his policies are designed to keep
and increase both. Polls on Democrats distract from the most important polls on public
opinion about Trum "surprise" actions.
Trump has the rare gift of being able to drive his enemies insane – just witness
what's become of the Democrats, a once proud American political party.
Democrats have long been (what, 50 plus yrs. – Phil Ochs – Love Me I'm A
Liberal) exuding false pride of not appearing to be or sounding insane. Their place, being
the concern troll of the duopoly. All are mad. If the Obama years didn't prove it, the Dems
during Bush Cheney certainly did.
Yes, 50 years. Nixon played mad to get his Vietnam politics through, Reagan was
certifiable
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will
outlaw Russia forever." "We begin bombing in five minutes." live on air.
Etc.
I suspect only half of the post was posted? The last para seems to get cut in mid
sentence.
I'd add one more thing (which may be in the second half, assuming there's one). Trump's
massively insane demands are a good anchoring strategy. Even semi-rational player will not
make out-of-this-earth demands – they would be seen as either undermining their
rationality, or clearly meant to only anchor so less effective (but surprisingly, even when
we know it's only an anchor it apparently works, at least a bit). With irrational Trump, one
just doesn't know.
I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten
by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that
you have room to make compromises later.
Sometimes this works better than others – I
don't know how far you can do it with the Chinese, for example. But then Trump may have
inadvertently played, in that case, into the tradition of scripted public utterances combined
with behind-the-scenes real negotiation that tends to characterize bargaining in Asia.
But in
domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is
a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make
counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start.
Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is
something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any
given compromise has no particular virtue or value.
There is actually two parts to a negotiation I should mention. There is negotiating a
deal. And then there is carrying it out. Not only Trump but the US has shown itself incapable
of upholding deals but they will break them when they see an advantage or an opportunity.
Worse, one part of the government may be fighting another part of the government and will
sabotage that deal in sometimes spectacular fashion.
So what is the point of having all these weird and wonderful negotiating strategies if any
partners that you have on the international stage have learned that Trump's word is merely a
negotiating tactic? And this includes after a deal is signed when he applies some more
pressure to change something in an agreement that he just signed off on? If you can't keep a
deal, then ultimately negotiating a deal is useless.
The incapability of the US to keep their treaties has been a founding principle of the
country. Ask any Indian.
Putin or the russian foreign ministry called the US treaty incapable a few years before
Trump, and they were not wrong. Trump didn't help being erratic as he is, but he didn't
cancel any treaty on his own: JCPOA, INF, etc. He had pretty broad support for all of these.
Only maybe NAFTA was his own idea.
He owes the fact he's President not to any skill he has, but to Democrats being so bad.
Many non establishment types could have beaten Hillary.
And Trump owes the fact that he's not DOA in 2020 re-election again because Democrats are
so bad. There are a handful of extremely popular social programs Democrats could champion
that would win over millions of voters and doom Trump's re-election. But instead, they double
down on issues that energize Trump's base, are not off-limits to there donors while ignoring
what the broad non corporate/rich majority support. For example impeaching him for being the
first recent President not to start a major new war for profit and killing millions and then
saying it's really because something he did in Ukraine that 95% of Americans couldn't care
less about and won't even bother to understand even if they could.
That leaves the fact he is rather rich and must have done something to become that. I
don't know enough about him to evaluate that. But I would never what to know him or have a
friend that acts like him. I've avoided people like that in my life.
Did you read the post as positive? Please read again. Saying that Trump's strategy works
only to the extent that he winds up selecting for weak partners is not praise. First, it is
clinical, and second, it says his strategy has considerable costs.
I find it interesting that the primary foreign entity who has played Trump like a violin
is Kim in North Korea. He has gotten everything he wanted, except sanctions relief over the
past couple of years.
However, Trump's style of negotiating with Iran has made it clear to Kim that North Korea
would be idiots to give up their nuclear weapons and missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has watched
Trump's attitude towards Kim since Kim blew up his first bomb and Trump is forcing them to
develop nuclear weapons to be able to negotiate with Trump and the West.
But other than the minor matter of US 8th Army (cadre) sitting in the line of fire, the
bulk of any risks posed by Li'l Kim are borne by South Korea, Japan and China. So for Trump,
it's still down the list a ways, until the Norks can nuke tip a missile and hit Honolulu. So
what coup has Kim achieved at Trump's expense, again?
Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to
destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime
Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that
fate.
A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence.
And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the
Republicans to destroy them all.
The ClintoBama Pelosicrats have no standing on which to pretend to support some very
popular social programs and hope to be believed any longer. Maybe that is why they feel there
is no point in even pretending any more.
Mind you, there's no reason to think that this negotiation approach wasn't an adaptation
to Trump's emotional volatility, as in finding a way to make what should have been a weakness
a plus. And that he's less able to make that adaptation work well as he's over his head, has
less control than as a private businessman, and generally under way more pressure.
I recall reading that Trump's empire would have collapsed during the casino fiasco were it
not for lending from his father when credit was not available elsewhere. NYT investigative
reporters have turned up evidence of massive financial support from Trump father to son to
the tune of hundreds of millions throughout the son's career. So much for the great
businessman argument.
Trump is nothing more or less than a reflection of the mind set of the US people. The left
wing resorts to the same tactics that Trump uses to gain their ends. Rational thought and
reasonable discussion seems to be absent. Everyone is looking for a cause for the country's
failing infrastructure, declining life expectancy, and loss of opportunity for their children
to have a better life than they were able to achieve.
They each blame the other side. But
there are more than two sides to most folks experience. If ever the USA citizens abolish or
just gets fed up with the two party system maybe things will change. In reality most people
know there is little difference between the two parties so why even vote?
This analysis of Trump reminded me of a story I heard from the founders of a small rural
radio station. Both had been in broadcasting for years at a large station in a major market,
one as a program director and the other in sales. They competed for a broadcasting license
that became available and they won.
With the license in-hand they needed to obtain
investments to get the station on-air within a year or they would lose the license. Even with
their combined savings and as much money as they could obtain from other members of their
families and from friends -- they were short what they needed by several hundred thousand
dollars.
Their collateral was tapped out and banks wouldn't loan on the broadcast license
alone without further backing. They had to find private investors. They located and presented
to several but their project could find no backers. In many cases prospects told them their
project was too small -- needed too little money -- to be of interest. As the deadline for
going on-air loomed they were put in touch with a wealthy local farmer.
After a long evening presenting their business case to this farmer in ever greater detail,
he sat back and told them he would give them the money they needed to get their station
on-air -- but he wanted a larger interest in the business than what they offered him. He
wanted a 51% interest -- a controlling interest -- or he would not give them the money, and
they both had to agree to work for the new radio station for a year after it went on-air.
The
two holders of the soon to be lost broadcast license looked at each other and told the farmer
he could keep his money and left. The next day the farmer called on the phone and gave them
the names and contact information for a few investors, any one of whom should be able and
interested in investing the amounts they needed on their terms. He also told them that had
they accepted his offer he would have driven them out of the new station before the end of
the year it went on-air. He said he wanted to see whether they were 'serious' before putting
them in touch with serious investors.
Sorry, assassination doesn't fit into this scenario. That is a bridge too far. Trump has
lost his effectiveness by boasting about this. It isn't just unpredictability. It is
dangerous unpredictability.
I never once said that Trump was studied in how he operates, in fact, I repeatedly pointed
out that he's highly emotional and undisciplined. I'm simply describing some
implications.
If our corrupt Congress had not ceded their "co-equal" branch of gov't authority over the
last 40 years thereby gradually creating the Imperial Presidency that we have now, we might
comfortably mitigate much of the mad king antics.
Didn't the Founding Fathers try desperately to escape the terrible wars of Europe brought
on by the whims and grievances of inbred kings, generation after generation? Now on a whim
w/out so much as a peep to Congress, presidential murder is committed and the
CongressCritters bleat fruitlessly for crumbs of info about it.
I see no signs of this top-heavy imperialism diminishing. Every decision will vanish into
a black hole marked "classified."
I am profoundly discouraged at 68 who at 18 years old became a conscientious objector,
that the same undeclared BS wars and BS lies are used to justify continuous conflct almost
nonstop these last 50 years as if engaging in such violence can ever be sucessful in
achieving peaceful ends? Unless the maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are the actual
desired result.
Trump's negotiating style is chaos-inducing deliberately, then eventually a "Big Daddy"
Trump can fix the mess, spin the mess and those of us still in the thrall of big-daddyism can
feel assuaged. It's the relief of the famiy abuser who after the emotional violence
establishes a temporary calm and family members briefly experience respite, yet remain wary
and afraid.
Kim Jong Un uses similar tactics, strategy, perhaps even style. Clinically and
intellectually, it's interesting to watch their interaction. Emotionally, given their
weaponry, it's terrifying.
Great post! The part about selecting for desperate business partners is very insightful,
it makes his cozying up to dictators and pariah states much more understandable. He probably
thinks/feels that these leaders are so desperate for approval from a country like the US
that, when he needs something from them, he will have more leverage and be able to impose
what he wants.
It was not a "request" from Iraq; it was a command from them; and the U.S. and Iraq relate as conqueror and
conquered, not as "partners." Consequently: the U.S. Government, now that it has been so unequivocally ordered to leave,
is back again, unequivocally, to its invader-occupier role in Iraq.
The AP report went on to say that,
"The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination
to push ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq."
Again there was that false word "request."
The AP report said that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted, in reply:
"Our mission set there is very clear. We've been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security
forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, to continue the counter-Daesh campaign."
Though that's the invader-occupier's excuse, the reality is that the US needs Iraq in order to invade Iran, which is
the US Government's objective, though not overtly stated.
Already, America's assassination in Iraq of Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani on January 3rd is an enormous act of
war against Iran.
It is intended to obliterate Iran's main strategist, and this successful attack against Iran inside Iraq is a
devastating first strike, by the U.S. Government against Iran.
So: now, the U.S. is at war against both Iraq and Iran.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
Harry Stotle
,
I see Tony is inconsolable after the death of a dictator who failed to hold an election for 50 years?
Britains foremost war criminal said, "I heard the news about His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman
with great sadness. He was a leader of vision and purpose who took over the leadership of his country at
a difficult time and raised it to an entirely new level of development and prosperity. He was a man of
culture, humanity and deep conviction who strove to make his nation and the world better and more
peaceful. He was kind, thoughtful and with a big heart. He had great wisdom and insight from which I
benefited often as did so many others. My deepest sympathy, prayers and condolences are with the people
of Oman. He will be sorely missed. Tony Blair.
https://twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/1215920898966020096
Yes, I'm sure you did 'benefit', Tony blood money I think they call it, you amoral scumbag.
Frank Speaker
,
I'm really disappointed to read yet another article on OffG about Iran. It's getting really boring and
those backward desert dwellers deserve all they get anyway. Let's get it over and done with and takeover
their oilfields and make lots of money. What I really want to see here instead are lots of articles about
Meghan and Harry.
(note to non-British readers, it's called irony)
MASTER OF UNIVE
,
The ever cowardly United States of America is officially at war with everyone in the world except the
uneducated dolts & imbeciles that support the Imbecile-in-Chief narcissist whackjob nutbar effin' retard
run amok.
Fuck America & the Republican Party that lives on forever war with everyone in the world
including American taxpayers.
Screw the imbecile-in-Chief to a wall of his making.
Death to America!
MOU
Harry Stotle
,
Oh, you are a wag, Eric is the US killing machine that just incinerated the Quds foremost military
strategist 'now at War Against Iraq AND Iran' well its hardly an act of peace, is it?
By the way, has
anyone been listening to Raab pontificate about 'international law' apparently the minister for Tory
lies appears to be oblivious to the fact that Soleimani's execution was almost certainly illegal, and was
only possible because Britain and American actions are always placed above the law.
Lets just remind Raab, and murder apologists like him that, "Outside of an on-going armed conflict,
the first use of military force is regulated under the jus ad bellum. The first principle of the jus ad
bellum is the prohibition on the use of force, a peremptory norm codified in United Nations Charter
Article 2(4). The only possible exception to the prohibition applicable in this case is self-defense. The
exception is narrow. Some restrictions are provided in UN Charter Article 51; others in the general
principles of international law. Article 51 permits the use of military force in such as the Hellfire
missiles carried by Reaper drones, if "an armed attack occurs". The International Court of Justice has
emphasized that the attack must be "grave".
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-killing-of-soleimani-and-international-law/
Neocons want to start killing Iranians (which they already are doing via economic sanctions) time
for the west to grasp this inescapable reality.
nottheonly1
,
What do these countries have in common?
U.S. IR UK FR AUS DE CAN NZ PL UK ES BR COL SA UAR NL SW NOR ET
AL?
They are all
M O ☐ H ☐ R ☐ A R ☐ H ☐ ☐ C K ☐ R ☐
Yes, you may buy an 'F'.
That includes its populations, that do it by default. They are programmed and conditioned from early
on to be in harmony with the Pompeos, the Busches, Obamas, Trumps and whatever their names are that have
this planet in stranglehold.
U.S. MUST PAY for all damages it inflicted over the last ~213 years. The ticket is endless and with
the indiscrininate use of weapons of mass destruction, very expensive.
In a world of justice, the rich people would be given the shittiest places in these countries and the
rest be divided among the victim Nations of these pathetically religiously fascist psychopaths.
Is the use of the term 'religiously fascist psychopath' now reason for a drone strike?
Well, what are you waiting for? You are okay with the above fascist nations to do pre-emptive murders,
but hesitate to do the same?
What an epic Upfuckery.
Because in other words nobody capable to do the one act that is excempt from Karmic retribution?
Rather than doing that, saner beings are actually leaning back in the most fatalistic way. What is it
good for, if the sane let the insane do whatever they please or their mental illness dictates them to
do?
Hitler was a good example. He was not mandated to undergo a psychological evaluation. And I don't care
where you set the red line. Being part of genocide is plenty enough at any given day. And there can be no
more limitations of terms.
Maybe the prevailing opinion about all this is for it to be a joke. But that only appears to be so,
because the populations of the above listed nations et al, are murdering innocent women and children
(future population reduction) in the Nations on the receiving fascist shit end of the stick.
On a side note and only marginally related:
Listening to the early Beatles and their 'depressing' songs, the mind drifted to 'The Man in Black'
(that I adore) and his song about why he is wearing black and likely to do so into his grave, which he
did. The song I have on mind changes the lyrics a bit, but stays true, or emphasizes the new expression.
Well, you wonder why I'm always using 'fuck'.
Why you'll never hear me leaving out the muck.
And why my words have such a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things I'm bringing on.
Oh, and yes, for what its worth: invest yourself in aeroponics. Learn everything about it and start
your own food production using very little, very clean water and clean air, delivering healthy greens.
It will work in an apartment as well as in a large greenhouse. The REAL Foodevolution.
Dungroanin
,
Yes the US has been at war in the ME for a very very long time Eric.
Their advance was halted and is now in retreat, bar a few 'battles of Bulges' false hopes they are
heading back to their bunkers and throwing the kiddy corps into the front lines to take on hardened
campaigners. They have even resorted to assassination of the Generals and leaders opening the way and
hoping for equal retaliation, to sway the public perception.
The Iraqis want the US out and are threatened with economic sanctions and freezing of their US$
accounts!
Just like Venezuela and Iran and Libya and Yemen ..,
The Iraqis are proceeding with their closer ties with the winners the Eurasian conglomerate, the
Belt & Road investments; the superior Russian weapons systems and no doubt the disengagement from the
petrodollar, ball and chain of a slave.
Like an abused woman who wants to remove the 'ex boyfriend' who moved in a decade ago has never paid
any bills, doesn't do housework or maintenance and brings round his mates to wreck the place
Iraq has served a legal order to remove the abusive bastard !
Get the fuck out or the bailiffs will be called to do it and that will mean MORE cost you bully!
If that is MORE war then retreating Empire will see a REAL war on all fronts including for the first
time ever in their own country the bodybags will be required domestically just like the poor
civilians have been dying in theit tens of thousands at the proxy US forces hands for decades.
The people of the US need to get past their daily diet of super sugared Hollywood superiority and
understand THEY are the EVIL EMPIRE and THEY are LOSING as the downtrodden ewoks of the many countried
are fighting back!
GEOFF
,
After the USS Vincennes in 1988 had shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and killed 290 people, including many
children, the U.S. government denied any culpability. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United
States at the time, commented: "I will never apologize for the United States I don't care what the
facts are I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Despite its "error" the crew was given medals
and the captain was even awarded a Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the
performance of outstanding service as commanding officer
GEOFF
,
The above is from moon of Alabama I forgot to mention
Granted that it's not the whole of the USA but it's not just the CIA and it's certainly not
merely "today". Incidentally, Brando said his attraction towards playing the Godfather is that he
thought it was a prefect demonstration of how the American political system really works.
Protect
,
From Zero Hedge / The Strategic Culture Foundation:
"Abdul-Mehdi [The Iraqi prime minister] spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and
now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil
revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
"This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction
instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he
threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.
"Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not
comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and
security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
"I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal
with the Chinese.
"After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both
protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call
from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this
"third party"."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/deeper-story-behind-assassination-soleimani
and there is this:
"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a
message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis."
lundiel
,
Here's your answer
from the state department, it appears to be both yes and no (depending on
financial incentives).
America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue the
fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting Americans, Iraqis,
and our coalition partners. We have been unambiguous regarding how crucial our D-ISIS mission is in
Iraq. At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit
to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture
in the Middle East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO's
role in Iraq, in line with the President's desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense
efforts. There
does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding
security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and
partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.
Typical imperialistic boiler plate. America being a "force for good in the Middle East" or anywhere
else is a lie. Remember Vietnam? As for "continu(ing) the fight against ISIS" the SOS really means to
continue to finance and supply ISIS while pretending to "fight against" them. There whole statement is
a Stygian Stable full of total BS.
The Iraqis should tell them again to get the f-k outta Dodge or they'll go Wyatt Earp on their
sorry lying asses.
Pardonnez-moi, but why do Canada and Australia also UK (Boris) take their 'cue' on foreign policy from
the USA? Sending defence forces to fight Washington's wars and banker's wars for resources?
That assertion by Mike("We lied we cheated we stole" ..)Pompeo is a total lie. The USA invaded Iraq under
a complete pack of lies, about Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" back in 2003 and are still
there after having murdered Hussein and now occupy Iraq.
The Elected Leader of Syria has also told the USA to "Get out of Syria", but the USA has not done so.
The USA(and it's 'owners" Israel, are the problem in the Middle East, NOT IRAN or Iraq.
Israel's anaesthetised donkey, The USA, is completely controlled by Israel .It's pathetic. but it's
true.
In the sixties we all knew that "NO" meant "YES" and these guys are from that era.
Brian Harry
,
I think that the World has grown sick and tired of the LIES, spewing out of the Military Industrial
Complex ..In the highest levels of the USA Government, "if their lips are moving, they're LYING .
Yep, with you 100% and the bulk of the 99% are getting the message too.
Yarkob
,
"the bulk of the 99% are getting the message too."
Don't kid yourself, Peter. I'd love to
agree with you, but there is little evidence of that on those sites that allow comment on
this. the masses have drunk the kool aid long and deep. Yes, there's some pearl-clutching
going on but he was "still a trrst" so it's all ok. Back to sleep.
Take your point Yarkob, thank you. I was trying to be optimistic in my world my network
is gradually becoming more aware I hope that my book, due to publish this quarter, will
ride the wave; fingers crossed!
:-))))
Where are you seeing this BTL? Bear in mind that comments in most corporate media sites
are heavily censored these days, and replete with sock puppets manipulating debate &
seeding talking points.
George Mc
,
As I have often said, the MSM not only lies but gives a false image of public opinion.
Granted that it is not easy or even possible to really know what the population is
tending towards in their opinion, I think we can safely say that the MSM always bullshits
about it. I love it especially when they not only bullshit about what "everyone thinks"
abut also about what everyone "WILL" think e.g. the blathering about what party is
"electable".
I am not, by any stretch, a subscriber to David Icke but he did come up with one
wonderful expression when he described what the MSM pump out as "the movie". That is
exactly what it is. And I'd like to believe that less and less people believe it. Of
course the big problem is that even if you reject it, you have to put up with the fact
that, obviously as far as the "mainstream" goes, it's the only show in town. And a lot of
people still regurgitate what they hear. So e.g. a lot of people go along with the
manufactured outrage over Corbyn "refusing to apologise" while these same people have no
idea what he is apologising for other than a vague notion that he must be some kind of
Hitler guy. It all comes down to vibrations set up in the MSM. If you shit enough and
often enough then eventually many will swallow it.
Since when has pax-americana not been at war. The only administration since ww2 that has not been at war
was the Peanut farmer from Georgia The Carter administration and it was his secretary of state Brezinski
that created the Takfiri army to disrupt Afghanistan in 1979.
Post Scriptum: The Iranian missile strike in western Iraq and Erbil was a historical event.
It is the second time in Us military history that pax-americana had not responded to a direct attack on a
military barracks , the first time was in 1982 in Beirut where a suicide bomber killed over 200 people.
Docius in Fondem:Wesley Clarke statement from when he was alluded to the Likudniks plan & countries in 5
years Iran was last on the list.
US have declared war on both Iraq and Iran with the assassination of the IRGC General and the PMU
General. Simple facts tend to allude we the exceptional civilized west
love the Latin:
Caesar ad sum iam forte
Pompei ad erat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Pompei sic in hat
Brian Harry
,
"Don't talk to me about the bloody Romans, what have they ever done for us"?
Try as I may, I cant get Google to translate that .what does it mean, please?
Brian Harry
,
.although, when I read it 'phonetically', it sounds like a "big night out, and lots of vomit
sprayed around but, I'm Australian, and we don't do things like that .much
Monty Python the Greatest .There weren't many Romans in Australia 2000 years ago. Too busy
invading and really irritating Europeans and British people, but, somehow, it all worked out
ok Always look on the bright side of life, huh ?
Yep, and you Brian are in the right place to see the sunny side. We here in old Blighty
are suffering the gloom, doom and damp. I lived in Cape Town for ten years (same latitude
as Sydney and similar climate) and miss it dreadfully the climate that is the rest is
isht; power cuts (load shedding they call it), water shortage (drought they call it),
pollution and infrastructure failure all round, Nuff said! Go well cobber.
Actually Jimbo the Peanut Farmer was involved in a covert war in Angola and also covertly arming the
Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Not to mention operation Eagle Claw that failed against the Iranians.
GEOFF
,
In 240 years since its inception warmongering yanky land has been at war in the last 224 years with
someone, 50 in the last 10 years, not a bad record.
Barbara Boyd correctly called Kent testimony "obsine" becase it was one grad neocon
gallisination, which has nothing to do with real facts on the ground.
She attributed those dirty games not only to the USA but also to London.
If you want to stop the coup against the President, you must understand how Joe Biden and
Hillary Clinton's State Department carried out a coup against the democratically elected
government of Ukraine in 2014.
In a November 16 webcast, LaRouche PAC's Barbara Boyd presented the real story behind the
present impeachment farce: how the very forces running the attack on President Trump, used
thugs as their enforcers, in order to turn Ukraine into a pawn in the British geopolitical war
drive against Russia.
"... Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this. ..."
"... Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards. ..."
"... The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US. ..."
Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long
as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this.
I always learn some thing here. For example imagine my surprise to learn the EU had a
reputation worth protecting. All you need to know about the EU is bitches will do what
bitches are told. This is just one more step on the road to war with China, is that really
what the citizens of the EU want? Are the people of the EU ready to die for the Trump and the
Republican party?
Think tanks, think tanks, think tanks. In 2009, the Brookings Institute's paper Which Path to
Persia, proposed offering Iran a very good deal and then sabotaging it. Good cop, Obama, bad
cop, Trump. Mission accomplished.
Only a matter of when and how. The warmongers have Trumps balls in a vice, he can't even
resign without making it worse by letting Pence take over. The art of the squeal, very high
pitched is whats happening in DC.
1st of all The UK was always going to side with DC over Iran. 2ndly for France and Germany
they probably aren't ready to put themselves plus their EU partners in the US doghouse for
Iran. When they break it will be a time of their own choosing.
Thanks b, for this detailed coverage of the 3 wimps' efforts to kill JCPOA. You did not
disappoint. Love the image showing mother residing in "occupied Palestine" .. (term coined by
MoA barfly)
I commented in the previous post, Russia warned of unintended consequences
LINK
Moscow is calling on the European parties to the Iran nuclear deal not to escalate tensions
and to abandon their decision to trigger the treaty's Dispute Resolution Mechanism, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.
"We strongly urge the Eurotroika [of parties to the JCPOA] not to inflame tensions and
to abandon any steps which call the prospects of the nuclear deal's future into question.
Despite all the challenges it has faced, the JCPOA has not lost its relevance," the
ministry said in a statement.
Ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden is also suspected of corruption, according to a
member of the Ukrainian parliament
KIEV, January 14. /TASS/. Ukraine's Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has obliged the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to launch a probe into seizure of government power
and corruption suspicions. The cases mention the names of the United States' 44th
president, Barack Obama, former Ukrainian president, Pyotr Poroshenko and ex-US
vice-president, Joseph Biden, a member of the Ukrainian parliament from the Opposition
Platform - For Life party, Renat Kuzmin, said[.]
"investigate the suspicions over the seizure of government power in Ukraine and of the
embezzlement of state budget money and international financial assistance by members of the
Obama administration"
If it ever was possible to sign a treaty with the US and expect them to abide by it, it
hasn't been possible for a long time. Here as everywhere else, Trump merely openly proclaims
the systemic lawlessness he shares with the rest of the US political class. (His contemptuous
withdrawal from the JCPOA never has been one of the things the establishment and media
criticize him for.)
For as long as US imperial power lasts, anyone who doesn't want to be a poodle (or to get
regime-changed because they foolishly attempt to sit the fence) has to accept that there can
be no legitimate agreements with the US or its poodles. If you sign a treaty with them, you
have to view it exactly the same way you know they do, as nothing but propaganda, otherwise
not worth the paper it's written on. No doubt North Korea, if they were in any doubt before,
registered how Trump and the US media immediately proceeded to systematically lie about the
agreement they'd supposedly just concluded, before the ink was even dry.
Here's hoping that if Iran was in any doubt before, they too are getting the message: As
far as the US and Europe are concerned, the only purpose of the JCPOA is to serve as a weapon
against them.
Face it B, there will be blood. It's a matter of time. It's unavoidable. The empire will
force its own destruction - and perhaps the rest of humanity's. The demons of nihilism will
prevail.
(Sounds like I have been hearing death metal. I swear I did not. And I not under the
influence either.)
The Oct 2020 deadline is important for more than one reason- Irans application to the SCO is
being held up because of it. The SCO membership would obligate support from countries like
India in response to politically motivated sanctions.
Surprised at Germany since Merkel just met with Putin. When I read of this earlier this
morning, that it's based on lies was 100% clear, that the trio are feckless and deserve all
the social instability that will soon come their way. Why did I mention social instability:
"The Fed is considering a plan to allow them to lend cash DIRECTLY TO HEDGE FUNDS in order
to ease the REPO Crisis. [Emphasis original]
"Where is 'bailing out private investment funds' in their alleged 'dual mandate'?"
Which gets us back to the reason Iran's targeted: Because it lies outside the dollar
economy, refuses to engage in petrodollar recycling, and has a quasi-socialist economy with
no private banking. Plus, we now see that Iraq will pursue evicting NATO and Outlaw US Empire
forces and likely join the Arc of Resistance's/Iran's policies which are what the Outlaw US
Empire went to war over to begin with.
Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's
replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO,
the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio
proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards.
The EU is a hopeless craven vassal of the US. The US dropping out of the JCPOA was the acid
test which the EU has spectacularly failed. We are in a historical pivot with the rise of the
coalescing multifarious East which is forcing the EU to make a decision: stay under the US
wing, go it alone, or ally with the East. The EU seems to know it at least should get more
distance between itself and the US but every time there is a major geopolitical event it
starts to talk like it is going independent but then always drops back into the US hand. How
many times does this have to happen for us to admit what the EU is about?
The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big
zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and
exceptional' supremacist US.
Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc |
15
If we accept that EU nations lack sovereignty and go further to suggest that such nations are
more simulations than real, what would an analysis of such events as the fallout from the
demise of the JCPOA look like? How should one talk about international events when corporate
sovereignty and oligarchical decision making are the real? How would we describe this exact
context based not on the simulation but on the real workings of power?
Yes indeed! At least blighty knows the score! The leash is no place for the British bulldog.
When brexit is complete they will be free to crawl straight up muricas bum! Lol!
Haha, great drawing. This pile on the left is incomparable. But the picture is incomplete -
there is not enough proudly walking in front of the masters of a small Polish poodle with a
bone in his teeth.
Agree with Nemo, #1. This is a matter of sovereignty. At the moment, European countries
are not sovereign, and, btw, this is a kind of double non-sovereignty: the submission of a
separate European country to the Americans, plus the submission of the same country to a
Brussels bureaucracy called the EU leadership. What independent, bold decisions can we talk
about? None.
The
Open Society and Anti-Defamation League have gone ballistic last week demanding for the
unprecedented eternal banning of Joe diGenova from Fox News or else.
DiGenova (former Federal Attorney for the District of Columbia) committed a grievous crime
indeed, calling out the unspeakable "philanthropist" George Soros on Fox News' Lou Dobbs Show
on Nov. 14 as a force controlling a major portion of the American State Department and FBI. To
be specific, DiGenova stated: "no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the
career foreign service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities
of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs -- work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine.
And Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros." DiGenova was here referencing
State Department head George Kent who's testimony is being used to advance President Trump's
impeachment.
Open Society Foundation President Patrick Gaspard denounced Fox ironically calling them
"McCarthyite" before demanding the network impose total censorship on all condemnation of
Soros. Writing to Fox News' CEO, Gaspard stated: "I have written to you in the past about the
pattern of false information regarding George Soros that is routinely blasted over your
network. But even by Fox's standards, last night's episode of Lou Dobbs tonight hit a new low
This is beyond rhetorical ugliness, beyond fiction, beyond ludicrous."
Of course, the ADL and Gaspard won't let anyone forget that any attack on George Soros is an
attack on Jews the world over, and so it goes that the ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt jumped
into the mud saying "Invoking Soros as controlling the State Dept, FBI, and Ukraine is
trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes." He followed that up by demanding Fox ban
DiGenova saying: "If Mr. DiGenova insists on spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, there
is absolutely no reason for Fox News to give him an open mic to do so. Mainstream news networks
should never give a platform to those who spread hate."
Even though the MSM including the Washington Post, NY Times and other rags, not to mention
countless Soros-affiliated groups have come out on the attack, DiGenova's statements cannot be
put back in the bottle, and their attacks just provoke more people to dig more deeply into the
dark dealings of Soros and the geopolitical masterclass that use this a-moral, former Nazi
speculator as their anti-nation state mercenary.
A Little Background on Soros
As has been extensively documented in many locations , ever since young Soros' talents were
identified as a young boy working for the Nazis during WWII (a time he describes as the best
and most formative of his life), this young sociopath was recruited to the managerial class of
the empire becoming a disciple of the "Open Society" post-nation state theories of Karl Popper
while a student in London. He latter became one of the first hedge fund managers with startup
capital provided by Evelyn Rothschild in 1968 and rose in prominence as a pirate of
globalization, assigned at various times to unleash speculative attacks on nations resisting
the world government agenda pushed by his masters (in some cases even attacking the center of
power- London itself in 1992 which provided an excuse for the London oligarchs to stay out of
the very euro trap that they orchestrated for other European nations to walk into).
After the Y2K bubble, Soros began devoting larger parts of his resources to international
drug legalization, euthanasia lobbying, color revolutions and other regime change programs
under the guise of "Human Rights" organizations which have done a remarkable job destroying the
sovereignty of Sudan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria to name a few. Since the economic crisis of
2008-09 (which his speculation helped create through unbounded currency and derivatives
speculation), Soros has begun to advocate a new world governance system centred on what has
recently been called the
"Green New Deal" which has less to do with saving nature, and everything to do with
depopulation.
So when the ADL, and Open Society attacks someone for being anti-semitic, you know that
whomever they are attacking are probably doing something useful.
The Trump administration has given various justification for its assassination of Major
General Qassem Soleimani and commander Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. It claimed that there was an
'imminent threat' of an incident, even while not knowing what, where or when it would happen,
that made the assassination necessary. Trump later said the thread was a planned bombing of
four U.S. embassies. His defense secretary denied that.
Soleimani and Muhandis during a battle against ISIS
That has raised the suspicion that the decision to kill Soleimani had little to do with
current events but was a long planned operation. NBC News now
reports that this is exactly the case:
President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven
months ago if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to
five current and former senior administration officials.
The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final
signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said.
The idea to kill Soleimani, a regular General in an army with which the U.S. is not war,
came like many other bad ideas from John Bolton.
After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser at
the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani,
officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the
assassination, officials said.
But Trump rejected the idea, saying he'd take that step only if Iran crossed his red line:
killing an American. The president's message was "that's only on the table if they hit
Americans," according to a person briefed on the discussion.
Then unknown forces fired 30 short range missiles into a U.S. base near Kirkuk. The salvo
was not intended to kill or
wound anyone:
The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were
not there and it was only by unlucky chance that Mr. Hamid was killed, American officials
said.
Without presenting any evidence the U.S. accused Katib Hizbullah, an Iraqi Popular Militia
Unit, of having launched the missiles. It launched airstrikes against a number of Katib
Hizbullah positions near the Syrian border, hundreds of miles away from Kirkuk, and killed over
30 Iraqi security forces.
This led to demonstrations in Baghdad during which a crowd breached the outer wall of the
U.S. embassy but soon retreated. Trump, who had attacked Hillary Clinton over the raid on the
consulate/CIA station in Benghazi, did not want to get embarrassed with a full embassy
breach.
The media claim that it was the embassy breach that the led to the activation of an
operation that had already been planned for a year before Trump signed off on it seven month
ago. As the New York Timesdescribes it :
For the past 18 months, officials said, there had been discussions about whether to target
General Suleimani. Figuring that it would be too difficult to hit him in Iran, officials
contemplated going after him during one of his frequent visits to Syria or Iraq and focused
on developing agents in seven different entities to report on his movements -- the Syrian
Army, the Quds Force in Damascus, Hezbollah in Damascus, the Damascus and Baghdad airports
and the Kataib Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization forces in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper presented a series of response options to the president two
weeks ago, including killing Soleimani. Esper presented the pros and cons of such an
operation but made it clear that he was in favor of taking out Soleimani, officials said.
Trump signed off and it further developed from there.
There was no intelligence of any 'imminent threat' or anything like that.
This was an operation that had been worked on for 18 month. Trump signed off on it more than
half a year ago. Those who had planned it just waited for a chance to execute it.
We can not even be sure that the embassy bombing had caused Trump to give the final go. It
might have been that the CIA and Pentagon were just waiting for a chance to kill Soleimani and
Muhandis, the leader of Katib Hizbullah, at the same time. Their meeting at Baghdad airport was
not secret and provided the convenient opportunity they had been waiting for.
Together Soleimani and Muhandis were the glue that kept the many Shia factions in Iraq
together. The armed ones as well as the political ones. Soleimani's replacement as Quds brigade
leader, Brigadier General Ismail Qaani, is certainly a capable man. But his previous field of
work was mainly east of Iran in Afghanistan and Pakistan and it will be difficult for him to
fill
Soleimani's role in Iraq :
After Soleimani's death, Ayatollah Khamenei appointed Soleimani's deputy Ismail Qaani to
succeed him. Qaani does not speak Arabic, does not have an in-depth knowledge of Iraq, nor
the insight of Soleimani and his ability to balance the different positions of Iraq's
factions with the opinions of Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious authorities in Najaf.
The question is how the successor of Soleimani will manage his new responsibility
including the thorny issues in Iraq. The escalation of the Iranian-American conflict is,
according to many, an escalation towards war and the destabilization of the region in which
the rules of engagement have changed. The question remains how, and not whether all of this
will impact the situation in Iraq.
Today the Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has his on militia, and Iraqi PMU leaders
met in
Qom , Iran, to discuss how the foreign troops can be expelled from Iraq. Gen. Qaani will
likely be there to give them advice.
Yesterday Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hizbullah, gave another speech . In it
he called on the Kurds in Iraq to pay back their debt to Soleimani and Hizbullah, which is
owned for their fight against ISIS, and to help to evict the foreign soldiers from Iraq:
85-Nasrallah: Now, the rest of the path. 1) Iraq: Iraq is the first country concerned
w/responding to this crime, because it happened in Iraq, and because it targeted Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis, a great Iraqi commander, and because Soleimani defended Iraq.
86-Nasrallah: I ask Masoud Barazani to thank Soleimani for his efforts in defending Erbil
and Kurdistan Region, because Soleimani was the only one to respond to your call. Soleimani
and with him men from Hezbollah went to Erbil.
87-Nasrallah: Barazani was shaking from fear, but Soleimani and the brothers from
Hezbollah helped you repulse this unprecedented threat; and now you must repay this good by
being part of the effort to expel the Americans from Iraq and the region.
The Barzani family, which governs the Kurdish part of Iraq, has
since long sold out to the Zionists and the United States. It will certainly not support
the resistance effort. But Nasrallah's request is highly embarrassing to the clan and to Masoud
Barzani personally.
So far I only found this rather confusing response from him:
The Kurdistan Regional Government's response to the immoral speech uttered by Hassan
Nasrallah through the anti-terror apparatus is a clear message from the regional government
to those terrorists that the response to the terrorists must be through the anti-terror
apparatus.
As military leader both Soleimani and Muhandis are certainly replaceable. The militia groups
they created and led will continue to function.
But both men also played important political roles in Iraq and it will take some time to
find adequate people to replace them in that. That makes it likely that the already simmering
political situation in Iraq will soon boil over as the Shia factions will start to fight each
other over the selection of a new Prime Minister and government.
The U.S. will welcome that as it will try do install a candidate that will reject the Iraqi
parliament decision to remove the foreign forces from Iraqi grounds.
Posted by b on January 13, 2020 at 17:32 UTC |
Permalink
The United States has truly become a rogue state. John Helmer pointed out that when Putin
visited Damascus recently to meet with Assad, he did so at a Russian military facility as a
safety precaution because you can no longer put it by the USA that it won't target people of
such hierarchy.
Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions
objecting and explaining the importance of Qassem Suleiman in the Iran hierachy of
government????
Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions
objecting and explaining the illegality of assassinating such a leader when he was traveling
openly to discuss matters of defense on a mission of diplomacy???????????
Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions
objecting and resigning or going public to attempt to stop this infamy????????????
So were the Saudis genuine in their "peace attempt" or were they simply working with
CIA/Mossad to lure Soleimani and Muhandis into a situation where they could be droned?
If the Saudis were genuine, they would be much more vocal in their opposition to these
murders, which completely derail any potential Iraq-brokered peace process.
To the best of my recollection, Elijah Magnier, on a recent appearance with Joanne Leon on
the Around the Empire Podcast, says it is erroneous to identify Muhandis as the leader of
Katib Hizbullah. Actually, he was the highest military official of the PMU (excepting only
its nominal head, a civilian), the umbrella organization of the (mainly) Shia militia which
are part of the Iraqi military.
US biz persons in NY RE, in Florida, (etc.) as well as tv 'moguls' - do transactional
power-play interactions, not Int'l diplomacy. (Whatever that is, pretty worthless actually,
but = other topic.)
Obviously, Trump's order to murder Soleimani was partly due to impeachment pressure, as he
has said himself.
Plus, Soleimani insulted him gravely. From tabloids and women's mags, which I read on
occasion.
NK (Kim + spokespersons) called Trump a heedless and erratic old man. Also a dotard iirc,
but all this was in an exchange of insults which could be taken as mimicking that between
equals, Trump calling Kim Rocket Man, etc. (Everyone knew nothing would happen.) There was
also that kerfuffle when Trudeau (sleazy hypocrite) and others were caught open-mick
gossiping about Trump taking too long for his pressers or whatever. No doubt others and Dem
public insults are politically calibrated in a known landscape and Trump of course initiates
and has no problem with riposte.
2018. Soleimani speech. The Sun: vid. eng subs.
Very demeaning: gambler - bartender - casino manager that hits hard.
When much is hung on 'identity politics' and 'personalia' - ppls identity, character,
beliefs, personal interaction with others, etc. take up too much air (like in Hollywood
movies), institutional or other long-worked out arrangements (like Int'l law based on
upholding the existence of Wilsonian Nation-States..) are simply scuttered.
Thanks for the reporting b and I am not surprised about the background behind the
assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis
I would also not be surprised to read that my country was complicit to some degree in the
Ukraine plane shoot down by Iran.
The West is a very sick world run by the dictators that own global private finance. Those
dictators have managed to even brainwash the public into not understanding their illness and
believing it is a good force in our world.
I am glad to read less of the belief that Trump is being played by the system and not an
active actor within it. I continue to hope that other groups of our species continue to stand
up to the anti-humanistic social contract of the West and end its centuries old reign of
terror.
Before Putin left for Damascus he already mentioned something about he wont be so easily
removed without any consequence.. most likely meaning Russia would probably neutralize all US
bases in close proximity and get on the stick to fire strategic nukes for any US response..
But we know the US has hit a lot of Russian assets without seeing any Russian response. So
who knows..
War without limits: using all domains (pol, fin, econ, media, com, legal inst) to subvert
and destroy an enemy, where the objective is to obliterate the state itself as a
political entity
Aside from genocide, what greater crime can there be than the complete annihilation of
the state itself, as we saw happening in the NATO-attack on Libya and the state's total
destruction and re-invention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the NATO-attack against
Yugoslavia and now Ukraine and Syria.
.. a complete negation of the concept of state sovereignty and self-determination of
peoples enshrined in the UN-Charta. It is a form of aggression of the worst kind and the
type of total war that the Nazis waged against the SU. (obliterate state, people, social
& econ system and culture).
...So the term HW first appears in American military literature and as practised by
NATO means the commission of multiple war-crimes against the people of the targeted
state. In Libya we saw conventional military style ops by NATO (massive bombing over many
months) simultaneous with unconventional operations (local and imported proxy forces,
subversion, assassinations, terrorism against civilians, use of social and mass-media to
distribute false information about the regime, criminal actions, cyberattacks to shut
down communication and the use of quasi legal bodies (ICC) to criminalize the leadersip,
to accuse Gadhafi of being a war-criminal; use of mercenaries, destruction of
infrastructure to break the will of the people to resist.
The subject is one of immediate concern because the Americans have begun using the
term hybrid warfare in their propaganda accusing Russia of engaging in it in Ukraine and
now raising the alarm that (they believe) Russia will engage in HW in the Baltic.
Therefore the Americans argue, they have to react to prepare for this eventuality which
they claim to be inevitable. And that indicates to me where we can expect the next
operations against Russia to take place (and it may explain the exercises NATO has been
running all summer, landing of airborne troops, combined sea-operations, etc.)
But the American claim of Russia using HW is in fact a mirror of their own
image as we see these methods being used by them as a matter of routine.
(... used in the Indian wars, in 19th century, starvation, prop and other techniques
to destroy their cultures, in Mexico, Philipines, Korea and Vietnam, in Central America
(i.e. Nicaragua) and in Ruanda....
All the accusations against Iran ("greatest sponsor of terrorism", aligning Iran with
AQ, etc.) are a projection of their own crimes ..
It was explained by Craig Murray in his blog (replicated in a few websites) that the usage of
"imminent" adjective is created by a certain lawyer who first worked for Netanyahu, then for
Blair etc. The usage does not convey ANY information about the nature of a "danger", but the
attitude, judgement if you will, of the institution that commissioned the opinion.
And "immanent" or "eminent" (Trumpian tweet) would fit equally well, but legalistically,
the confusion raised by "imminent" is more useful.
Noirette @ 6, it is my belief that an irrational US president, under the constant pressure of
attack from the Russiagate and Ukraingate instigators (you know who you are) from the instant
he became president and took on those responsibilities, volatile and insecure as he was from
the getgo, has finally cracked and is now very much in need of retirement from the
highpressure stage of politics in a time of potential war. It would be in the interests of
everyone in the world for his family to ask him, for his doctors to require of him,
that he resign. Certainly the alternatives to his remaining in office are grim, but not as
grim as having a president who is mentally incapacitated.
It would seem that an entire warmaking apparatus of government is similarly dysfunctional.
I don't know how that can be remedied, but it must.
whose militia is "on", active, rather than "off"? In any case, separating this guy from
microphones would require an Amored Personal Carrier or something heavier.
juliania@3
The answer to your questions lies in the reality that for years a sure means of not being
promoted or even being fired from a government job in the US is to know anything about the
Arab or Islamic world. Or to act as if knowing anything about such inferior beings is
necessary for making judgements.
This idea, that ignorance is bliss, has spread from Israel, not because the Israelis practise
it-they don't- but because they want DC to be entirely reliant on them for intelligence and
direction in the Middle East.
Although only one battle in what will be a longer war, Trump has won that round. More
confusion and disarray in Iraq, bad PR for Iran after the Uki plane shootdown. Bad PR allows
western vassals to move closer to the US side of the fence, and also provides fuel for US
regime change operations within Iran.
The two generals that were assassinated - there will be others that can plan military
strategy, but a big part, perhaps more important than strategy, is the personality to be able
to hold disparate groups together so they act as one and all tactics by separate groups fit
into a larger strategy.
Thank you, bevin. That is a sad explanation, though to me it doesn't obviate what should be
inherent in any normal human person, as I myself know very little about the Middle East,
relying indeed upon b's excellent and nearly objective (as objective as any human can be)
reporting on the facts and his interpretation of them. That which ought to be inherent is the
human desire not to inflict pain on another human if that can be avoided. Those who are in
government service ought to have that moral incentive front and center. We see it in the
great leaders, and surely in this country there are some among the elite who haven't lost
this natural instinct? It is very problematic if that has been thoroughly weeded out in those
now occupying powerful positions.
This country has been fortunate in the past to select persons of high moral compass as our
heroes. We the people still want to do that, I am convinced. Perhaps there is still time, and
we can re-order our own hierarchy now that what has been done is this terrible, an enormous
reductio ad absurdum, front and center.
"TEL AVIV: Five days ago, an undisclosed intelligence agency intercepted a telephone call
made by the head of Iran's Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in which he was heard
ordering his proxies in Iraq to attack the US embassy in Baghdad, as well as other Israeli
and American targets, with the aim of taking hostages, Israeli sources say.
It's unclear whether this was a lapse in tradecraft on the part of the usually savvy
Soleimani or whether the notorious Iranian military leader's phone calls were being routinely
intercepted. Nor is it clear whether it was the US or another foe of Iran that made the
intercept. Regardless, the intelligence seems to have led directly to Soleimani's killing
yesterday, which has thrown the Mideast into uproar."
In the chain of cause & effect, the Outlaw US Empire is definitely responsible for the
airliner shootdown; that must be seen as 100% irrefutable. The Outlaw US Empire has executed
numerous high ranking political and military people beginning with Yamamoto in 1943, although
I'll admit he was a legitimate target; yet, the seed was planted then. I recall Diem being
killed with the approval of JFK just weeks prior to his own execution. As I wrote at
Escobar's Facebook over the weekend, the Great Evil in the world resides within the Outlaw US
Empire and must be expunged even if Nukes must be used. Yes, that conclusion was painful to
arrive at and write, but the horrors have lasted for 3,000+ years now. The crop of Current
Oligarchs are the most aggressive ever and won't stop their rampage until they Own
Everything . In the overall scheme of things, getting Imperial forces ousted from
Southwest Asia will be a good thing but only a small portion of what must occur.
What does a single word of Nihad N. Arafat's response even mean? How is Nasrallah's speech
immoral by any stretch of the imagination? Do the Kurd's have no gratitude for Hezbollah and
Qud's laying down their lives to save them from mass rape and genocide? What is the
"anti-terror apparatus", does he mean fighting terrorism in Iraq and Syria must be done only
by US supported forces like the SDF? The Kurds siding with the US occupiers and Israel is one
of the most disgusting developments in recent history, its no wonder these people have been
so distrusted and abused for so long, their power hungry leadership betrays their allies like
snakes.
Russia takes its vengeance cold, often with no flair or notoriety. They often take in
multiples for their losses.
In Syria, a Russian missile into a mountain cave where US, Israeli, Saudi and AQ Intel
leaders were meeting cost over 50 high value lives. It was Russian payback for when some
Colonels and a General were hit by Coalition air strikes. Auslander, on the Saker blog, has
written about this. 2016, as I recall.
In Donbass, there have been many paybacks by Russia for Ukie and NATO acts. Some even
taken inside Russia.
A number of the culprits who killed over a hundred people and set fire to the Trade Union
building in Odessa have met Russian justice. Same with some of the criminal SBU who tortured
Berkut who came from Crimea. And others have been liquidated for murders done by Ukies in
Mariupol.
People who know and need to know are aware that Russia always more than evens the
score.
They just recently eliminated the head Turkmen who was responsible for shooting the pilot
of the jet the Turks shot down as he parachuted. It wasn't enough that when they rescued the
co-pilot navigator of the jet (rescue led by General Soleimani), the Aerospace forces bombed
the hell out of the area the Turkmen populated. They got the names and tracked for years the
commander.
Never assume because you don't know, it hasn't happened. And if it hasn't yet, it
will.
I don't like to say it but b's article doesn't support his headline. And I don't like to
repeat myself, but I've already commented this subject earlier today
@ open thread 55 , but he doesn't seem to have taken it into account. We should not
expect a powerful Iraqi reaction to the events.
Firstly remember that Abd ul-Mahdi is a weak leader, only there because the US agreed to
him. The US has made sure that the Iraqi leadership is not strong. Secondly, there was
always going to be a time necessary for a new militia leader to emerge. Instant reaction
was just about impossible.
However in the long term, the prospects are good. The Shi'a are in power in Iraq without
question. The Sunnis are out of it, the Kurds no longer intervene outside KRG. All the cr*p
about civil war is nonsense. The Shi'a factions all have basically the same interest, and
conflict is only between different leaders of the same grouping. Things could turn around
in an instant.
The anti-US movement is popular sentiment, not govt led. The more the US offends that
sentiment, as will inevitably happen, the stronger the movement will be. We already have
seen the way things will go. US bases are being sprayed with rockets. That will make life
difficult for the US. The more they punish the culprits, the more resentment there will be.
There's no way things can work out well for the US.
b has been reading the instant reaction, breast-beating, woe-is-me, articles
like Salhy in Middle East Eye, without looking further.
US aggression is at the stage of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan around the start of
WWII.
Rather than seeing that their unipolar world is ending, the US is prepared to use military
power to hold its position in the world.
The exceptionalist mindset is not just one small faction in the US hierarchy, it is the
mindset of the hierarchy plus a good proportion of the population.
Throughout history, countries or nations like that always end up destroyed as they fight for
their position until the very end rather than step down.
What does a single word of Nihad N. Arafat's response even mean?
Posted by: Jase | Jan 13 2020 18:53 utc | 19
Upon quick inspection, N.N. Arafat is not a real person. For few months he (it?) only
retweeted, mostly a pro-Kurdish US senator, and now produced a test of his (its?) own. The
text is weird, which may corroborate the purported education -- radiologist who graduated in
Dohuk (the capital of one of the three provinces of Kurdistan autonomous area in Iraq).
Actual on-line Kurdish publication have a rather sketchy English, although not as bad.
>>Although only one battle in what will be a longer war, Trump has won that round.
More confusion and disarray in Iraq, bad PR for Iran after the Uki plane shootdown. Bad PR
allows western vassals to move closer to the US side of the fence, and also provides fuel for
US regime change operations within Iran.
The two generals that were assassinated - there will be others that can plan military
strategy, but a big part, perhaps more important than strategy, is the personality to be able
to hold disparate groups together so they act as one and all tactics by separate groups fit
into a larger strategy.
Yup. Some people like to underestimate the US Empire, because it is easier to wear rose
coloured glasses, rather than face unpleasant reality.
Even b changed from US will leave Iraq to there will be chaos in Iraq and the US will try
to stay.
Although personally i think that the US will be kicked out because most of the Shia
leaders would like to be killed by a US drone for whatever. Especially Sadr, who has the
biggest political block, and whose Mahdi Army killed plenty of americans back then. He knows
that he is a potential target too, so he will work to make this expulsion happen.
There was also an assasination attempt against iranian official in Yemen. This is all part
of a Cold War, a hybrid war against Iran. To break it. There is no isolationism. No one will
leave Iran or Syria unless they are actually kicked out.
And yes, Trump is a willing imperialist. He likes it. He can't do much on the domestic
front but he is allowed to show his violent tendencies on the foreign front. As a zionist and
a military puppet.
Trump loves the sanction weapons and financial-banking weapons the US possesses. He's all
in on using every coercion to strangle, starve and screw everyone, friend, foe, ally,
adversary. A power-hungry guy who has all the power to dominate the globe, yet not his own
country, break sovereignties, ignore laws and trample opponents to get his way.
And he likes it.
Trump has taken on the personification of the Hegemon. It is a form of Wizard of Oz
syndrome. If the Deep State and MIC allows him, he is "powerful". This suits his
dysfunctionality as a man. He has big inadequacies. They manifest in his need to be big,
wealthy, #1, first, triumphant in all deals.
In the Oval Office, he is powerless to get the wall built, infrastructure legislation
passed, health reform, or even announce he will consider pardons for all those entrapped by
Comey and the Russiagate hoax. He's being impeached.
But as the Hegemon, when the handlers around him allow it (advise him), he gets to kill
people. This is heady stuff that captivates him.
I would predict that Assad is on the top of Trump's hit list too.
sponsor of terrorism", aligning Iran with AQ, etc.) are a projection of their own crimes
..by: Pandora @9..<=many Domestic Americans may be at risk for elimination ..If I were an
aspiring Democrat I would wear my anti-drone outfit ?
Americans used to pride themselves that their government promised those accused of
wrongdoing to be treated as "innocent" until guilt was established by a due process procedure
known as a fair open trial. These trials were a source of information that allowed the
governed to keep somewhat honest those who were running the government. many Americans chose
to become American Citizens in order to gain access to the due process procedures. Humanity
in the world has a problem it needs to define and solve because death by drone is not an
acceptable line item in the statistics.
I was quite interested by the remarks of Ayatullah Sistani last Friday, I think it was,
criticising Iran and the US equally for illegal attacks on Iraqi soil.
The context is of course that Sistani is Iranian, but has never taken a pro-Iranian
position. He is aged now, and his view is expressed by his aides, so it can be taken that
this is the view of the Sistani organisation, not so necessarily of the man himself. It is
quite nationalistic, and not subservient to Iran, as everybody is currently claiming. Iraqi
Shi'a independence from Iran has always been the policy, and its being reaffirmed. Iran
remains an ally, naturally.
That doesn't mean that the Iraqi state is strong and can dictate to the US. The
US ensures that doesn't happen. But the positions of Sistani, Muqtada al-Sadr and the others
are all pretty similar, and concentrate on Iraqi nationalism, which equals opposition to the
US, and non-dependence on Iran.
Of course Shi'a Iraqi nationalism is a little bit particular, as no concessions are made
to the Sunnis. It's as though they don't exist. For the moment that doesn't matter, as the
Sunnis are thoroughly defeated, and if they have rebels, they join Da'ish, who are
discredited. The Kurds have had their fingers burned, and won't venture outside KRG again. If
the US wants to stir them up, it won't work.
I agree with all of that, though on Trump as trying to make up for inadequacies I would
differ.
More a very aggressive, competitive mindset and very self confidant in his abilities.
He had held no political positions in the past, runs for president of the US and wins.
It looks as though much rides on whether the Shia groups can put aside domestic
differences for the duration and agree on and stick to a common strategy to oust the US.
This tweet by Mike Pompeo has triggered a large response condemning USA hypocrisy.
But the murder of the Iranian General does highlight the difficulty of the militias
throughout the Middle East.
Middle East is tribal, militias, as far as I understand, can be paid by Sheiks, by local
religous leaders, by some arm of the relevant government, by foreign governments. And by
foreign governments, I mean Turkey, USA, Iran, UK and so on.
Or a mix of all the above.
So Pompeo has a point - the sooner Middle East governments bring militias fully into the
armed forces, the clearer the applicable law will be.
What caused this mess?
Lack of a robust governmental process.
Whose problem is it? At base, the national government in question.
If clear lines of control and command and full integration can't happen due to political
divisions and corruption, poor popular control of politicians, then the country (and others
around the region) are doomed to endless trouble, from home, from abroad.
Sad fact, IMO.
Sovereignty starts with responsive, effective, reliable, accountable, transparent, and
widely accepted, clear, principles-based governance.
@ Posted by: Passer by | Jan 13 2020 19:30 utc | 27
with the comment about Trump with which I agree...thanks
Trump is a very hurt human being that is not recognized as such because of a skewed view
of what mental health is.....aggression, bullying, and murder have all been normalized to be
acceptable mental health in top/down world that is never discussed as being the source of the
Trump type of mentality.
I agree with your call out:
"
I would predict that Assad is on the top of Trump's hit list too.
"
and want to add that I expect there are active hit list plans for all world leaders that
conflict with the dictatorship of global private finance.
"...The U.S. will welcome that [the Shia factions will start to fight each other over the
selection of a new Prime Minister and government] as it will try do install a candidate that
will reject the Iraqi parliament decision to remove the foreign forces from Iraqi
grounds."
If the US hopes this will happen to deflect Iraqis from their shock at US assassination on
their soil of their military leader as well as Iran's, surely they are as mistaken as they
were in perpetrating the atrocity. That's not what happens - we saw it first in Russia. There
will be unity against a common enemy, would be my take. As has been happening all along with
less important 'sanctions' than this. They always backfire.
My view is that the iraqi shia will work towards expulsion of the US and will make it happen.
They will also buy capable anti-air defense from Russia, no matter the threats. Because
having US drones over your head is simply unacceptable, and many leaders, including Sadr,
know that they are a potential target for "misbehaving" or past grievances. This lurking
theat is simply too much. That's not to mention the israeli strikes in Iraq. They also do not
want Iraq to turn into US-Iran battlefield. Which will inevitably lead to killings of Shia
leaders and groups.
But there will be lots of bullying coming from Trump and some US companies could get large
deals as a price for the withdrawal, maybe some expensive military equipment will be sold
too.
The middle east, particularly the Arab world have always been susceptible to divide and
conquer.
Clans, Tribes, Religions, Ethic groups and nations - all fault lines that the imperial
countries have and still do, easily drive wedges into and turn one against another.
Putin jokes Assad should invite Trump to visit Damascus. The leaders were referring to the
Straight Street, which leads to Mariamite Cathedral of Damascus, & to Apostle Paul whose
life was transformed after a vision he had as he walked on that road.
Since the attack on Suleimani, Al Muhandis and that officer in Yemen, Reza Shahlai, were the
result of long planning the question is what else is part of the plan, and its possible
opportunistic addons. Trump was very fast in following up with new sanctions. The current
demonstrations in Iran were probably(my guess) planned. I don't understand how they can get
traction so close to the funeral.
Also I wonder to what extent the US/Israel are strenghtening IS near the Syrian border.
Passer by "They also do not want Iraq to turn into US-Iran battlefield."
This is the part that annoys me about the Iraqi's. Trump stated bluntly that US is in Iraq
and will be staying in Iraq to watch Iran. That was at the time of the Syrian pullback and
oilfield grab.
US is using Iraq to attack Iran. It killed and Iran military officer and diplomat on Iraqi
soil. It is constantly striking Iraqi militia groups on Iraqi soil.
By stating Iran violated Iraqi sovereignty with its strike on the US base, Iraq is giving
sanctuary to the US.
Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 39
>>the question is what else is part of the plan
The plan seems to be israeli one, and it will be about what will benefit Netanyahoo.
This means a continuous near war situation between the US and Iran, but without the actual
large scale war. A covert war involving killings, sabotage, everything other than a large
scale war. The US will be the meat-shield for Israel. Untill the elections. Then we will
see.
I think no one believed that the US will start killing senior iraqis and iranians.
Soleimani was even seen together with US troops in Iraq, and was visiting often. Iran
certainly did not believe that either. But now things changed.
May need to invoke the 25th Amendment. 11 months is a very long time and we may not all be
here. In the previous post I linked to a Tass report Iran has declared their revenge is not
over. More to come.
"Several troops CNN spoke to said the event (al-Assad base) had shifted their view of
warcraft: the US military is rarely on the receiving end of sophisticated weaponry, despite
launching the most advanced attacks in the world.
"You looked around at each other and you think: Where are we going to run? How are you going
to get away from that?" said Ferguson.
"I don't wish anyone to have that level of fear," he said. "No one in the world should ever
have to feel something like that.""
Yeah, the way I see things going, I wouldn't call it a strategy, is that the Iraqi
parliament continues to vote against any proposal the US makes, while at the same time random
militias continue to fire off Katyushas against US bases, making life difficult.
US pressure on Abd ul-Mahdi can't disarm the militias, as he doesn't have the power to do
so. There's no scenario where the US could agree to the appointment of a strong PM, who might
master the militias, and be accepted by the parliament, and yet guarantee to stop militia
attacks. The different elements are contradictory.
Yeah, Peter AU1 is right. Iran lost that round.
With the plane shot down, they fucked it totally up. Trump can (somewhat with a basis in
reality) point to Iran, the "evil Regime" that prefers to shoot down 100+ civilians instead
of closing airspace for "a strategic gain" (Bernards words defending this).
A PR nightmare for Iran. And sadly a deserved one in this case of not closing the airspace.
Had this catastrophe not happend, it would have been a brilliant operation, which would
have turned the US standing upside down militarily.
But with shooting themselves in the foot, they managed to paint themselves as the paraiah
regime that cares not about human life, as Trump and the NeoCons have painted them all
along.
Now i understand why Trump did not respond that night and happily went to bed tweeting
that all is well. The US knew Iran shot it down in that night, and they knew that Iran would
have hurt itself more then they hurt the US from a PR and propaganda standpoint.
And with Soleimani gone, and a replacement that does not even speak Arabic (WTF?!), how
can they even dream of rallying all the tribes in Syria and Iraq behind their game plan??
Personality is key in politics. And when such a person can not even speak the language of the
people he should unite, then this looks futile IMHO.
All in all, a very telling development. Telling about both the US and Iran, but also about
Alt Media and us readers+commenters.
IMO, the sad truth is, that the new 4th Reich owns the globe, because of their grasp of the
reserve currency system, and NO nation, at this point in time, can reverse that fact.
I've been reading people talking about the demise of the empire for years now. Until the
reserve currency issue is changed,
NO NATION on earth can challenge the monstrosity of the new 4th Reich.
The empire will continue to control the world with economic and military terrorism.
To coin an old saying, "It's just business, get over it"....
Suppose that the US wants to stay in Iraq, as they've said. What strategy could they follow
to make it possible? I'm at a bit of a loss there. Full military occupation, with 100,000 US
troops? Unacceptable in the US. Change the Iraqi PM? Would someone else be better? Another PM
would still be subject to parliament votes. Impose a dictator? Dictators aren't in fact
absolute rulers, but still depend on public acquiescence.
"Now i understand why Trump did not respond that night and happily went to bed tweeting that
all is well. The US knew Iran shot it down in that night, and they knew that Iran would have
hurt itself more then they hurt the US from a PR and propaganda standpoint."
Except Trump's stupid tweet came 4 hours BEFORE the plane was downed. Seriously delusional
stuff you are spouting.
We have been talking for about 7 days venting our anger and frustration with US empire and
its puppets. Also, talking about the why's and The Who's and How's.
I think it is time to concentrate on the " now what" question. What can be done to get the
US out of West Asia and keep them away?
The key to all of this and the future of West Asia's peace, IMHO, is Saudi Arabia. Iran
and its allies have to concentrate and preempt in changing the Saudi regime. Time is ripe for
this and they are on the defensive as well. Taking out the Saudis will:
1. Finish the Wahabi- Saud axis and weaken it tremendously (weaken ISIS, AlQueda, etc if
not end them)
2. It will cut off the financial source of much of evil going on in West Asia and beyond
3. No oil, no Americans in the region and a gradual end of petrodollar and hopefully the
empire(of course, easier said than done but it has to start somewhere)
4. That will also have a chain reaction in the gulf monarchies with the majority non-Sunni
population. So it goes for the other West Asian fiefdoms.
5. The end of ERETZ ISRAEL
6. Realignment of North African alliances and shift away from US and the west, especially
Egypt.
7. Bring OPEC under a more democratic control
8. Facilitating Belt and Road and possibly more prosperity for the region as a whole although
China and Russia should be watched and dealt with very carefully. They are not the angels
that they have been made to be in these forums. They are just the lesser evils,
comparatively. Much less.
9. A gradual growth away fanaticism and more toward secularism. Maybe even Iran can restart
the first true democracy in the region, if such a thing exists outside of books and
novels.
I'm sure others can add to this list. It sounds like fantasy but like i said before it has
to start somewhere and Iran is in a position to make this happen and it should be sooner than
later. Once Saudis have been dealt with, comes next, Israel. 1967 lines or get the hell out
of West Asia. No ifs or buts. No negotiations.
It is a nice dream anyway. I truly believe it is the only hope for the region, otherwise
we are looking at 50 more years of this shit if a global war hasn't happened in between.
"...the Great Evil in the world resides within the Outlaw US Empire and must be expunged
even if Nukes must be used. Yes, that conclusion was painful to arrive at and write, but the
horrors have lasted for 3,000+ years now."
Is this the real karlof1? Or his alter ego Major karlof1 Kong riding the bomb.
When you say "...Nukes must be used." Would it be correct to assume you mean on
yourselves? or some innocent third party in the Middle East?
I thought I despised you Americans, but there is a lot of self loathing here.
Guy THORNTON @45 - should be mandatory viewing. The American needs to feel abject fear,
helplessness and loss before anything can even begin to change.
Sorry to confound you with my 18! Cause & Effect in this case began in 1953. If 1953
hadn't occurred and nothing similar in-between, then the dead would be alive. Peter AU 1's 24
explained the middle portion well enough. The 3,000+ years refers to the amount of time an
oligarchy consisting of landed rich, rentiers and such have subjugated humanity in the West
as seen by the numerous proofs offered in the numerous publications by the team Hudson
assembled at the Peabody Museum at the same time the Berlin Wall was falling, which Hudson's
trying to make more accessible via a series beginning with and forgive them their
debts... which I very much encourage you--and everyone reading this comment--to read as
it really is that important. The bits and pieces provided in the related essays at Hudson's
website are not a sufficient substitute for the series of books, although they ought to be
enough to motivate.
Juliania 16
"This country has been fortunate in the past to select persons of high moral compass as our
heroes."
Really?
Who?
Can you be more specific?
I am sure there are a few genuine heroes, but I am curious as to whom you mean
specifically?
Anyone in the Oval Office?
Finally a top Canadian businessman who points the finger for this tragedy to Trump:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51095769.
Of course there's not a single politician who has the guts to speak this truth out loud.
Trump, the narcissist cum laude, demonstrates how the whole world has to count on others
having more common sense than the crazy Americans who bully whoever they don't like, damn the
consequences. Let's not forget that it is this ongoing verbal adolescent barrage and
unnecessary hyping that almost got us into a nuclear holocaust twice (1963 and 1983) - and
both times we were saved by the sound and sober Russians. What if the Russian then would have
been the Iranian now?
I've been reading people talking about the demise of the empire for years now. Until
the reserve currency issue is changed,
NO NATION on earth can challenge the monstrosity of the new 4th Reich.
The USD$ will follow all the others that went before.
just a little more faith ben. The collapse is not one event like an explosion, "boom" it's
a process over time. U.S'. 'perceived prosperity' is built on debt or by another name,
printing fiat which is unsustainable.
Watch the new QE repo fail, also derivatives and prepare.
U.S. Fed is working hard to save the financial system that is leaking like a sieve. One Fed
governor said it [the Repo] was a plumbing exercise. How apt. In 2006 global debt was $125
trillion now stands at $260 trillion.
I mentioned watch derivatives. These banks with the biggest derivative positions - DB,
JPM, Citigroup and GS - list their official position a tad below $200 trillion. When it
blows? could be another 6 years but collapse it will.
Actually, imo we are in the collapse. Why are interest rates in negative territory? It is
a theft of pensioners' savings to keep the casino standing. I suspect the warmongering is a
distraction.
DontBelieveEitherPr. 47 "A PR nightmare for Iran. And sadly a deserved one in this case of
not closing the airspace."
It is not deserved. Decisions are easy to ridicule in hindsight, very difficult to make
make at the time. War is all about deception. Did Iran know US had the ability to spoof what
they were seeing on their radar screens. There is a good chance the US have made some
deliberately failed attempts in the past to set them up for something like this. Iran is in a
fight with an exceptionally dirty fighter that knows all the tricks. They will take more hits
before this is over.
not understanding that and disparaging Iran when it does take hits is part of US
calculations. That is human character. Everyone likes a winner type mindset. Part of human
character.
Thanks b, Elijah's newest article touches on this very subject, the situation will get hot in
Iraq should the Us occupiers do not leave the country. The situation will aggravate, maybe
slowly, then speed up, the US will most likely retaliate with sanctions and other usual
crimes.
I do see China and Russia stepping up in Iraq and Iran, there is a clear alignment forming,
backstage talks must be very busy at the moment, many countries aligning such as Qatar and
Turkey, while the traditional allies of Israel and US continue to drag on their knees, such
as UAE and KSA.
I do expect the war of aggression in Yemen to get hotter, since KSA is kicking the can down
the road instead of true commitment to a peace deal, while in eastern Syria we may see US
mercenaries being most likely killed by Syrian insurgency, lots of mercenaries there vs US
soldiers.
Trump US has had problems getting vassals on board for war against Iran. With the recent
incident, more have moved to Trumps side. Winning the PR war means puppet leaders are free to
do as US tells them as even puppet leaders are keeping an eye on re-election and public
opinion and so forth.
Trumps war on Iran will not be well publicised build up to Iraq shock and awe. It will be
Trident missiles with no warning.
"Something very odd is happening in the past 24 hours and today:
"The Qatari Emir was in Tehran yesterday, long talks with Iranian leadership.
"Also yesterday, basically all top Syrian Gov leaders (except President Assad apparently),
went to Iran as well, a very rare and could say rather risky move of a large group from the
Syrian leadership."
Do you have anything to add or further speculation about those events? And thanks for all
your efforts!!
Almasdarnews had a piece on the Syrian delegation vist.
""Today, a high-level government delegation headed by Prime Minister Imad Khamis, began a
trip to the Iranian capital, Tehran, during which they will discuss with senior officials
there the current bilateral relations between the two countries and work to strengthen them
at all levels, as well as accelerating developments in the regional and international
arenas," Al-Watan reported, quoting a diplomatic source.
The Al-Watan source said that consultation and coordination between the two countries at
this stage is necessary because after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the two allies
need to strengthen their alliance.
I think this is the first time the American military has tasted a pushback like this. A
clear feeling of defeat and demoralization among those interviewed. It is good for them to be
at the receiving end and feel helpless and to know what they have been wreaking on the region
for the past 16 years. Maybe they will start questioning their role in these atrocities and
pass on the word to new recruits: " Don't join in".
Meanwhile, the US Pivot to Asia grand plan seems to be in a state of hiatus. Skirmishes and a
potential uprising in the Provinces have disrupted the once all important thrust to confront
China and curb it's expansion on all fronts.
OBOR strategy continues undeterred, drawing more and more interest and solidifying
influence as the months pass. China quietly gives support to the Empire's targets on 2
continents and expands largely unopposed in a 3rd. The Empire's debts to finance it's
interests and militarism grows at a never b4 seen rate. It's own military industrial complex
robbing it's treasury almost at will, while it's foes grow in size and number.
Looking at it all in Grand Chess Board sort of way, it brings to mind Muhammed Ali's 'Rope
a dope' strategy. Let the big dope punch himself out before taking him down was the essence
of it.
Another of his most memorable quotes, "No Vietcong ever called me n****r".
No Chinese ever called people in the Provinces hadji either. But hey why go to all that
bother of wining hearts and minds and investing in local economies when bribery, corruption
and killing dissenters has worked so well in achieving your goals?
'We have the right to stay as a force of good.' Buffalo Wings Mike Pompeo
In my very most humble opinion, I think this whole 'episode' (starting with the USSA droning
of the very high profile military officers in Iraq) must be all just theater. A very large
crowd of the most knowledgeable experts in (real) economics are quite certain that the USSA
is on the brink of total collapse. So the population is in dire need of distractions. I also
am pretty sure that if the USSA were to attack Iran the result would be 'instant' collapse,
so that won't happen unless 'they' are slightly stupider that I suspect them to be. I think
the 'world' is simply death-watching the USSA. All they have to really do is to avoid being
crushed when the Big Dummy goes full Humpty Dumpty.
@ 63 dh.. thanks.. i guess that is similar to the link @ 45 guy thornton shared? bbc verses
cnn... they are all tied at the hip..
quote from one of the men at the site - ""I don't wish anyone to have that level of fear,"
he said. "No one in the world should ever have to feel something like that." well holy
fuck... welcome to the reality you have been putting on all of the people in middle east in
what seems like forever!! maybe you want to think that thru??
@64 peter au... you're right... this war porn for the kiddies back home is all used for
the same purpose.. keeping all the folks back home as braindead as possible.. and yes - when
the shit hits the fan, it will be without warning.. great place to be in.. thanks trump, usa,
neo con warmongering group.. great place to be here in 2020..
Tehran Plans to Take Trump to International Court for Soleimani's Assassination –
Iran's Top Judge
Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp's Quds Force, died in
Baghdad on January 3 when the vehicle he was traveling in was struck by a missile launched by
a US drone. Soleimani's death brought relations between Iran and the US to a new low.
The Iranian government will seek to prosecute US President Donald Trump for the
assassination of Maj. Gen. Soleimani, Iranian Chief Justice Ebrahim Raisi has said
etc
@72 To be fair james the average US servicemen/women are probably pretty decent guys. They
genuinely don't know why anyone would try to kill them. It never occurs to them that they are
being manipulated.
Assad Awarded Qassem Soleimani, the Highest Medal in Syria (Photo + Video)
5 hours ago News 809 visits
Assad awarded Qassem Soleimani, the highest honor in Syria (photo + video)
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad granted the highest honor in the Republic to the
commander of the "Quds Force" Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in an air strike carried
out by the American forces, on January 3, 2020, in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
On Monday, Syrian Prime Minister, Imad Khamis, said that President al-Assad granted the
commander of the "Quds Force" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, the
highest honor in Syria.
"I think if there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region,
those Canadians would be right now home with their families," Trudeau said in the
interview.
Trudeau said Canada did not receive a heads up before the United States killed
Soleimani, and that he "obviously" would have preferred one.
"The U.S. makes its determinations. We attempt to work as an international community on
big issues. But sometimes countries take actions without informing their allies," he
said
@76 dh.. i agree with you and i think the same applies to the average westerner, whether
american, canuck or etc. etc.. people are manipulated without much awareness of it.. however,
thinking something thru would be a good exercise for many, especially those cheering for the
west in it's war on iran.. that is the part i have a hard time comprehending, absent the
constant pr sell... thus the pr becomes a pivotal piece in the war movement.. they have to
sell it to the public.. from reading the cbc comments on the maple leaf foods ceo, it is not
apparent to me that the pr act is working fully here.. in fact, some people seem to be waking
up to where this is all headed and don't like what it looks like..
@ 78 likklemore.. thanks for that.. the maple leaf ceo is getting a lot of airplay, but that
bit from trudeau is a departure from his usual acceptance of the official agenda here.
thanks..
"A very large crowd of the most knowledgeable experts in (real) economics are quite
certain that the USSA is on the brink of total collapse. So the population is in dire need of
distractions. ..."
This crowd of 'economists' and their like have been sprouting this scenario for decades.
Why believe any of these characters? The whole basic premise of std economics is now dated
and largely BS. Obviously, they have not updated on "modern monetary theory"?
There is no market economy in 'equilibrium' run on rational basis. That ideology's shell
cracked with Nixon and completely broke with blow-job Willy Clinton when he had time not
playing with the kids on Epstein's Express (and Island).
It is a political economy now. Hegemony first, second and third. Vassal states
(plantations) and Colony-economic all the way with LBJ (& the Fed) etc. The only place
'normal' economics applies is at the margins for the working class -- like your credit card
and the local hardware store.
However, your general sentiment is on the mark if you change the key phrase from "brink of
total collapse" to " brink of major reset."
He is probably in the hope that someone would retaliate by killing him so as to he becomes
an American hero....but to no avail...in his insignificance...
The current state of affairs in the US and for extension in the resto fo the world is a
byprosuct of at least three men in the WH who feel so littel that they think they need to
produce so much noise to be noticed...
Do you have anything to add or further speculation about those events? And thanks for all
your efforts!!
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 13 2020 22:13 utc | 66
RT is now reporting on the reason for the assassination. Iran and KSA were about to settle
differences. the empire was not too happy about that. these meeting may well be related to
regional settlements among the regional countries.
JFK did not order the Diem assassinaton. The "cables" that purport to show that were long
ago revealed to have been forged by the infamous EH Hunt. Kennedy's Ambassador Lodge (a
Republican) conspired with CIA station chief Lucien Conein and a small group of administation
officials in Washington to remove Diem when JFK was away on a weekend. I believe Lodge was on
his way back to US where JFK was going to fire him to his face over this when he was himself
assassinated.
Apparently one of the issues for Iraq is that its oil revenue gets directed to an account at
the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, and access to that account would be the first order of
any prospective retaliatory sanctions by the U.S., and it was likely that account that Trump
referred to when warning of crippling sanctions if Iraq should attempt to remove US / NATO
forces.
@85, remarkable video. Damage is more extensive than I expected. Grateful none of our troops
was killed or physically injured (if that report is correct). However, those soldiers
certainly experienced trauma and will likely endure long-lasting mental and emotional
effects.
It all makes me angry that our President so cavalierly put our young men and women in
harms way. They should be home with family.
Quite the turn. On Saturday Trudeau wanted "clarity" asked Iran " if it [the downing of
the plane] was a mistake?"
I suspect Trudeau received a lot of emails from Quebec..Trudeau's party lost out to BQ;
understand a majority of Quebecois are not enamoured or impressed by the brain dead D.C.
leadership.
I hope that Iran can get the protests under control peacefully. ISTM that the Iranian
protesters and the Venezuelan protesters both appear to be upper class. I don't see peasants
protesting; I see a privileged class that probably stand to gain in the event there is a
regime change.
Soraya Sepahpour and Finian Cunningham has a very interesting take on this. Their hypothesis
fits remarkably well, in regard to motive, means, and opportunity.
Thanks but props go to Canthama, vid purloined from his twitter feed. Recommend bookmarking
his twitter, Link to Canthama's
twitter feed he is one of those extraordinary persons. No twitter account necessary.
@90 likklemore... i think its true what you say about quebec.. ask lozion, lol! either way i
commend him for putting some space in our position from the usas!
Jen
Not all are cartoon characters. Would be well worth Iran taking a look at who receives medals
and awards in the US. Captain of a certain ship comes to mind. But forget the heroes. Pompeo
would make a good 'eye for an eye'. Secretary of state and a nasty one at that. His job is
somewhat similar to Soleimani's.
If Trump is not reelected, I don't give much of his head. Thousands are ready to make him pay
for his crimes. He and his advisors will remain the targets of revenge for years to come
Writer Kim Sengupta from The Independent explains this incredible twist in the story:
Iraq's prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss
moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia –
the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he
was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had
delivered from the Saudis to Iran."
The prime minister also disclosed that Donald Trump had called him to ask him to
mediate following the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. According to Iraqi officials
contact was made with a number of militias as well as figures in Tehran. The siege of the
embassy was lifted and the US president personally thanked Abdul-Mahdi for his help.
There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel
to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian
commander to a place where he could be killed.
I posted what I believe might be a translated version of the document you linked to above,
but I as well do not speak the language.
This may be a related Twitter stream on the Iranians ruling out human error and pointing
the finger at U.S. electronic warfare malfeasance being used to trick the Iranians or their
systems into making the shoot down.
On the matter of the Ukrainian plane accident in Iran, the role of human error has been
ruled out [as it has been discovered that] deception operations were carried out on the air
control & command system.
, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the
image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)
=>
List
of Bookmarks ◄
► Bookmark ◄
► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC
▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B
Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel
Donald Trump occasionally utters unspeakable truths. In March 2018 he called Bush Jr.'s
decision to invade Iraq "the worst single mistake in US history." Earlier, Trump had said that
Bush should have been impeached for launching that disastrous war.
Yet on January 2 2020 Trump made a much bigger mistake: He launched all-out war with Iran --
a war that will be joined by millions of anti-US non-Iranians, including Iraqis -- by murdering
Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the legendary hero who defeated ISIS, alongside the popular Iraqi
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Gen. Soleimani was by far the most popular figure in Iran,
where he polled over 80% popularity, and throughout much of the Middle East. He was also adored
by millions even outside that region, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Many Christians
throughout the world loved Gen. Soleimani, whose campaign against ISIS saved the lives of
thousands of their co-religionists. Even Sunni Muslims (the people, not the billionaire playboy
sheikhs) generally loved and admired the Shia Muslim Gen. Soleimani, a saintly warrior-monk who
was uncommonly spiritual, morally impeccable, and the most accomplished military genius of this
young century.
The strategic stupidity of Trump's order to murder Soleimani cannot be exaggerated. This
shocking, dastardly murder, committed while Soleimani was on an American-encouraged peace
mission, has unleashed a "Pearl Harbor effect" that will galvanize not just the nation of Iran,
but other forces in the region and around the world. Just as the shock effect of Pearl Harbor
helped the American war party overcome domestic political divisions and unite the nation in its
resolve for vengeance, so has the Soleimani murder galvanized regional groups, led by Islamic
Iran and Iraq, in their dedication to obliterate every last trace of any US-Israeli presence in
the region, no matter how long it takes, by any means necessary.
Most Americans still don't understand the towering stature of Soleimani. Perhaps some
comparisons will be helpful.
To understand the effect on Iran and the region, imagine that Stalin had succeeded in
murdering George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur, all on the same day, in
1946. These US generals, like Soleimani, were very popular, in part because they had just won a
huge war against an enemy viewed as an embodiment of pure evil. How would Americans have
reacted to such a crime? They would have united to destroy Stalin and the Soviet Union, no
matter how long it took, no matter what sacrifices were necessary. That is how hundreds of
millions of people will react to the martyrdom of Gen. Soleimani.
But even that comparison does not do justice to the situation. Patton, Eisenhower, and
MacArthur were secular figures in an increasingly secular culture. Had Stalin murdered them,
their deaths would not have risen to the level of religious martyrdom. Americans' motivation to
avenge their deaths would not have been as deep and long-lasting, nor as charged with the avid
desire to sacrifice everything in pursuit of the goal, in comparison with the millions of
future avengers of the death of Gen. Soleimani.
The tragedy, from the US point of view, is that this didn't need to happen. Iran, a
medium-sized player in a tough neighborhood, is a natural ally of the United States. As
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Grand Chessboard , "Iran provides stabilizing support
for the new political diversity of Central Asia. Its independence acts as a barrier to any
long-term Russian threat to American interests in the Persian Gulf region." (p. 47) Obama,
guided by Brzezinski and his acolytes, set the US on a sensible path toward cordial relations
with Iran -- only to see his foreign policy triumph sabotaged by the pro-Zionist Deep State and
finally shredded by Netanyahu's puppets Trump and Pompeo. Iran, dominated by principled
anti-Zionists, is a thorn in the side of Israel, so the unstable Iranophobe Trump was inserted
into the presidency to undo Obama's handiwork and reassert total Israeli control over US policy
-- the same total control initially cemented by the 9/11 false flag.
If the murder of Soleimani bears comparison to Pearl Harbor, it also echoes the October 1914
killing of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the first domino in a series that ended in a world
war. The dominos are lined up the same way today, though it may take longer for all of them to
fall. Due to the enormity of its psychological effect, the Soleimani assassination irreversibly
sets the US at permanent war with Iran and the rest of the Axis of Resistance. That war can end
in only two ways: The destruction of Islamic Iran, or the complete elimination of the US
military presence in the region. The first alternative is unacceptable not only to Iran, its
regional friends, and the conscience of the world, but also to Russia and China, who would be
next in line for destruction if Iran is annihilated. The second alternative is probably
unacceptable to the permanent National Security State that governs the US no matter who is in
office, and to Israel and its global network (and its agents in the "US" National Security
State). So the irresistible force will soon be meeting the immovable object. It is difficult to
see how this could possibly end well.
Ironically, given Trump's well-justified scorn for Bush's invasion of Iraq, the first front
of the world war unleashed by Soleimani's killing will be in that long-suffering nation, whose
government has just ordered US troops to depart posthaste. If Trump wants to keep US forces in
Iraq he is going to have to re-invade that nation, attack and destroy its government and
military, fight a long-term counterinsurgency (this time against the vast majority of the
population) and take far more casualties than Bush Jr. did.
Trump's decision to martyr the great Iranian general and the celebrated Iraqi commander was
perfectly timed to unite Iraq against the American occupation. Prior to the murder, Iraq was in
the midst of color-revolution chaos, as demonstrators protested against not just the US and
Israel, the real culprits in the destruction of their country, but also Iran, Iraqi
politicians, and other targets. Those demonstrations, and the murders that marred them, were
orchestrated by Gladio style covert US forces. As Iraqi Prime Minster Abdul Mahdi
explained :
" I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the
construction instead (of an American company). Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to
reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against
me that would end my premiership.
"Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that
if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings
target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me. I refused again and
handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the
Chinese.
"After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting
both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened, he would do), I
received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we
kept on talking about this 'third party'.
"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came
to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians
from the Saudis (as part of a peace initiative)."
So Trump lured Soleimani to Tehran with a peace initiative, then ambushed him. That's why
Soleimani was traveling openly on a commercial flight to Baghdad International Airport. He
thought he was under US protection.
Abdul Mahdi's explanation rings true. It reflects the views of most Iraqis, who will be
galvanized by Trump's atrocious actions to resume their insurgency against US occupation.
As Iraqis continue to attack the hated US presence in their country, Trump will undoubtedly
blame Iran, whatever its actual role. So this time the Iranians will have no motivation to
avoid helping the Iraqi liberation struggle -- they would be blamed even if they didn't. Though
Soleimani was a relatively America-friendly stabilizing force after the US invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan -- the claim that he was behind IEDs that killed US troops is a ridiculous lie
-- in the wake of his death Iran will respond positively to Iraqi requests for help in its
national liberation struggle against the hated US occupier.
A rekindled anti-US insurgency in Iraq, and various forms of ambiguous/deniable retaliation
for the murder of Gen. Soleimani throughout the region and the world, will force Trump up the
escalation ladder. Iran, and the larger eject-the-US-from-the-Mideast project, will not back
down, though they may occasionally stage tactical retreats for appearance's sake. The only way
Trump could "win" would be by completely destroying Iran. Even if Russia and China allowed
that, an unlikely prospect, Trump or any US president who "won" that kind of war would be
remembered as the worst war criminal in world history, and the US would lose all its soft power
and with it its empire.
Russia now faces the same kind of decision it had to make when the Zionist-dominated US
tried to destroy Syria: stand by and let Tehran be annihilated, with Moscow next in line; or
use its considerable military power to save its ally. Putin will have no choice but to support
Iran, just as he supported Syria. China, too, will need to ensure that the USA loses its
Zionist-driven war on Iran. Otherwise Beijing would risk facing the same fate as Tehran.
Even if the only help it gets from Russia and China is covert, Iran is in a strong position
to wage asymmetric war against the US presence in the Middle East. Almost two decades ago, the
$250 million war game Millennium Challenge 2002 blew up in the neocons' faces, as Lt. Gen. Paul
Van Riper commanded Iranian forces against the US and steered them to victory. Though some
technological developments since then may favor the US, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky recently
pointed out on my radio show , others favor Iran, which now has missiles of sufficient
quality and quantity to rain down hell on US bases, annihilate much of if not all of Israel,
and send every US ship anywhere near the Persian Gulf to the bottom of the ocean. (Anti-ship
missiles have far outstripped naval defenses, and Iran has concealed immense reserves of them
deep in the Zagros Mountains overlooking the Persian Gulf.)
So Trump or whoever follows him will eventually face a choice: Accept defeat and withdraw
all American bases and forces in the region; or continue up an escalation ladder that
inexorably leads to World War III. The higher up the ladder he goes, the harder it will be to
jump off.
The apocalyptic scenario may not be accidental. Mike Pompeo, who is widely believed to have
duped Trump into ordering the killing of Gen. Soleimani, may have done so not only on behalf of
the extremist Netanyahu faction in Israel, but also in service to an apocalyptic
Christian Zionist program that yearns for planetary nuclear destruction . Pompeo is
ardently awaiting "the rapture," the culmination of Christian Zionist history, when a global
nuclear war begins at Megiddo Hill in Occupied Palestine and consumes the planet, sending
everyone to hell except the Christian Zionists themselves, who are "beamed up" Star Trek
fashion by none other than Jesus himself.
Whether it goes down in radioactive flames or in a kinder and gentler way, the US empire, as
unstable as its leaders, is nearing the final stages of collapse. "Very stable genius" Trump
and Armageddonite Pompeo may have hastened the inevitable when they ordered the fateful killing
of Gen. Soleimani.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777
Trump
First OK'd Killing Soleimani 7 Months Ago "If Americans Killed"
by
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/13/2020 - 13:05
0
SHARES
There's been a number of theories to emerge surrounding President Trump's incredibly risky
decision to assassinate IRGC Guds Force chief Qasem Soleimani, including that it was
all the
brainchild
of hawkish Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
But an emerging reporting consensus does indicate that the public justification for the strike
--
that
Soleimani posed an "imminent" threat as he was orchestrating an attack against American troops and
sites in the region
--
was manufactured based on flimsy intelligence. The
evolving and contradictory statements
within the administration itself demonstrates at least
this much.
And now according to the latest NBC bombshell it's becoming clear that the top IRGC general's
killing was
actually months in the works
:
President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Gen.
Qassem
Soleimani seven months ago
if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an
American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.
Apparently the "option" to take him out was already on the "menu" of Pentagon contingencies long
before Soleimani's fateful Jan.3 early morning passage through Baghdad International Airport.
Reports NBC based on
multiple officials
,
"The presidential directive in June came with the condition that
Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said."
The Dec.27 Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack on a US base in Kirkuk then became a core element of
the official rationale, given it killed an American contractor
later identified
as 33-year old Sacramento resident
Nawres Waleed Hamid, who
had been assisting the Army as a linguist.
The new report confirms further that it was both National Security Advisor at the time
John Bolton as well as Mike Pompeo that had Trump's ear on the subject
.
"There have been a number of options presented to the president over the course of time" related
to bold steps to curtail Iranian aggression, a senior administration official told NBC, which
reports further:
The president's message was "that's only on the table if they hit Americans,"
according to a person briefed on the discussion.
The origins of the plan to assassinate the top IRGC elite force general and popular "national
hero" inside Iran actually evolved initially out of 2017 discussions involving Trump's national
security adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.
The idea of killing Soleimani came up in discussions in 2017 that Trump's national security
adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, was having with other administration
officials about the president's broader national security strategy, officials said. But it was
just one of a host of possible elements of Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran and
"was not something that was thought of as a first move,"
said a former senior
administration official involved in the discussions.
The idea did become more serious after McMaster was replaced in April 2018 by Bolton
,
a longtime Iran hawk and advocate for regime change in Tehran. Bolton left the White House in
September -- he said he resigned, while
Trump
said he fired him
-- following policy disagreements on Iran and other issues.
So there it is: Bolton's ultra-hawkish influence is still in effect at the White House.
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating
Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force
activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.
And the torch is being carried further by Mike Pompeo.
But again while none of this should come as a surprise, it's yet further proof on top of a
growing body of evidence that Washington is yet again telling bald-faced lies to the public about a
major event that could lead America straight back into another disastrous Middle East quagmire.
Tags
Politics
Notice on Racial Discrimination
.
Copyright 2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD
Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else?
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered
right to your inbox.
Please enter a valid email
January 4, 2020 2,300 Words
73 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
List
of Bookmarks ◄
► ◄ ► ▲
▼ Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These
buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email
using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any
eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC
▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel
In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of
Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning
"Imminent attacks" on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically
referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence .
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu's government and then
Blair's, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence"
against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts
and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the
Bethlehem Doctrine – that here "Imminent" – the word used so carefully by Pompeo
– does not need to have its normal meanings of either "soon" or "about to happen". An
attack may be deemed "imminent", according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no
details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike
– and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of
"intelligence" you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is
nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged
in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for
drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade.
Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service
(the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is
classified information ).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were "imminent" he is not using the word in the
normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these
"imminent" attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you
can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack
you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained
widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles
outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem
became the FCO's Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single
one of the FCO's existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the
House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a
remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal
because the courts and existing law were wrong , a defence which has seldom succeeded in
court.
(b) following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on
self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal
purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide
a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of
contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily
crafted;
The key was that the concept of "imminent" was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an "imminent" armed attack will develop to meet new
circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh,
Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel's
security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam's
"imminent threat" to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about
Bethlehem's eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on
extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second's
thought to the fact that the intelligence on the "imminent threat" can be wrong. Assassinating
people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his
doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international
law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special
pleading. My favourite is this one by
Bethlehem's predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy
Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to
a book reflecting on Chomsky 's essay "On the Responsibility of Intellectuals"
In the UK recently, the Attorney General gave a
speech in defence of the UK's drone policy, the assassination of people – including
British nationals – abroad. This execution without a hearing is based on several
criteria, he reassured us. His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact,
the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim,
and stuck a reporter's byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British
government regularly executes without trial. Yet in fact it is extremely interesting. The
genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office's Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for the first
time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office's own large team of world-renowned
international lawyers. The reason for that is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO's
legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a
new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view. Straw went to
extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal 'expert' who provided the legal advice to
Benjamin Netanyahu on the 'legality' of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians
away from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the
invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic proponent in the world of drone
strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is, to say the least,
controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem accepts that established principles of
international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is
'imminent'. Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be 'imminent' does not require it to be
'soon'. Indeed you can kill to avert an 'imminent attack' even if you have no information on
when and where it will be. You can instead rely on your target's 'pattern of behaviour'; that
is, if he has attacked before, it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such
an attack is 'imminent'.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the target is often extremely
dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can
kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial
for past crimes, rather than to frustrate another 'imminent' one. You would think that
background would make an interesting story. Yet the entire 'serious' British media published
the government line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem's proposed definition of 'imminent' has been widely rejected by the international
law community. The public knows none of this. They just 'know' that drone strikes are keeping
us safe from deadly attack by terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has
attempted to give them other information
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy
position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo
says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under
which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor "definitely going to happen". To
twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing
people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing
about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by
Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the "deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of
Americans". This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill
somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don't know who or
when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been
killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11,
in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them
have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf
satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to
Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are
beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies
and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been
horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist
attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was
by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of
US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were
responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth
relates to the Pentagon's estimate –
suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back
during the invasion of Iraq itself , 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni
resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603
troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias –
whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea
that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible.
Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was "responsible for hundreds of American deaths" is
intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved
in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right
to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws
of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational
command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with
every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally
supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply
assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence's attempt to link
Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most
strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to
9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed.
Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But
there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what
they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was
Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United
States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key
part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant
general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The
Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to "non-state actors". Unlike all of the foregoing,
this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that
Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official
status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a
guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates
the illegality of his assassination still further.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British
Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010. (Republished from
CraigMurray.org by permission of author or representative)
We know Israel does this all the time but to non state actors. I dont think in recent history
anyone has openly target a state actor in such a criminal fashion because it is an act of war
and not only that but considered barbaric. To ask for mediation and then to assassinate the
messengers is an act that not even the mongols took part in and they considered it enough to
wipe out any such parties..
Good expose about the creative criminal minds twisting language and decency to justify murder
and war crimes...
A new legal doctrine to justify crimes in an industrial scale for the good of
UK-USrael.
However they might be right in claiming that Gen. Soleimani had killed or was about to
kill many "Americans" – not strictly US citizens – but the honorary American
terrorist foot soldiers fighting American wars in the Middle East.
Do terrorists act legally? The U.S. is a terrorist organisation. It is misleading to call the
US a nation or a country. Soleimani is widely-acknowledged as the architect of the successful
campaign to defeat the U.S.-Israel sponsored terrorists (ISIS and al-Qaeda) in Syria and
Iraq. The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against
Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S.
would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the
Iraqi Resistance.
How hideous that this is named Bethlehem, "The place of healing; place of birth of the Prince
of Peace.'
More appropriate to call it the ESTHER doctrine, or PURIM doctrine.
The Hebrew text provides no solid evidence that Haman sought to kill Jews: the notion is
based on Mordecha the Spy and self-serving Snitch.
Netanyahu has made public statements linking today's Iran to the Purim doctrine that Jews
celebrate to this day.
In other words, Jews demonstrate a clear patter of "imminent threat" to kill those who
resist Zionist – Anglo dominence.
Under this Purim (Bethlehem) doctrine, therefore, it is not only legitimate, it is
necessary -- a Constitutional obligation -- that the American government Kill Jews who pose
an Imminent Threat to the American -- and Iranian -- people.
As a retired international lawyer I am of the opinion Mr. Murray sets out fact and law
impressively . He says everything that is needed to be said
Good for the FCO legal team in resisting the invasion of Iraq. I do know at least one
British regiment sought independent legal advice before accepting orders.
Great article Mr. Murray, very needed in these times of almost universal deceit.
Mr. Bethlehem displays the famous Jewish quality of chutzpah – the quality of a bit
who has killed his parents in cold blood but begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan
– when he decided to simply change the law.
I wish I had some of that Jewish privilege, that way I too could go around robbing and
killing and then simply change the law to get away Scot free.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attended Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland,
graduating in 1995 with an M.Phil. degree in Law. Rouhani is close to Jack Straw and Straw is
very close to Lord Levy. And Lord Levy is very close to Lord Rothschild. Jack Straw says "in
Hassan Rouhani's Iran, you can feel the winds change." "Winds changing" is an understatement.
They are gust winds blowing at high velocity directly from the City of London and from
Israel's direction. All very high level British intrigue going on here in Iran. It was Jack
Straw who appointed Daniel Bethlehem who developed the "Bethlehem Doctrine" used in
justifying the assassination of General Soleinami under false pretenses Pompeo probably knew
about when he informed President Trump. From 1979 to 2013, Rouhani held a number of important
positions in the Velayat-e Faqih's key institutions, as "the man in power but in the
shadows." Hassan Rouhani's job it appears considering his education and position is through
Shia law is to continue to perpetuate the spread of the "revolution." The "revolution" is
designed to keep confrontation in place. Why not gradually move from "revolutionary Shia" to
a more conciliatory peaceful religious position? Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif who is now an
Iranian career diplomat, spent 20 years from the age of 17 studying in the United States.
Kind of makes us look harder at John Kerry and whether or not his connections to Mohammad
Javad Zarif have anything to do with all that is unfolding here?
They all have fake names. Netanyahu is really Mileikowski. Ben Gurion was really Gruen. But
for a British Jew to grab the name Bethlehem is a real attack on Christianity.
The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against
Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S.
would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the
Iraqi Resistance.
Well, what can one say? First, there is the official narrative; then there are the
alternative narratives in their many fashions and narrations; and then there is the oddball
narrative that defies logic and reason. Iran allied with Usrael?
It may look (and is) an exorbitant stretch of imagination to come to such a view. But it
is not unique; it is not much different from the often-heard impossible claim here at UR that
Nazi Germany was allied with the Soviet Union in 1939!
Can I be the only person to think that from the moment Hitler transported his
first shipment of Haavara Agreement Jews to Palestine there has not been a moments piece in
that corner of the globe.
Can you be the only person . . .?
Possibly.
"There has not been a moment's piece [sic] in that corner of the globe" since Herzl began
attempting to co-opt the Ottoman Empire in ~1895.
Balfour ramped it up a notch in 1917; at the urging of Louis Brandeis, Woodrow Wilson
endorsed Balfour's plan.
@Wally Note here that Wally fails to condemn Trump's illegal act of war on a national of
a nation which Congress has not declared war upon.
Yes Wally, Obama was a war criminal who deserves to hang for his crimes, but if you are to
retain any credibility with which to continue your mission to expose the Holohoax, you should
also acknowledge that Trump is a war criminal too who, based on precedent, also deserves to
hang. Your loyalty is clearly misplaced.
@Dube I believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the
pages of history". The usual liars reported this as "Iran would wipe Israel off the map".
If the West is to fight back and survive then the first battle should surely be against
the lying media organs that bear so much responsibility for the shit-storm that is on the
way.
@Parfois1 Hillary Mann Leverett negotiated with Iranian counterparts at United Nations
and gained Iranian assistance in finding partners to defeat Taliban
March 31, 2015
"Unlike Mr. Dubowitz and many in Washington, I have actually negotiated with current
Iranian officials, and it was an effective negotiation. [it resulted] in a state enormously
not only overthrow the Taliban, but set up a proper government in Afghanistan. There is
just no evidence whatsoever that continuing to bludgeon them and pressure them is going to
do anything to give us concessions."
Leverett participated in a 'round-table discussion' with Mark Dubowitz of Foundation for
Defense of Democracy (FDD).
Dubowitz's spiel was boilerplate: "Saddam killed 200,000 of his own people, he is pursuing
nuclear weapons," blah blah blah.
On Jan 12 2020 on C Span, https://www.c-span.org/event/?467915/washington-journal-01122020
first Ilan Goldenberg of Center for New American Security (George Soros, major funder), then
Michael Rubin of American Enterprise Institute * recited the same talking points: only the
names were changed, a tacit acknowledgement that the original, Iraqi-based set of names were
dead.
*AEI Board of Trustees:
AEI is governed by a Board of Trustees, composed of leading business and financial
executives.
Daniel A. D'Aniello, Chairman
Cofounder and Chairman The Carlyle Group
Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
Peter H. Coors
Vice Chairman of the Board
Molson Coors Brewing Company
Harlan Crow
Chairman
Crow Holdings
Ravenel B. Curry III
Chief Investment Officer
Eagle Capital Management, LLC
-- also interesting comments from the audience @ 11 min
Leverett has also repeated, on numerous occasions, that sanctions –" a weapon of
war" -- are counterproductive and, in the case of Iraq, "killed a million Iraqis, half of
them children."
@Dube Indeed, the Jews cunningly arranged for the Arab states to look like they might
attack them in 1967. Then they swooped like a prescient eagle and blew up all the Egyptian
planes on the ground before this attack, which might not have happened otherwise, actually
happened. Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win
in the first place.
Leave it to a Jew and his Bethlehem Doctrine, to crush the four centuries old Treaty of
Westphalia where the principle of national sovereignty was instituted. Killing the leaders of
a sovereign nation breaks the treaty.
Assassination is a Jew tool. Killing is the Jew way.
@RouterAl"Jew Jack Straw was everything you would expect from Jew"
I seem to recall a piece in an Israeli paper saying he wasn't Jewish. It was quite witty,
saying IIRC that although he looked like a shul trustee and his career trajectory (student
politics then law then media) was classically Jewish, he has (as wiki says) only one Jewish
great-grandparent.
From wiki
"In 2013, at a round table event of the Global Diplomatic Forum at the UK's House of
Commons, Straw (who has Jewish heritage) was quoted by Israeli politician Einat Wilf, one of
the panelists at the forum, as having said that among the main obstacles to peace was the
amount of money available to Jewish organizations in the US, which controlled US foreign
policy, and also Germany's "obsession" with defending Israel."
@dimples"Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going
to win in the first place."
Yes, it didn't do the losers much good at Nuremberg, although Germany had explained the
attack of June 22 as a pre-emptive strike – " Therefore Russia has broken its
treaties and is about to attack Germany. I have ordered the German armed forces to oppose
this threat with all their strength ".
"The Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence"
against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law
experts and judges, would accept."
Additionally, 400,000 of the Waffen SS were non-Germanic, yet wiki prefaces its
description of Barbarossa as "The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological
goal of conquering the western Soviet Union so as to repopulate it with Germans." .
The more things change, the more the lies stay the same. Like Hitler, Soleimani was a
"bad, hateful terrorist" who they smear by claiming "he deserved to die". In the end this is
really about the mother of all modern jewish lies, the "holocaust".
#1 – "When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the
Bethlehem definition under which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor
"definitely going to happen". To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to
lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the
bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel
Bethlehem."
#2 – [1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which
the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should
not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of
the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the
midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch
it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the
death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall
be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.
What do we get when we add #1 and #2?
#3 – The CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency are all
offshoots from, are all in origin product of, Brit WASP secret service.
When we add the answer to the above question to #3, what then is the sum?
@Biff Agree that 9/11 had " nothing to do with Iran" but to say that "9/11 was Sunni and
Saudi led " is disinformation . Is Craig Murray , a former British Diplomat , a 9/11
gatekeeper? Murray has written
"I do not believe that the US government or any of its agencies were responsible for 9/11."
Like Noam Chomsky , Murray fails the 9/11 "litmus test ".
Trump is continuing the state terrorism by drone as carried out by Bush and Obama : "Why is
Obama still killing children [by drome] ?" cato.org :
.".. thousands of civilians , including hundreds of children , have fallen victim to his
preemptive drone strikes over the last seven years 'America's actions are legal ', Obama said
,'we were attacked on 9/11′"
So Obama had the chutzpah to blame his murder of civilians on 9/11. The Democratic and
Republican parties are truly wings which belong to the same bird of prey .
Historically, nations act in what serves their interests. Western involvement in the Middle
East has been primarily about energy security and commerce. They seek to justify it through
different means, including legalistic sophistry. The real danger of the US-Iran confrontation
is consequences that lead to no alternative but escalation. One scenario, a Tehran 79 type
hostage stand-off in Baghdad where President Trump (in an election year) could find himself
with no choice but up the ante. The spector of humiliation and defeat convincing him the only
hope is to persevere. But that could be an illusion, moving deeper into a sequence of events
leading unstoppably to the real danger in the Middle East – confrontation with Russia.
Many say it couldn't happen. History suggests otherwise. Living by the law might be the
future: learning from history the way to create that future. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Sunni this, Sunni that !@# You, Craig Murray, you whitrash piece of shit!!
If this scum was a career diplomat of that pissant island, which has never been up to any
good, then he must fundamentally be an evil scumbag, working for the pleasure of that old
thieving witch.
Just various masks of controlled opposition. Mofers all!!
Yet another mixed bag. Invoking an official government lie, thus poisoning the well.
" Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to
Afghanistan. "
" The hijackers "?
I suppose this is an inserted reference to the alleged "hijackers" that were not even on the
airline flight manifests yet became central to the phony 9/11 story that no serious person
believes.
Israel and its colony the ZUS are the most dangerous countries in the world because of their
total disregard of international law as evidenced by their joint attack on the WTC on 911 and
their using this as the excuse to destroy the middle east for Israel, which has killed
millions and kept America at war for Israel for decades!
The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on
humanity!
The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on
humanity!
What is your criterion for comparison, Desert Fox?
I don't know much about Stalin, so can't deal with that.
Hitler was defending Germany: he told Herbert Hoover that his three " idees fixes "
were:
"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to
prevent a recurrence of] the famine;
to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the
Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." ( Freedom
Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).
ZUS and Israel are aggressing, invading, occupying, displacing and ethnically cleansing
forces; they are not acting defensively, as NSDAP was, by any application of logic.
This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
The Saudis may have enabled the creation of the legends of the hijackers, but had little
or nothing to do with the execution of the operation. 9/11 certainly was carried out
preponderantly by Israeli operatives for the economic benefit of Zionist Jews and their
criminal co-conspirators in the world of finance and the councils of government.
The sentence ought to be reordered thus:
'9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led. ' That is total bullshit. In any case, it had nothing to
do with Iran.
Sean promptly serves up the CIA line, more slogans for people who are not too bright. Today
it's a little pun to muddle up the law and give CIA a desperately-sought loophole for the
crime of aggression, for which there is no justification. Sean is thinking fast as he can to
try and distract you from the necessity and proportionality tests which accompany any use of
force and govern the status of the act as countermeasure, internationally wrongful act, or
crime. Sean's indoctrination has protected his stationary hamster-wheel mind from the black
letter law of Chapter VII, including Articles 47 and 51, which place self-defense forces at
the disposal of the UNSC under direction of the Military Staff Committee. Sean also seizes up
with Orwellian CIA CRIMESTOP when he hears anything about the case law governing use of
force, such as the minimal indicative examples below.
CIA has been running from the law for 85 years now, but despite their wholesale corruption
of the Secretariat, they're losing control of the UN charter bodies and treaty bodies. Some
SIS scapegoats are going to be faking palsy in the dock to get a break. Brennan first.
@SolontoCroesus Recommend you do the research, Hitler was put into power by the zionist
banking kabal, the same kabal that rules the ZUS, read the book Wall Street and the Rise of
Hitler, and they wanted Hitler and Stalin to destroy each other, that was the zionist plan
and they used the ZUS and Britain to do it, just as they have destroyed the mideast for
Israels greater Israel agenda.
The ZUS is just like Hitler invading and destroying the mideast for Israel using the
attack on WTC as an excuse, which was a joint attack on the WTC on 911 by traitors in the ZUS
and Israel, the whole deal is a zionist driven holocaust on the people of the middle
east.
By the way Israel is perpetrating a holocaust of the people of Palestine and this
holocaust is backed by the ZUS, which is Israels military arm ie a subsidiary of the IDF.
Recommend the archives section on henrymakow.com on Hitler and Stalin.
@Jake There were no hijackers , there were no planes , they were likely CGI's in videos
produced in a "Holywood production" prior to 9/11 , see septemberclues. info "The central
role of the news media on 9/11" .
@Wally I am sure, if asked, he would condemn Obama's war crimes as well (and Bush I, Bush
II, Clinton, etc. probably going back to Lincoln at least). But the subject was about
Soleimani's assassination, which, as much as I am sure you would like to do, cannot be pinned
on Obama.
@Igor Bundy Right. The Mongols rolled the murderers of their emissaries or ambassadors in
carpets and had them trampled to death by horses. This was followed by razing the city/state.
I'm told Nuttyyahoo of Israel provided the info and encouraged it.
1) Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ethnicity and has benefited from it thus lying can
be natural for her she would most likely give a lap dance to Bibi if demanded to get
elected,
2) Arabs are being absolved of 9/11 by their Ashkenazi cousins who mistakenly believe that
they are semites despite having overwhelmingly slavic blood there must be trace amounts of
meshuggah genes mixed up with the Indo-European and thus the hatred of Iranians,
3) Jesus came once before, therefore it must reason that he is coming back the second time
and now the arrival is imminent so Daniel Bethlehem must become Christian now or go to
hell
@Jake 20 Hijackers. One, a black Moroccan Muslim, chickened out and is in jail somewhere
in the USA. The leader, Atta, was from Egypt. The lead guy to the flight that only had four
hijackers because of the Moroccan, which crashed in PA, was from Lebanon and could pass for
an American/Jew. Two were from the United Arab Emirates and the rest, 15 , were
Saudis.
Mafia-style assassination of Soleimani was undoubtedly an act of state terrorism. What's
more, it was an act of war against Iran. It was a crime committed by the US military on
orders of Trump, who publicly confessed that he gave that criminal order.
Limited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the
US government.
"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to
prevent a recurrence of] the famine;
to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the
Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." (Freedom Betrayed, by
Herbert Hoover).
Your #2 and #3 are naked aggression. Exactly as Soleimani murder.
May 8, 2019 Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War. The Role of Osama bin Laden and Zbigniew
Brzezinski
The original "moderate rebel"
One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project against
Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful
family that owns a Saudi construction company and has had close ties to the Saudi royal
family.
@Been_there_done_that While I am sure that the official story of the September 11th 2001
'attack' is false, I frequently wonder why the 'truthers' seem never to be able to get all
their ducks in a row. Many claim that the film footage of the aircraft strikes were
pre-manufactured CGIs, issued to the media in order to mask the real culprits which they
allege were cruise missiles. But a cruise missile doesn't have a flight manifest. Either
those four flights that the official story says were hijacked took off that day, or they did
not. The CGI theory rests, of course, on there being no such flights. Yet you claim that 'the
hijackers' were not on flight manifests for those flights. This is surely the craziest
interpretion: either the flights were fictional (as in the CGI theory) and thus there were no
manifests, or they really did take place, and therefore had manifests, and were hijacked. If,
as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth
did they fly into the twin towers? It makes no sense at all I fear.
Americans are now as gods. asserting their inherent right to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere,
for any reason.
"Did we just kill a kid?" In 2012 a USAF drone operator named Bryant reported he was "flying"
drones out of New Mexico and painted a 6000 mile away Afghan shack with his laser, and with
permission released a Hellfire missile. During the time the missile took to arrive, he saw on
his screen a child toddle from behind the shack. Mesmerized, in slow motion, he saw the shack
explode and the child disappear. Having killed hundreds remotely, he still wasn't ready for
this and asked his copilot: "Did we just kill a kid?". The operator answered: "I guess so".
Suddenly on the screen appeared the words of some unknown anonymous supervisor: "No, it was a
dog". Bryant responded: "A dog on two legs?"
Even the resident boomer Nam hero, Rich, might have trouble justifying this kind of activity
.but then again in a jewed out society ..maybe not.
@Desert Fox 'The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a
blight on humanity!'
Ah. I see that you are still drinking the Kool Aid regarding Herr Hitler. I used to
believe it all too. You'll learn in time, as will enough people. Only then will the gigantic
criminal enterprise fomented by 'the International Race' that we call World War II be seen
for the monstrous crime against humanity that it was. Perhaps – just perhaps –
that same sick and depraved race will then finally be so deservedly called to account for its
foul deeds.
Make no mistake: understanding just who and what Adolf Hitler really was, and especially
his role in saving at least part of the West from Communism, is absolutely central to an
appreciation of this awful world in which we now live.
@GeeBee I am under no illusions about Hitler or Stalin as both were funded by the
international zionist banking kabal, read the book Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg
and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,by
Anthony Sutton, zionists were behind the whole deal.
Recommend henrymakow.com and his
archive section on Hitler and Stalin.
@AnonFromTNLimited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp
contrast to the US government.
There is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy
and confused. At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions.
What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?"
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden
What's ironic is that Pompeo and his fellow Americans would cry like the little girls they
are if the rest of the world starting assassinating Americans based on the same grounds. Lol
There is no such thing as international law or legality. Might makes right as shown by the US
doing as it pleases and thumbing it's nose at everyone. Some person with legal credentials
gets trotted out to declare whatever has been done is legal, just rubber-stamping it. It's
too bad but that's the reality.
@Z-man With all due respect which is 0. How pray tell did the those "hijackers" manage to
plant the explosives in the 3 World Trade towers buildings with which to imploded them? Of
course they didn't. Israel and Jews have their fingerprints all over the 911 attack.
911 was an Israeli/ Jew false flag attack that resulted in the murder of 3000 innocent
goyim before noon that day. It's purpose was to create hatred towards Arabs, Muslims and
Persians so that stupid Americans would send their children to die for the squatter colony of
Israel.
Folks the Jew controlled US government is saying that those 3 sky-scrapers collapsed into
their own footprint at free fall speed due to one cause: office furniture fires. Not the
impact of the "plane" and not the fuel carried by the "planes". This has never happened
before or since in the history of the world. It is complete bullshit. The JewSA's story is
totally impossible and defies the laws of physics. Namely the Law of the conservation of
energy.
As anyone who observers the fall of all 3 towers can see those building fall at free fall
speed. For this to happen it means that the underlying structure is offering NO resistance to
the above falling structure. How can this be? The many floors below the impact zone were in
no way effected by the fire. Yet we see them vaporized into dust as the buildings collapse
into their own footprint.
No folks this is impossible. Therefore the entire government's story is suspect and I
would suggest total bullshit.
I'll admit that in the heat of the moment I fell for this lie. But what really got my
attention was when I found out about the collapse of Building 7. A 57 story that was not hit
by any "plane". And yet it followed the same script as the Twin Towers. Use critical thinking
Americans.
I realize for many the truth about 911 is going to blow up their entire world view
regarding the exceptionalness of the US and our good buddy Israel. But it is vital for the
survival of our nation that the real criminals behind 911 be held accountable.
@AnonFromTN If so, AnonFromTn, while begging pardon for a Whataboutery argument, How does
#2 differ from the activities of Israelis, that are supported by American taxpayers; and how
does #3 differ from the activities of Americans toward Iran, whose government US / Israel has
been seeking to topple and re-form to "western" preferences, since at least 1979? *
Moreover, Desert Fox is partly (but only minimally-partly) correct in that zionist Jews
and Allies set-up or duped or manipulated or otherwise used Germany to attempt to destroy
Bolshevism in Russia, similar to the way that US used Saddam against Iran, then killed
Saddam; used Soleimani against ISIS in Iraq, then killed Soleimani.
So are the actions of USA / ZUSA excusable, unaccountable, but those of Germany were
demonstrably not?
Or should the American people remain warily alert for the next shoe to drop, when that
"arc of justice" bends inexorably their way?
* I still, perhaps stubbornly, maintain that Germany had far more justification for its
actions in seeking to vanquish a political regime that was observably committing mass murder
with the "imminent" danger of carrying out the same against the German people -- as, in fact,
was done; and that seeking to protect its people from starvation, of which 800,000 people had
died within the present memory of surviving Germans, is an obligation of the state, a far
more compelling obligation than that of "protecting American interests" 7000 miles from the
homeland, when the homeland has more than adequate capacity to provide for its people, and
when the interests being protected are those of a very few very rich individuals or
corporations.
Competing and trading fairly is far less costly than waging war, and not nearly so
ignoble.
@SolontoCroesus I am not trying to whitewash the Empire. Many of its actions are clearly
criminal, including bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
assisting murderous Saudis in Yemen, etc. Assassination of Soleimani is yet another similarly
criminal action, not the first and likely not the last.
However, the criminality of the Empire does not justify Hitler in any way. His troops
behaved in a totally barbaric manner in the former Soviet Union. I know that not from
propaganda, but from the accounts of real people who lived through German occupation in
1941-44.
The Empire being a criminal enterprise does not make the Third Reich any less criminal.
FYI, bandits often clash with each other, and both sides in those clashes remain bandits.
Jan 13, 2020 Assassination-gate! Trump Officials Say No 'Imminent Threat.' With Guest Phil
Giraldi
Trump officials – including Trump himself today – have been steadily pulling
back from initial claims after the January 3rd assassination of Iranian top general Soleimani
that he was killed because of "imminent threats" of attack led by the Iranian.
@Paul "Noam Chomsky and the gatekeepers of the left " is a chapter in Barrie Zwicker's
book "Towers of Deception ", this chapter is available in pdf format at 9/11conspiracy.tv
.
Zwicker argues that Chomsky " In supporting the official story is at one with the right-wing
gatekeepers such as Judith Miller of the New York Times Chomsky's function is identical to
Miller's: support the official story Chomsky systematically engages in deceptive discourse on
certain key topics such as 9/11 , the Kennedy assassination and with regard to the CIA . ..A
study of Chomsky's stands show him to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most
egregious outrages and their covert agency engines To the New World Order he is worth 50
armored divisions ."
As filmmaker Roy Harvey has stated " the single greatest obstacle to the spread of 9/11 truth
is the Left media ."
"If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them,
how on earth did they fly into the twin towers?"
Remote control – a proven and trusted technology.
It could have been possible that some of the airline planes were electronically "switched"
in mid-air, remotely flown with their beacons turned off, to simply disappear into the South
Atlantic Ocean once their fuel ran out, while replaced by a fuel tanker in one case, to
create a bigger fireball upon impact in Manhattan, or a much smaller plane to penetrate into
the Pentagon.
The public ought to demand a thorough investigation resulting in concrete answers and
prosecutions.
Some of the alleged hijackers were actually alive after the event and outraged to have had
their identities stolen and misused.
@Biff Great article, but Craig is taking the easy way out on 9/11. Of course, the Arabs
were Sunnis, but were bit players only, and no way was 9/11 Saudi led.
One week after federal prosecutors
changed their tune
in the Michael Flynn case - recommending he serve up to
six months
in prison
for lying to investigators regarding his contacts with a Russian diplomat, the
former National Security Adviser
withdrew his guilty plea
Tuesday
afternoon
.
In a
24-page court filing
, Flynn accuses the government of "bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of
the plea agreement," and has asked his January 28th sentencing date to be postponed for 30 days.
General Flynn has moved to withdraw his guilty plea due to the "government's bad faith,
vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement."
pic.twitter.com/Qp5JcQjXmB
According to Flynn's counsel,
prosecutors "concocted" Flynn's alleged "false statements
by their own misrepresentations, deceit, and omissions."
"It is beyond ironic and completely outrageous that the prosecutors have persecuted Mr. Flynn,
virtually bankrupted him, and put his entire family through unimaginable stress for three years,"
the filing continues.
"The prosecutors concocted the alleged 'false
statements' (relating to FARA filing) by their own misrepresentations, deceit, and omissions."
pic.twitter.com/o47WO8qClX
Prosecutors initially recommended no jail time over Flynn's cooperation in the Russiagate
probes, however they flipped negative on him after he "sought to thwart the efforts of the
government to hold other individuals, principally Bijan Rafiekian, accountable for criminal
wrongdoing."
The 67-year-old Rafiekian, an Iranian-American and Flynn's former business partner, was charged
with illegally acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government. Prosecutors accused Flynn
of failing to accept responsibility and "complete his cooperation" - as well as "affirmative
efforts to undermine" the prosecution of Rafiekian."
More on this from attorney and researcher @Techno Fog:
After Flynn refused to lie for prosecutors (Van
Grack), they retaliated by:
1) Reversing course and labeling Flynn a co-conspirator
2) Improperly contacted Flynn's son
3) Put Flynn's son on the witness list for intimidation purposes (never called as a witness)
pic.twitter.com/fP4hpVXfGY
"The govt's tactics in relation for Mr. Flynn's
refusal to 'compose' for the prosecution is a due process violation that can and should be
stopped dead in its tracks by this Court"
pic.twitter.com/ttcFGmyPv7
Most of this prosecution of Flynn has been under TRUMP'S Justice
Department! Isn't there ANYBODY in charge in this government?
Lyndon Johnson would have literally knocked out an Attorney
General that didn't do his bidding. He did, in fact, assault the
head of the Federal Reserve back in the day - when America was
America!
"... "positions her as one of the top candidates to take over the liberal party after Trudeau" ..."
"... Government Operations Committee ..."
"... "All liberal democracies in the world today are facing huge challenges, and for me the conclusion that pushed me to is; there are only 37 million Canadians. Hugely challenging world threats posed to the rules-based international order, greater threats since the 2nd World War. We have to be united in how we confront those challenges." ..."
"... Ever since her appointment to the role of Cabinet Minister in 2015, Freeland played the role assigned to her as a high level Rhodes Scholar and priestess of neo-liberalism. Springing from a Nazi-connected Ukrainian family based out of Alberta, Freeland made her mark working as lead editor in British Intelligence-controlled news agencies the London Economist, Thompson-Reuters, Financial Times and later Canada's Globe and Mail. Through these positions as "perception manager" of the super elite, she became friends with some of the most vicious Russian, Ukrainian and other eastern European oligarchs who rose to power under Perestroika and the liberalization of the east-bloc. ..."
"... The author is the founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation of Canada. He has authored 3 volumes of the series "The Untold History of Canada" and can be reached at [email protected] ..."
editor
/
November 27, 2019
An interesting victory has been won for forces in Canada who have wished to clean up the mess made by the two
disastrous years Chrystia Freeland has spent occupying the position of Foreign Minister of Canada. This victory
has taken the form of a Freeland's removal from the position which she has used to destroy diplomatic relations
with China, Russia and other nations targeted for regime change by her London-based controllers. Taking over the
helm as Minister of Global Affairs is Francois-Philippe Champagne, former Minister of Infrastructure and ally of
"old guard" Liberal elder Jean Chretien- both of whom have advocated positive diplomatic and business relations
with China in opposition to Freeland for years.
As positive of a development as this is, the danger which
Freeland represents to world peace and Canada's role in the New Emerging system led by the Eurasian Alliance
should not be ignored, since she has now been given the role of Deputy Prime Minister, putting her into a position
to easily take over the Party and the nation as 2
nd
in command.
Already the Canadian press machine on all sides of the aisle are raising the prospect of Freeland's takeover of
the Liberal Party as it
"positions her as one of the top candidates to take over the liberal party after
Trudeau"
as one Globe and Mail reporter stated.
The Strange Case of Deputy Prime Ministers
The very role of Deputy Prime Minister is a strange one which has had many pundits scratching their heads,
since the Privy Council position is highly under-defined, and was only created by Justin's father Pierre in 1977
as part of his
"cybernetics revolution"
which empowered the Privy Council Office and Prime Minister's Office under "scientific management" of a
technocratic elite. Although it is technically the position of 2nd in Command, it is not like the position of
Vice-President whose function has much greater constitutional clarity.
In some cases, the position has been ceremonial, and in others, like the case of Brian Mulroney's Dep. PM Don
Mazankowski (1986-1993) who chaired the
Government Operations Committee
and led in imposing the
nation-stripping NAFTA, the position was very powerful indeed. Some Prime Ministers have chosen not even to have a
Deputy PM, and the last one (Anne McLellan) ended with the downfall of Paul Martin in 2006. McLellan and another
former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley were both leading figures behind the creation of the think tank
Canada2020 in 2003
that soon brought Justin and Obamaton behaviorists into a re-structuring of the Liberal Party of Canada during the
Harper years, shedding it of its pro-China, pro-Russia, anti-NATO influences that had been represented by less
technocratically-minded statesmen like Jean Chretien years earlier.
Personally, as a Canadian-based journalist who has done a fair bit of homework on Canadian history, and the
structures of Canada's government, I honestly don't think the question of Freeland's becoming Prime Minister
matters nearly as much as many believe for the simple reason that Justin is a well-known cardboard cut-out who
simply doesn't know how to do anything terribly important without a teleprompter and experienced handlers. This is
not a secret to other world leaders, and anyone familiar with the mountains of video footage taken from G7 events
featuring the pathetic scene of little Justin chronically ignored by his peers goes far enough to demonstrate the
point.
Freeland's role in Canada has never had much to do with Canada, as much as it has with Canada's role as a
geopolitical chess piece in a turbulent and changing world and her current role as Deputy Prime Minister as well
as Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs can only be understood in those global terms.
Unity for the Sake of Greater Division
For Canada to play a useful role in obstructing the Eurasian-led New Silk Road paradigm sweeping across the
globe in recent years, it requires the fragmenting American monarchy be kept in line.
The problem for the British Empire in this regard, is that the recent elections have demonstrated how divided
Canada is with the Liberal Party suffering total losses across the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec
due to the technocratic adherence to the Green New Deal agenda and resistance to actual industrial development
initiatives. The collapse of living standards, and the lack of any policies for rebuilding the industrial base
that 30 years of NAFTA have destroyed, has resulted not only in the rejection of the Liberal Party but has also
awoken a renewed demand for separation in all three provinces.
Referring implicitly to the crisis of such "authoritarian regimes" as China, Russia, Iran and Trump's USA, as
well as the need to decarbonize the world, Freeland put the problem she is assigned to fix
in the following terms
:
"All liberal democracies in the world today are facing huge challenges, and for me
the conclusion that pushed me to is; there are only 37 million Canadians. Hugely challenging world threats posed
to the rules-based international order, greater threats since the 2nd World War. We have to be united in how we
confront those challenges."
To put it simply, if centralized control were to break down at a time when the Belt and Road Initiative (
and
its Polar Silk Road extension
) is redefining the world system OUTSIDE of the control of the western oligarchy,
then it is clearly understood that the Green Agenda will fail, but the dynamics of the BRI will become hegemonic
as Canada realizes (like the Greeks and Italians currently) that the only viable policies for growing the real
economy is coming from China.
Some final words on Freeland, Neo-liberal High Priestess
Ever since her appointment to the role of Cabinet Minister in 2015, Freeland played the role assigned to
her as a high level Rhodes Scholar and priestess of neo-liberalism. Springing from a Nazi-connected Ukrainian
family based out of Alberta, Freeland made her mark working as lead editor in British Intelligence-controlled news
agencies the London Economist, Thompson-Reuters, Financial Times and later Canada's Globe and Mail. Through these
positions as "perception manager" of the super elite, she became friends with some of the most vicious Russian,
Ukrainian and other eastern European oligarchs who rose to power under Perestroika and the liberalization of the
east-bloc.
She also became close friends with such golems as George Soros, Larry Summers and Al Gore
embedding their institutions ever more deeply into Canada
since she was brought
into Canada2020
(her move to politics was facilitated by fellow Rhodes Scholar/Canada2020 leader Bob Rae
abdicating his position as MP for Ontario in 2013).
When Foreign Minister Stephane Dion committed the crime of attempting to heal relations with China and called
for a Russia-Canada Summit to deal mutually with
Arctic development, counter-terrorism and space cooperation
, he had to go. After an abrupt firing, Freeland
was given his portfolio and immediately went to work in turning China and Russia into public enemies #1 and #2,
passing the Magnintsky Act in 2017 allowing for the sanctioning of nations for human rights (easily falsified when
Soros' White Helmets and other CIA/MI6-affiliated NGOs are seen as "on-the-ground" authorities documenting said
abuse).
Her role as champion of NAFTA which Trump rightly threatened to scrap in order to re-introduce protective
tariffs elevated her to a technocratic David fighting some orange Goliath, and her advocacy of the Green New Deal
has been behind some of the most extreme energy/arctic anti-development legislation passed in Canada's history.
Whether it is though individual provinces claiming their rights to form independent treaties with Eurasian
powers around cooperation on the BRI, or whether Canada can be returned to a pro-nation state orientation under
the "Chretien faction" in the federal government, the current future of Canada is as under-defined as the role of
"deputy minister". Either way the nation chooses navigate through the storm, it is certain that any commitment to
staying on board the deck of the Titanic known as the "western neoliberal order" has only one cold and tragic
outcome which Freeland and her ilk will drown before admitting to.
Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani
was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from
Peace? Who does not?
The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just
an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates
any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological
revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.
The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why
Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC
lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this
situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.
The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that
the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are
involved.
The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which,
in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to
compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street
interests (disaster capitalism.)
In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening.
Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current
head of Mossad probably played some role.
It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which
includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was
trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a
long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of
MIC.
IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a
real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense
spending.
State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some
neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA
population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the
USA.
"If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee
working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans
The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of
Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "
"... Historians interpret and reinterpret history. It is a normal process except when politicians do the reinterpreting. Their interests are not intellectual but rather political. They seek justification for their politics by evoking the past, history as they need it to be. ..."
"... The greatest blow to collective security came in September 1938 when France and Britain concluded the Munich accords which sanctioned the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia ..."
"... After the war, the west launched a campaign accusing Stalin of being Hitler's "ally" ..."
"... Western propaganda claimed that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "allies". World War II was entirely their fault, while France, Britain and Poland were innocent victims of totalitarianism ..."
"... After the 2014 putsch, Ukrainian Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera were made into national heroes ..."
"... As mightily as Poland seeks to falsify history, it cannot cover up the atrocities of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators against Poles, remembered in a recently released Polish hit film, "Volhynia" ..."
Historians interpret and reinterpret history. It is a normal process except when
politicians do the reinterpreting. Their interests are not intellectual but rather political.
They seek justification for their politics by evoking the past, history as they need it to
be.
The origins and waging of World War II are of special interest to western politicians, past
and present. This was true even early on. In December 1939 the British government decided to
lay a white paper on the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations during the spring and summer of that
year to organise a war-fighting alliance against Hitlerite Germany. Foreign Office officials
carefully picked out a hundred or so documents to show that they and the French had been
serious about organising an anti-German alliance and that the USSR was principally responsible
for the failure of the negotiations. In early January 1940 the white paper reached the stage of
page proofs. Nearly everyone in London was impatient to publish it. All that was needed was the
approval of France and the Polish government in exile. Much to the surprise of British
officials, France opposed the publication of the white paper, and so did the Polish government
in exile. This may also come as a surprise to present day readers. Why would French and Polish
officials be opposed to a publication considered "good propaganda" by the British to blacken
the reputation of the Soviet Union?
Let's allow the French ambassador in London to explain in his own words. "The general
impression which arises from reading [the white paper]", he wrote in a memorandum dated 12
January 1940, "is that from beginning to end the Russian government never ceased to insist on
giving the agreement [being negotiated] the maximum scope and efficacy. Sincere or not, this
determination of the Soviet government to cover effectively all the possible routes of a German
aggression appears throughout the negotiations to collide with Anglo-French reluctance and with
the clear intention of the two governments to limit the field of Russian intervention".
And the French ambassador did not stop there. He observed that critics who felt that the
USSR had been forced into agreement with Nazi Germany by Anglo-French "repugnance" to make
genuine commitments in Moscow would find in the white paper "a certain number of arguments in
their favour." The language used here was in the finest traditions of diplomatic
understatement, but the Foreign Office nevertheless got the message. The more so because there
was this further, telling irritatant to Gallic sensibilities that the documents selected for
the white paper failed to show that they, the French, had been more anxious to conclude with
Moscow than their British allies. What would happen, the French wondered, if the Soviet
government published its own collection of documents in reply to a white paper? Who would
public opinion believe? The French were not sure of the answer.
As for the Poles in exile, they could not much insist, but they too preferred that the white
paper not be published. Even in those early days Polish exiles were not anxious to publicise
their responsibilities in the origins of the war and their swift defeat at the hands of the
Wehrmacht.
In fact, all three governments, British, French and Polish, had much to hide, not just their
conduct in 1939, but during the entire period following Adolf Hitler's rise to power in January
1933. The Soviet government was quick to ring the alarm bells of danger and to propose a
defensive, anti-Nazi alliance to France and Britain. And yes, Moscow also made overtures to
Poland. The Soviet commissar for foreign affairs, M. M. Litvinov, even hoped to bring fascist
Italy into an anti-Nazi coalition. In Bucharest, the Soviet government made concerted efforts
to gain Romanian participation in a broad anti-German alliance redolent of the Entente
coalition of World War I.
Were all these Soviet efforts a ruse to dupe the west while Soviet diplomats secretly
negotiated with Nazi Germany? Not at all, Russian archives appear conclusive on this point. The
Soviet overtures were serious, but its would-be allies demurred, one after the other, except
for Poland, which never for a moment considered joining an anti-Nazi alliance with the Soviet
Union. Commissar Litvinov watched as Soviet would-be allies sought to compose with Nazi
Germany. Poland persistently obstructed Soviet policy and Romania, under Polish and German
pressure, backed away from better relations with Moscow. One Soviet ambassador even recommended
that the Soviet government not break off all relations with Berlin in order to send a message,
especially to Paris and London, that the USSR could also compose with Nazi Germany. The four
most important French diplomats in Moscow during the 1930s warned repeatedly that France must
protect its relations with the USSR or risk seeing it come to terms with Berlin. In Paris their
reports disappeared into the files, ultimately unheeded. The greatest blow to collective
security came in September 1938 when France and Britain concluded the Munich accords which
sanctioned the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Neither Czechoslovak nor Soviet diplomats were
invited to participate in the negotiations. As for Poland, it allied itself with Nazi Germany.
"If Hitler obtains Czechoslovak territories," said Polish diplomats before Munich, "then we
will have our part too".
The greatest blow to collective security came in September 1938 when France and Britain
concluded the Munich accords which sanctioned the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia
Could it be a surprise that after nearly six years of failed attempts to organise an
anti-Nazi front, that the Soviet government would lose all confidence in the French and British
governments and cut a deal with Berlin to stay out of a war, which everyone recognised was
imminent? This was the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact signed on 23 August 1939. As for the
Poles, in their hubris and blindness, they mocked the idea of an alliance with the USSR right
up until the first day of the war.
The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was the result of the failure of six years of Soviet
policy to conclude an anti-Nazi alliance with the west and not the cause of that failure. The
British ambassador in Moscow accused the Soviet government of "bad faith", but that was just
Pot calling Kettle black. Even in the last days of peace, the British and French governments
looked for a way out of war. "Although we cannot in the circumstances avoid declaring war,"
said one British minister, "we can always fulfill the letter of a declaration of war without
immediately going all out." In fact, France and Britain scarcely raised a finger to help Poland
when it was invaded on 1 September 1939. Having brought disaster on itself, the Polish
government fled Warsaw after the first days of fighting, its members crossing into Romania to
be interned.
If France and Britain would not help the Poles in their moment of desperation, could Joseph
Stalin have reasonably calculated that the British and French would have done more to help the
Soviet Union, had it entered the war in September 1939? Clearly not. The USSR would have to
look to its own defences. No one should be surprised therefore that a few months later the
French and Poles in exile would oppose publication of a white paper which could open a
Pandora's box of questions about the origins of the war and their failure to join an anti-Nazi
alliance. Better to let sleeping dogs lie and hope that government archives would not be opened
for a long time.
After the war, the west launched a campaign accusing Stalin of being Hitler's
"ally"
After the war, however, the fiasco surrounding the British white paper was long forgotten.
The sleeping dogs awakened and began to bay. The west launched a campaign accusing Stalin of
being Hitler's "ally". In 1948 the US State Department issued a collection of documents
entitled Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939-1941, to which the Soviet government replied with
Falsifiers of History. The propaganda war was on, as was the western especially American
attempt to attribute to the USSR as much as to Nazi Germany the responsibility for setting off
World War II.
The American propaganda was preposterous given the history of the 1930s as we now know it
from various European archives. Was there ever a gesture of ingratitude greater than US
accusations blaming the USSR for the origins of the war and covering up the huge contribution
of the Red Army to the common victory against Nazi Germany? These days in the west the role of
the Soviet people in destroying Nazism is practically unknown. Few are aware that the Red Army
fought almost alone for three years against the Wehrmacht all the while demanding a second
front in France from its Anglo-American allies. Few know that the Red Army inflicted more than
80% of all casualties on the Wehrmacht and its allies, and that the Soviet people suffered
losses so high that no one knows the exact numbers, though they are estimated at 26 to 27
million civilians and soldiers. Anglo-American losses were trivial by comparison.
Ironically, the anti-Russian campaign to falsify history intensified after the dismemberment
of the USSR in 1991. The Baltic states and Poland led the charge. Like a tail wagging the dog,
they stampeded all too willing European organisations, like the OSCE and PACE and the EU
Parliament in Strasbourg, into ridiculous statements about the origins of World War II. It was
the triumph of ignorance by politicians who knew nothing or who calculated that the few who did
know something about the war, would not be heard. After all, how many people have read the
diplomatic papers in various European archives detailing Soviet efforts to build an anti-Nazi
alliance during the 1930s? How many people would know of the responsibilities of London, Paris,
and Warsaw in obstructing the common European defence against Nazi Germany? "Not many," must
have been the conclusion of European governments. The few historians and informed citizens who
did or do know the truth could easily be shouted down, marginalised or ignored.
Western propaganda claimed that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "allies". World
War II was entirely their fault, while France, Britain and Poland were innocent victims of
totalitarianism
Thus it was that Hitler and Stalin became accomplices, the two pals and the two
"totalitarians". The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were "allies". World War II was entirely
their fault. France, Britain and Poland were innocent victims of totalitarianism. The OSCE and
PACE issued resolutions to this effect in 2009, declaring 23 August a day of remembrance of the
victims of the Nazi-Soviet "alliance", as if the non-aggression pact signed on that day came
out of the blue and had no context other than totalitarian evil.
In 2014 after the US and EU supported a coup d'état in Kiev, a fascist junta took
power in the Ukraine, and the propaganda campaign to falsify history intensified. Ukrainian
Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera were made into national heroes. The Ukrainian
paramilitary forces, the so-called Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian
Insurgent Army (OUN/UPA), which fought alongside the Wehrmacht and SS, were likewise
transformed into forces of liberation.
After the 2014 putsch, Ukrainian Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera were made into
national heroes
It looked like Poland and the Baltic states had gained an ally for their ugly anti-Russian
campaigns. SS veterans paraded in the Baltic countries, and Polish hooligans vandalised Red
Army graves while the Warsaw government bulldozed memorials to the Soviet liberators of Poland.
Just this autumn Warsaw has attempted to control the thematic messages of a new museum of the
Second World War being opened in Gdansk so that they conform to Polish government propaganda.
The ruling Law and Justice Party wants to make Poland into a noble victim and the main story of
World War II. In fact, Poland was a main story of the 1930s though not in any noble role. It
was a spoiler of European collective security.
In October of this year the Polish and Ukrainian legislative assemblies passed resolutions
vesting responsibility for World War II in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Given Poland's
role in collaborating with Nazi Germany and obstructing Soviet efforts to create an anti-Nazi
alliance in the 1930s, this resolution is surreal. Equally perverse is the Ukrainian equivalent
resolution by a government celebrating Nazi collaboration during World War II.
Ironically, the the Law and Justice Partyhas its own troubles in its "alliance" with fascist
Ukraine. Those Ukrainian collaborators, who fought with the Nazis and committed atrocities
against Soviet citizens, also committed mass murder in Poland during the latter part of the
war. As mightily as Poland seeks to falsify history, it cannot cover up the atrocities of
Ukrainian Nazi collaborators against Poles, remembered in a recently released Polish hit film,
"Volhynia". It looks like a poetic falling out amongst thieves who must bury the history of
Ukrainian fascism and Nazi collaboration in order to unite against the common Russian foe. If
only the numerous Ukrainians now living in southern Poland would stop putting up illegal
monuments to remember Ukrainian Nazi collaborators. The poor Poles are caught between a rock
and hard place. It is equally disagreeable to remember that the Red Army liberated Poland and
stopped the atrocities of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators.
As mightily as Poland seeks to falsify history, it cannot cover up the atrocities of
Ukrainian Nazi collaborators against Poles, remembered in a recently released Polish hit film,
"Volhynia"
Will Russia and Poland finally bury the hatchet to rid themselves of the new wave of
Ukrainian fascists in their midst? This is unlikely. The Polish government also had to choose
in the 1930s between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It chose collaboration with Nazi
Germany and spurned an anti-Nazi alliance with the Soviet Union. No wonder history must be
falsified. There is so much for western governments and Poland to hide. The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
World War I World
War II
Little u.s. has been preaching human rights while mounting wars and lying. Albright
thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. !!! it was worth killings and
maiming.
Over $7 trillion spent while homelessness is rampant. Healthcare is unaffordable for
the 99% of the population.
The u.s. will leave Iraq and Syria aka Saigon 1975 or horizontal. It's over.
Searching for friends. Now, after Russiagate here is little pompous: "we want to be
friends with Russia." Sanctions much excepting we need RD180 engines, seizure of diplomatic
properties. Who are you kidding?
NYT posted editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton (nincompoop, Arkansas) lauding the murder of
Suleimani. This is one of the readers' comments:
Bill
Nova ScotiaJan. 10
Times Pick I don't understand how the USA can kill a military leader of a country we are not at war
with in a third country no less and claim it was legal. The resulting high-pressure in the
aftermath has left 63 Canadian citizens dead. Yes, at the hands of an Iranian missile - but
many of those dead were dual Iranian Canadians. The blood is not just on Iran's hands, it is
on the USA and on trump.
The United States has murdered one of Iran's top personalities who was officially visiting
a friendly country on a diplomatic mission.
The message of the assassination of Gasem Soleimani is the persistence of Washington in
the effort to keep the world's first energy region revolt and prevent any distension
between Iran and Saudi Arabia...
(...)Soleimani was a great strategist who achieved three notable victories in the last
seventeen years: He was one of the organizers of the armed resistance to the American
occupier in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, played a great role in the expulsion of the
Islamic State from Iraq and defeated then the jihadist conglomerate in Syria (Islamic
State, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc.) financed and supported by the CIA and the Gulf oil
monarchies. It was Soleimani who in 2015 convinced Vladimir Putin of the advisability of
helping the Syrian government militarily, which has ended up restoring its control of the
country by thwarting a new regime change operation that has resulted in another huge
slaughter.
(...)Since Friday, January 3, all commentators announced an Iranian response to this
"declaration of war" by Trump, or his generals, does not matter. It is forgotten that this
war has been a fact for many years. Historically it began with the coup d'etat against
Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister who nationalized oil, and continued with the reaction
to the Khomeinist Revolution of 1979, which induced the West to provoke the bloody war
between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s with hundreds of thousands of dead.
(...)The unilateral withdrawal of the United States, in May 2018, from the nuclear
agreement reached with Iran, as well as the sanctions suffered by that country, the murders
of Iranian scientists and the attacks, sanctions and the financial and oil blockade that
suffocates the Iranian economy, form Part of that war. For 19 months, Iranian oil exports,
which in 2017 were 2.5 million barrels per day, have fallen to a few hundred thousand as a
result of Trump's sanctions.
(...)And in the meantime in Europe ...
On Sunday, January 5, 48 hours after the murder in Baghdad, the leaders of the three
main European powers, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johson, released their joint
statement. In it the murder of Soleimani is not even mentioned. "We have denounced the
recent attacks on coalition troops in Iraq and are deeply concerned about the negative role
played by Iran in the region, especially through the guards of the revolution and of the
al-Quds unit under the command of General Soleimani", says the statement. "We especially
call on Iran to refrain from more violence", it continues. In other personal statements
Johnson told Trump that Soleimani "posed a threat to all our interests" and that "we do not
regret his death". Macron expressed concern about the destabilizing role of the forces led
by the assassinated general and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas stated that the General
"had left a trail of devastation and blood in the Middle East" and that "the European Union
had good reasons to have him on its list of terrorists". This statement prompted Tehran to
summon the German ambassador and censor him for his support of the "terrorist attack by the
United States". For its part, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der
Leyen, has held Iran alone responsible for escalating tensions in the Middle East and has
justified the murder as a reaction to the provocations suffered by the Americans in Iraq.
Once again the "European foreign policy" is portrayed.
It is in Germany, at the base of Ramstein, where the command and control point of
drone attacks by US forces is located. An anonymous German citizen has filed a complaint in
the town of Zweibrücken to be elucidated if the murder was piloted from Ramstein. Such
action being a violation of international law and German law, it has filed a complaint
"against all suspects of such crime in Germany and the United States." Those who still
believe in the European "rule of law" for international purposes, can hold on to this
symbolic gesture without the slightest future.
... He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in
Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr. It
appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for
Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his
hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's
Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was
responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out
there.
A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that
supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were
(and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a
position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the
various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.
Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead
in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really
was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths
cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military
personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of
whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff
happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported
by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be
the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are
not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the
IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.
It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against
ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most
recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor
caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi
group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with
the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military.
Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump
threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.
As it is, the US dating back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia
with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians.
Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.
I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US
as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations
against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially
were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the
JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been
replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also
have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.
In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to
some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However,
when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It
really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.
Barkley Rosser
JDM , January 10, 2020 12:32 pm
I think this quote is apropos in this situation: "It was worse than wrong. It was a
mistake."
Bert Schlitz , January 10, 2020 3:46 pm
They had a handshake agreement, which was why Solemiani wasn't under protection. The
Solemiani killed Americans stuff cracks me up. He was a military advisor for the Shia militia's
who were attacked by US forces during a unsanctioned war in 2003 .uh derp derp. There have been
many other generals that have committed "death of american" crimes that the Trump Admin seems
to love.
As my father used to say "homosexuals make great commie fighters"(homosexuals like Joe
McCarthy of Wisconsin agree lol). The zionists so badly want this war in the Trump
administration, but Trump doesn't have the guts to just invade like Iraq.
it appears i had a comment on this same post removed from Naked Capitalism
i asked "was his assassination due to the impeachment proceedings, and should the Democrats
in Congress be held responsible for the deaths on Ukrainian flight 752?"
sure, that's off the wall, but i still think it addresses a legitimate question i don't
think one can separate the personal situation a megalomaniac president like Trump finds himself
in from his behavior .i was a news junky back during the Iraq war era, & what i remember
most about the runup was that the big story in all the news mags the week before the war
started was that Neil Bush, George's son, had lost millions of depositor's money playing poker
in the back offices of Silverado Savings and Loan in Denver, and that you then could't find a
word about that story anywhere the next week cause George & Saddam had all the coverage .so
i have always felt that Bush might have pushed that war forward to take the media heat off his
kid
run75441 , January 10, 2020 5:38 pm
No surprise, when I preempt their article on healthcare with commentary; my comments
disappear. Get used to it when you can say more than they can.
well, here you go, Trump actually admitting to what i've been banned for suggesting via
Jonathan Chait:
Report: Trump Cited Impeachment Pressure to Kill Soleimani – Deep inside a long,
detailed Wall Street Journal
report about President Trump's foreign policy advisers is an explosive nugget: "Mr. Trump,
after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP
senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate,
associates said." This is a slightly stronger iteration of a fact the New York Timesreported
three days ago, to wit, "pointed out to one person who spoke to him on the phone last week that
he had been pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support
he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle."This would not mean Trump ordered the
strike entirely, or even primarily, in order to placate Senate Republicans. But it does
constitute an admission that domestic political considerations influenced his decision.
That would, of course, constitute a grave dereliction of duty. Trump is so cynical he wouldn't
even recognize that making foreign policy decisions influenced by impeachment is
the kind of thing he shouldn't say out loud. Of course, using his foreign policy authority for
domestic political gain is the offense Trump is being impeached for. It would be
characteristically Trumpian to compound the offense as part of his efforts to avoid
accountability for it. What kind of pressure could Trump have in mind? It seems highly doubtful
that he is worried 20 Republican senators would vote to remove him from office. He could be
concerned that one or two of them would defect, denying him the chance to present impeachment
as totally partisan (as he did following the House vote.) More plausibly, Trump might be
worried a handful of Republicans would join Democrats to allow testimony from witnesses, like
John Bolton, Trump has managed to block.
likbez , January 11, 2020 10:24 pm
@JDM, January 10, 2020 12:32 pm
I think this quote is apropos in this situation: "It was worse than wrong. It was a
mistake."
This is a very deep observation. Thank you. BTW the original quote is attributed to
Talleyrand and is more biting:
C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute.
It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.
Reaction to the 1804 drumhead trial and execution of Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of
Enghien, on orders of Napoleon. Actually said by either Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe,
legislative deputy from Meurthe (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations) or
Joseph Fouché, Napoleon's chief of police (according to John Bartlett, Familiar
Quotations, 10th ed. (1919), http://www.bartleby.com/100/758.1.html ).
Rephrasing Kissinger: " Assassination is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of
one".
OK pilgrims, we are told today that there are mobs in the streets of Tehran protesting the
shoot down of the Ukrainian airliner. 176 were killed. We are carefully not told (thus far) how
many Iranians are mobbed up in the streets but the implication spread by the Foxnews clown car
is that the "Maximum Pressure" sanctions and propaganda campaign run by Israel and the US is
about to cause the fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran. OK We will see.
Long ago during the Iran-Iraq War an Americans frigate USS Stark was attacked in the Gulf by
an Iraqi F-! Mirage. The ship was hit by two French built Exocet missiles. I was a member of
the JCS investigating board that traveled to Bahrein and Baghdad for the inquiry. The damage to
the ship was frightful and many American sailors had been killed and wounded. The JCS decided
that a chain of unfortunate and mistaken events had led to the incident but the US Navy
conducted its own investigation and destroyed the careers of the captain of USS Stark and all
his officers. The navy is very unforgiving of damage to its boats. Unless you have the vessel
shot out from under you by enemy action you might as well go down with the ship
Later in the course of that war the anti-aircraft guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes was
in the Gulf and it shot down an Iranian airliner killing 290 people on board. The Iranians were
and probably still are convinced that Vincennes shot down the airliner as a result of the
inherently evil and malevolent nature of the US.
In fact what happened was that the captain of Vincennes was afraid of suffering the same
fate as the captain of the Stark who had been accused of not being quick enough to engage the
Iraqi fighter bomber.
Well, folks, STUFF HAPPENS and the human link in a chain of events is always the most
important link.
IMO Iranian air defenses accidentally shot down the Ukrainian airliner. Stuff Happens,
especially in war. PL
Search
History
History as Propaganda: Why the USSR Did Not 'Win' World War II (I)
Michael Jabara Carley
March 19, 2016
Photo: Public domain
The title of this article is intended to be
ironic because of course the Red Army did play the predominant role in destroying Nazi Germany during
World War II. You would not know it, however, reading the western Mainstream Media (MSM), or watching
television, or going to the cinema in the west where the Soviet role in the war has almost entirely
disappeared.
If in the West the Red Army is largely
absent from World War II, the Soviet Union's responsibility for igniting the war is omnipresent. The MSM
and western politicians tend to regard the Nazi invasion of the USSR in June 1941 as the Soviet Union's
just reward for the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill put
it, the USSR
"brought their own fate upon themselves when by their Pact with [Joachim von] Ribbentrop
they let Hitler loose on Poland and so started the war "
Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of
the USSR, was Stalin's fault and therefore an expatiation of sins, so that Soviet resistance should not
be viewed as anything more than penitence.
Whereas France and Britain "appeased" Nazi
Germany, one MSM commentator recently
noted
,
the USSR "collaborated" with Hitler. You see how western propaganda works, and it's none too subtle. Just
watch for the key words and read between the lines. France and Britain were innocents in the woods, who
unwisely "appeased" Hitler in hopes of preserving European peace. On the other hand, the totalitarian
Stalin "collaborated" with the totalitarian Hitler to encourage war, not preserve the peace. Stalin not
only collaborated with Hitler, the USSR and Nazi Germany were "allies" who carved up Europe. The USSR was
"the wolf"; the West was "the lamb". These are not only metaphors of the English-speaking world;
France
2
has promoted the same narrative in the much publicised television series, "Apocalypse" (2010) and
"
Apocalypse
Staline
" (2015). World War II erupted because of the non-aggression pact, that dirty deal, which
marked the beginning of the short-lived "
alliance
" of
the two "totalitarian" states. Hitler and Stalin each had a foot in the same boot.
MSM "journalists" like to underscore
Stalin's duplicity by pointing to the abortive Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in the summer of 1939 to
create an anti-Nazi alliance. No wonder they failed, how could the nave French and British, the lambs,
think they could strike a deal with Stalin, the wolf? Even professional historians sometimes take this
line
:
the 1939 negotiations failed because of Soviet "intransigence" and "duplicity".
If ever Pot called Kettle black, this has to
be it. And of course the trope of the Pot and the Kettle is a frequent device of western or MSM
propaganda to blacken the USSR and, by implication, to blacken Russia and its president Vladimir Putin.
There is just one problem with the western approach: the MSM "journalist" or western politician or
historian who wants to incriminate Stalin for igniting World War II has one large obstacle in the way,
the facts. Not that facts ever bother skilled propagandists, but still, perhaps, the average citizen in
the West may yet have an interest in them.
Consider just a few of the facts that the
West likes to forget. It was the USSR which first rang the alarm bells in 1933 about the Nazi threat to
European peace. Maksim M. Litvinov, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, became the chief Soviet proponent
of "collective security" in Europe.
He warned over and over again of the danger:
Nazi Germany is a "mad dog", he said in 1934,
"that can't be trusted with whom no agreements can be
made, and whose ambition can only be checked by a ring of determined neighbours".
That sounds about
right, doesn't it? Litvinov was the first European statesman to conceive of a grand alliance against Nazi
Germany, based on the World War I coalition against Wilhelmine Germany. Soviet would-be allies, France,
Britain, the United States, Romania, Yugoslavia, even fascist Italy, all fell away, one after the other,
during the mid-1930s. Even Poland, Litvinov hoped, could be attracted to collective security. Unlike the
other reluctant powers, Poland never showed the slightest interest in Litvinov's proposals and sought to
undermine collective security right up until the beginning of the war.
Litvinov reminds me of Russian foreign
minister Sergey Lavrov in his thankless dealings with the Russophobic West. During the interwar years,
the Russophobia was mixed with Sovietophobia: it was a clash of two worlds between the West and the USSR,
the
Silent
Conflict
,
Litvinov called it. When things were going badly, Litvinov appears occasionally to
have sought consolation in Greek mythology and the story of Sisyphus, the Greek king, doomed by Zeus to
push forever a large rock to the top of a mountain, only to see it fall back down each time. Like
Sisyphus, Litvinov was condemned to pointless efforts and endless frustration. So too, it seems, is
Lavrov. The French philosopher, Albert Camus, imagined that Sisyphus was happy in his struggles, but
that's an existentialist philosopher for you, and Camus never had to deal with that damned rock. Litvinov
did, and never could stick it on the mountaintop.
My point is that it was the West, notably
the United States, Britain, and France yes, that's right, the same old gang which dismissed
Litvinov's repeated warnings and spurned his efforts to organise a grand alliance against Nazi Germany.
Dominated by conservative elites, often
sympathetic to fascism, the French and British governments looked for ways to get on with Nazi Germany,
rather than to go all out to prepare their defences against it. Of course, there were "white crows", as
one Soviet diplomat called them, who recognised the Nazi threat to European security and wanted to
cooperate with the USSR, but they were only a powerless minority. The MSM won't tell you much about the
widespread sympathy for fascism amongst conservative European elites. It's like the dirty secrets of the
family in the big house at the top of the hill.
Poland also played a despicable role in the
1930s, though the MSM won't tell you about that either. The Polish government signed a non-aggression
pact with Germany in 1934, and in subsequent years sabotaged Litvinov's efforts to build an anti-Nazi
alliance. In 1938 it sided with Nazi Germany against Czechoslovakia and participated in the carve-up of
that country sanctioned by the Munich accords on 30 September 1938. It's
a
day
the West likes to forget. Poland was thus a Nazi collaborator and an aggressor state in 1938
before it became a victim of aggression in 1939.
By early 1939, Litvinov had been rolling his
rock (let's call it collective security) up that wretched mountain for more than five years. Stalin, who
was no Albert Camus, and not happy about being repeatedly spurned by the West, gave Litvinov one last
chance to obtain an alliance with France and Britain. This was in April 1939. The craven French, rotted
by fascist sympathies, had forgotten how to identify and protect their national interests, while the
British stalled Litvinov, sneering at him behind his back.
So Sisyphus-Litvinov's rock fell to the
bottom of the mountain one last time. Enough, thought Stalin, and he sacked Litvinov and brought in the
tougher Vyacheslav M. Molotov.
Still, for a few more months, Molotov tried
to stick the rock on the mountaintop, and still it fell back again. In May 1939 Molotov even offered
support to Poland, quickly rejected by Warsaw. Had the Poles lost their senses; did they ever have any?
When British and French delegations arrived in Moscow in August to discuss an anti-Nazi alliance, you
might think they would have been serious about getting down to business. War was expected to break out at
any time. But no, not even then: British instructions were to "go very slowly". The delegations did too.
It took them five days to get to Russia in an old, chartered merchantman, making a top speed of 13 knots.
The British head of delegation did not have written powers giving him authority to conclude an agreement
with his Soviet "partners". For Stalin, that must have been the camel breaking straw. The Nazi-Soviet
non-aggression pact was signed on 23 August 1939. The failure of the negotiations with the British and
French led to the non-aggression pact, rather than the other way around.
Sauve qui peut
motivated Soviet
policy, never a good idea in the face of danger, but far from the MSM's narrative explaining the origins
of World War II. Good old Perfidious Albion acted duplicitously to the very end. During the summer of
1939 British government officials still negotiated for a deal with German counterparts, as if no one in
Moscow would notice. And that was not all, the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, boasted
privately to one of his sisters about how he would fool Moscow and get around the Soviet insistence on a
genuine war-fighting alliance against Nazi Germany. So who
betrayed
who?
Historians may debate whether Stalin made
the right decision or not in concluding the non-aggression pact. But with potential "partners" like
France and Britain, one can understand why sauve qui peut looked like the only decent option in August
1939. And this brings us back to Pot calling Kettle black. The West foisted off its own responsibilities
in setting off World War II onto Stalin and the Soviet Union.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
World War II
Print this article
Michael Jabara Carley
March 19, 2016 |
History
History as Propaganda: Why the USSR Did Not 'Win' World War II (I)
The title of this article is intended
to be ironic because of course the Red Army did play the predominant role in destroying Nazi
Germany during World War II. You would not know it, however, reading the western Mainstream Media
(MSM), or watching television, or going to the cinema in the west where the Soviet role in the war
has almost entirely disappeared.
If in the West the Red Army is largely
absent from World War II, the Soviet Union's responsibility for igniting the war is omnipresent.
The MSM and western politicians tend to regard the Nazi invasion of the USSR in June 1941 as the
Soviet Union's just reward for the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. As British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill put it, the USSR
"brought their own fate upon themselves when by their Pact
with [Joachim von] Ribbentrop they let Hitler loose on Poland and so started the war "
Operation
Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the USSR, was Stalin's fault and therefore an expatiation of sins,
so that Soviet resistance should not be viewed as anything more than penitence.
Whereas France and Britain "appeased"
Nazi Germany, one MSM commentator recently
noted
,
the USSR "collaborated" with Hitler. You see how western propaganda works, and it's none too
subtle. Just watch for the key words and read between the lines. France and Britain were innocents
in the woods, who unwisely "appeased" Hitler in hopes of preserving European peace. On the other
hand, the totalitarian Stalin "collaborated" with the totalitarian Hitler to encourage war, not
preserve the peace. Stalin not only collaborated with Hitler, the USSR and Nazi Germany were
"allies" who carved up Europe. The USSR was "the wolf"; the West was "the lamb". These are not only
metaphors of the English-speaking world;
France 2
has promoted the same narrative in the
much publicised television series, "Apocalypse" (2010) and "
Apocalypse
Staline
" (2015). World War II erupted because of the non-aggression pact, that dirty deal,
which marked the beginning of the short-lived "
alliance
" of
the two "totalitarian" states. Hitler and Stalin each had a foot in the same boot.
MSM "journalists" like to underscore
Stalin's duplicity by pointing to the abortive Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in the summer of
1939 to create an anti-Nazi alliance. No wonder they failed, how could the nave French and
British, the lambs, think they could strike a deal with Stalin, the wolf? Even professional
historians sometimes take this
line
:
the 1939 negotiations failed because of Soviet "intransigence" and "duplicity".
If ever Pot called Kettle black, this
has to be it. And of course the trope of the Pot and the Kettle is a frequent device of western or
MSM propaganda to blacken the USSR and, by implication, to blacken Russia and its president
Vladimir Putin. There is just one problem with the western approach: the MSM "journalist" or
western politician or historian who wants to incriminate Stalin for igniting World War II has one
large obstacle in the way, the facts. Not that facts ever bother skilled propagandists, but still,
perhaps, the average citizen in the West may yet have an interest in them.
Consider just a few of the facts that
the West likes to forget. It was the USSR which first rang the alarm bells in 1933 about the Nazi
threat to European peace. Maksim M. Litvinov, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs, became the chief
Soviet proponent of "collective security" in Europe.
He warned over and over again of the
danger: Nazi Germany is a "mad dog", he said in 1934,
"that can't be trusted with whom no
agreements can be made, and whose ambition can only be checked by a ring of determined neighbours".
That
sounds about right, doesn't it? Litvinov was the first European statesman to conceive of a grand
alliance against Nazi Germany, based on the World War I coalition against Wilhelmine Germany.
Soviet would-be allies, France, Britain, the United States, Romania, Yugoslavia, even fascist
Italy, all fell away, one after the other, during the mid-1930s. Even Poland, Litvinov hoped, could
be attracted to collective security. Unlike the other reluctant powers, Poland never showed the
slightest interest in Litvinov's proposals and sought to undermine collective security right up
until the beginning of the war.
Litvinov reminds me of Russian foreign
minister Sergey Lavrov in his thankless dealings with the Russophobic West. During the interwar
years, the Russophobia was mixed with Sovietophobia: it was a clash of two worlds between the West
and the USSR, the
Silent
Conflict
,
Litvinov called it. When things were going badly, Litvinov appears occasionally
to have sought consolation in Greek mythology and the story of Sisyphus, the Greek king, doomed by
Zeus to push forever a large rock to the top of a mountain, only to see it fall back down each
time. Like Sisyphus, Litvinov was condemned to pointless efforts and endless frustration. So too,
it seems, is Lavrov. The French philosopher, Albert Camus, imagined that Sisyphus was happy in his
struggles, but that's an existentialist philosopher for you, and Camus never had to deal with that
damned rock. Litvinov did, and never could stick it on the mountaintop.
My point is that it was the West,
notably the United States, Britain, and France yes, that's right, the same old gang which
dismissed Litvinov's repeated warnings and spurned his efforts to organise a grand alliance against
Nazi Germany.
Dominated by conservative elites,
often sympathetic to fascism, the French and British governments looked for ways to get on with
Nazi Germany, rather than to go all out to prepare their defences against it. Of course, there were
"white crows", as one Soviet diplomat called them, who recognised the Nazi threat to European
security and wanted to cooperate with the USSR, but they were only a powerless minority. The MSM
won't tell you much about the widespread sympathy for fascism amongst conservative European elites.
It's like the dirty secrets of the family in the big house at the top of the hill.
Poland also played a despicable role
in the 1930s, though the MSM won't tell you about that either. The Polish government signed a
non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934, and in subsequent years sabotaged Litvinov's efforts to
build an anti-Nazi alliance. In 1938 it sided with Nazi Germany against Czechoslovakia and
participated in the carve-up of that country sanctioned by the Munich accords on 30 September 1938.
It's
a
day
the West likes to forget. Poland was thus a Nazi collaborator and an aggressor state in
1938 before it became a victim of aggression in 1939.
By early 1939, Litvinov had been
rolling his rock (let's call it collective security) up that wretched mountain for more than five
years. Stalin, who was no Albert Camus, and not happy about being repeatedly spurned by the West,
gave Litvinov one last chance to obtain an alliance with France and Britain. This was in April
1939. The craven French, rotted by fascist sympathies, had forgotten how to identify and protect
their national interests, while the British stalled Litvinov, sneering at him behind his back.
So Sisyphus-Litvinov's rock fell to
the bottom of the mountain one last time. Enough, thought Stalin, and he sacked Litvinov and
brought in the tougher Vyacheslav M. Molotov.
Still, for a few more months, Molotov
tried to stick the rock on the mountaintop, and still it fell back again. In May 1939 Molotov even
offered support to Poland, quickly rejected by Warsaw. Had the Poles lost their senses; did they
ever have any? When British and French delegations arrived in Moscow in August to discuss an
anti-Nazi alliance, you might think they would have been serious about getting down to business.
War was expected to break out at any time. But no, not even then: British instructions were to "go
very slowly". The delegations did too. It took them five days to get to Russia in an old, chartered
merchantman, making a top speed of 13 knots. The British head of delegation did not have written
powers giving him authority to conclude an agreement with his Soviet "partners". For Stalin, that
must have been the camel breaking straw. The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed on 23
August 1939. The failure of the negotiations with the British and French led to the non-aggression
pact, rather than the other way around.
Sauve qui peut
motivated
Soviet policy, never a good idea in the face of danger, but far from the MSM's narrative explaining
the origins of World War II. Good old Perfidious Albion acted duplicitously to the very end. During
the summer of 1939 British government officials still negotiated for a deal with German
counterparts, as if no one in Moscow would notice. And that was not all, the British prime
minister, Neville Chamberlain, boasted privately to one of his sisters about how he would fool
Moscow and get around the Soviet insistence on a genuine war-fighting alliance against Nazi
Germany. So who
betrayed
who?
Historians may debate whether Stalin
made the right decision or not in concluding the non-aggression pact. But with potential "partners"
like France and Britain, one can understand why sauve qui peut looked like the only decent option
in August 1939. And this brings us back to Pot calling Kettle black. The West foisted off its own
responsibilities in setting off World War II onto Stalin and the Soviet Union.
To the top
2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture
online journal
www.strategic-culture.org
.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
<div><img src="https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/10970266" alt=""/></div>
On 20 December 2019 President Vladimir Putin intervened very publicly to correct the
West's fake history of the origins and waging of World War II. Four days later, obviously
exasperated, he took aim at Poland, characterising the Polish ambassador in Berlin during the
latter 1930s, Jósef Lipski, as "a bastard and
anti-Semitic pig". The Polish governing elite was notoriously anti-Semitic, and in 1938
Lipski told Adolf Hitler that the Poles would "'erect him a beautiful monument in
Warsaw' if he carried out [a] plan to expel European Jews to Africa." In reaction, the
Polish parliament, with a bipartisan majority, has indicated its intention "to pass a law that
criminalizes lies about the causes of World War II." Putin's language about Lipski was n ot
very presidential, but he was clearly outraged. He had reasons to be.
General (later Marshal) Józef Piłsudski, immediately set about gathering in
eastern territories in the Ukraine and Byelorussia, leading to war with Soviet Russia.
Last August the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, issued a statement lamenting the
"infamous" Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, concluded on 23 August 1939. Trudeau equated the
Soviet Union with Nazi Germany in bringing "
untold suffering upon people across Europe". Obviously, Trudeau knows nothing about the
origins and unfolding of World War II, but he is not alone. A few weeks later the European
Parliament in Strasbourg (PACE) approveda resolutionalong
the same lines as Trudeau's statement: the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact "paved the way for
the outbreak of the Second World War." The resolution appears to have originated with a group
of Polish MEPs representing the right-wing, so-calledECR Group. For PACE and the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), such resolutions are old hat. In 2008-2009 PACE established a
bogus holiday on 23 August to commemorate the victims of fascist and communist
"totalitarianism" and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. East Europeans and
the NATO (read the United States)
Parliamentary Assembly were also behind the launch of the new "holiday". The Poles would
do well not to raise questions about the origins of the World War II. It is rather like digging
with a stick into a pile of manure. As soon as you stir it up, the manure begins to
stink.
Let's start at the beginning. The Polish state was re-established at the end of World War
I; it was led by conservative Polish nationalists who sought to recreate Poland as a great
power within its frontiers of 1772. General (later Marshal) Józef Piłsudski,
immediately set about gathering in eastern territories in the Ukraine and Byelorussia, leading
to war with Soviet Russia. Piłsudski had large ambitions and in December 1919 sent
unofficial agents to Paris to obtain French consent for a major eastern offensive in the spring
of 1920. The position in Paris was important because France was a key ally and major supplier
of arms to the Polish government. The French were careful not to approve openly the offensive:
they said it was a Polish decision to make, all the while continuing to supply arms to Warsaw.
The French government was deeply hostile to Soviet Russia and if Poland could be used to weaken
it, well then, all the better. The Poles had their own ambitions to retake long lost
territories, including Kiev, in the contested borderlands over which Poles, Lithuanians, and
Muscovites and Russians had fought for six centuries.
The Polish state was re-established at the end of World War I; it was led by conservative
Polish nationalists who sought to recreate Poland as a great power within its frontiers of
1772.
The Poles launched their offensive in late April 1920 and reached Kiev on 7 May. The Red
Army had withdrawn from the city to launch a counteroffensive which forced the Poles to
retreat. That retreat became a debacle and continued to the outskirts of Warsaw in early
August. There, the Poles launched their own successful counteroffensive driving back the Red
Army. An armistice was concluded in October and the treaty of Riga signed in February 1921. The
Poles would have been better to have foresworn their offensive and signed an earlier peace
offered by Moscow. They ended up with less territory than they had held in April, but they
still occupied areas where the population in majority was Byelorussian or Ukrainian. Neither
side was satisfied with the Riga peace. Poland did not obtain its 1772 frontiers, and Soviet
Russia had to concede territories which it regarded as Russian. It was not a good foundation
upon which to improve relations in the future.
During the 1920s the Soviet government attempted to improve relations with France, and
because Poland was a French ally, also attempted to improve relations with Poland.
Unfortunately, neither France nor Poland was interested in Soviet overtures. In May 1926
Piłsudski led a coup d'état and assumed essentially dictatorial or
quasi-dictatorial powers which he maintained until his death in May 1935. He was not disposed
to pursue better relations with the USSR. Everywhere in Europe, "Sovietophobia and
Russophobia," as one Soviet diplomat put it, were flourishing.
The Soviet commissar for foreign affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov, did not give up on the Poles,
and invited his counterpart Józef Beck to Moscow for talks in February 1934.
This became a serious problem in 1933 when Adolf Hitler assumed power in Germany.
Before Hitler took power, the Soviet government had maintained tolerable political and economic
relations with Weimar Germany, enabled through the treaty of Rapallo in 1922. The new Nazi
government abandoned that policy and launched a propaganda campaign against the USSR. Alarm
bells went off in Moscow. At first, Soviet officials hoped to maintain the Rapallo policy, in
spite of Hitler's assumption of power, but this early position was soon abandoned. In December
1933 the Soviet cabinet, that is, the Politburo, launched a new policy based on collective
security and mutual assistance against Nazi Germany. The Soviet idea was to re-establish the
World War I anti-German entente, composed of France, Britain, the United States, and even
fascist Italy. Although not stated publicly, it was a policy of containment and preparation for
war, should containment fail. The League of Nations also became an important element of Soviet
strategy to be strengthened and readied for use against Nazi Germany. The USSR would become a
League member in 1934.
France was to be a "pivot" of Soviet policy and so, just as in the 1920s, the USSR attempted
to improve relations with Poland. In 1933 there seemed to be some forward movement in that
direction. Soviet and Polish diplomats were talking, but the Poles were also talking to the
Germans. Soviet diplomats did their best to bring Poland on side, but they had indications that
the Polish government had gone courting in Berlin. Even the French were concerned. A few months
later, on 26 January 1934, the Poles signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi-Germany.
From that point on, Soviet-Polish relations went downhill. The Soviet commissar for foreign
affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov, did not give up on the Poles, and invited his counterpart
Józef Beck to Moscow for talks in February 1934. There was a long discussion of the
Nazi-Polish non-aggression pact. Litvinov rang the alarm bells, but Beck brushed him off.
Hitler signed the non-aggression pact, said Beck, because he realised that Poland was not
some "little, fair-weather government" which could easily be disregarded.
You have terribly miscalculated, Litvinov replied. Don't confuse short-term tactics, for
long-term strategy. Hitler is concealing his territorial ambitions for the time-being, but he
will strike when the time is right. It is only a question of when and where he will strike
first.
Beck brushed off Litvinov's concerns. "I do not see at the present time," said the Polish
minister, "a danger from the side of Germany or in general the danger of war in Europe,"
Litvinov's record of his meetings with Beck was so striking and prophetic, that Soviet
authorities declassified it in 1965 and published it in the years thereafter. One wonders
whether Beck remembered his conversations with Litvinov a little more than five years later, as
he fled Warsaw on 4 September 1939 with the Wehrmacht closing in on the capital. He was so sure
that he was right and Litvinov wrong. Beck could never admit that a Soviet commissar, a Jew
born in tsarist Poland ironically, could ever be right.
One wonders whether Beck remembered his conversations with Litvinov a little more than five
years later, as he fled Warsaw on 4 September 1939 with the Wehrmacht closing in on the
capital.
Litvinov concluded that Soviet-Polish cooperation against Nazi Germany was dead in the
water. In fact, it was worse than that. Poland began to side with Nazi Germany to block Soviet
efforts to build a system of collective security in Europe. Even the French were annoyed. "We
will count on Russia," said the French foreign minister, Louis Barthou, "and not bother any
more about Poland." That idea did not last long for Barthou was killed in Marseille in October
1934 as a result of the assassination of the Yugoslav king Alexander. Soviet policy maintained
an open door to Warsaw in the event that the Polish government "came to its senses" and changed
direction. In the meantime Soviet intelligence exercised "maximum vigilance" on Polish-German
relations.
Already in the spring of 1934 Soviet diplomats noted that the Poles were trying to stir up
trouble with Czechoslovakia over the question of the Těšín district where
there was an important Polish population. "The Austrian question," the German annexation of
Austria, was also on Polish minds in 1934. The Polish ambassador in Moscow opined that
annexation was inevitable. "Poland was not so interested in the Austrian question," he said,
"and so powerful that it could prevent Anschluss. " Nor was Poland interested in
cooperating with the Soviet government to guarantee the security of the Baltic states and to
keep the Germans out. As one prominent Polish conservative politician, commented in the press,
"the rapprochement with the USSR has already gone too far and it should not be developed
further, but rather slowed down." That was the view at the top, the so-called "Piłsudski
line", and it was to continue after the marshal's death in 1935 until the beginning of the war.
It proved to be a formula for ruin.
Soviet diplomats repeatedly warned their Polish counterparts that Poland was headed to its
doom if it did not change policy. Germany would turn on them and crush them when the time was
right.
The Polish elite never hid its preference for a rapprochement with Germany rather than for
better relations with the USSR. In 1933 Polish diplomats had flirted with their Soviet
counterparts as bait to attract Berlin. The Poles became spoilers of collective security
sabotaging Soviet attempts to organise an anti-German entente. Soviet diplomats
repeatedly warned their Polish counterparts that Poland was headed to its doom if it did
not change policy. Germany would turn on them and crush them when the time was right. Could
Soviet diplomats overcome Polish reticence? Or put another way, more cynically, could Poles
stop being Poles in order to strengthen the security of their country? Unfortunately not,
Polish officials laughed at such warnings, dismissed them out of hand. From 1934 onward, the
Poles worked against Soviet diplomacy in London, Paris, Bucharest, Berlin, even Tokyo,
anywhere they could put a spoke in the Soviet wheel.
The chickens started coming home to roost in 1938. In March Austria disappeared. The
Wehrmacht marched into Vienna without a shot fired, greeted by rapturous crowds. The next
target was Czechoslovakia and the German populated Sudeten territories. In April the Soviet
commissariat for foreign affairs sent instructions to its ambassador in Paris to start a press
campaign to warn the Poles of their "fourth partition", that is their destruction, if they
continued their pro-German line. The French, still allied to Poland, asked the Polish
ambassador in Paris in May what the Polish government would do if Nazi Germany threatened
Czechoslovakia. "Nothing," came the reply, "We'll not move." And what is the Polish
government's attitude toward the Soviet Union, the French wanted to know? Poland "considered
the Russians to be enemies." If they try to help the Czechoslovaks by crossing Polish
territory, "we will oppose them by force."
Poles considered Russia, no matter who governed it, to be "enemy no. 1," according to Edward
Rydz-Śmigły, the Polish commander in chief: "If the German remains an adversary, he
is not less a European and an homme d'ordre The Russian is a barbarian, an Asiatic, a
corrupt and poisonous element, with which any contact is perilous and any compromise, lethal."
The choice between the two was easy to make. In the event of war over Czechoslovakia, the
French président du Conseil , Édouard Daladier, thought the Poles might
turn against France and "strike [us] in the back". The French ambassador in Berlin told his
Soviet counterpart that Poland was "clearly helping Germany." The Polish government had its
eyes riveted on the Czechoslovak district of Těšín. In late September, as
the Czechoslovak crisis was reaching its climax, Foreign Minister Beck told the British
ambassador in Warsaw that Poland "could not agree that German demands [for the Sudeten
territories] being satisfied, Poland should receive nothing." The Polish role in the
Anglo-French betrayal of Czechoslovakia was the inevitable dead-end of the "Piłsudski
line". In 1938 Poland was a Nazi ally and accomplice before it became a Nazi victim in 1939.
"Vultures grovelling in villainy," Winston Churchill wrote of the Poles. One disgusted French
diplomat (Roland de Margerie) likened the Poles to "ghouls who in former centuries crawled the
battlefields to kill and rob the wounded ."
Poland had one last chance to save itself in 1939. There were negotiations between Britain,
France, and the Soviet Union to organise resistance against further Hitlerite aggression. The
Soviet door was still open if Poland cared to walk through it. Unfortunately, the Polish
government declined to participate in any organisation of mutual assistance which included the
Soviet Union. In early May, Vyacheslav M. Molotov, who succeeded Litvinov as commissar for
foreign affairs, offered Soviet assistance against Nazi Germany. No thank you, came the Polish
reply. The rising crisis in the spring of 1939 seemed of so little consequence, that Beck
authorised his ambassador in Moscow to take summer holidays. The French ambassador in the
Soviet capital was astonished by Beck's lack of concern. When a Soviet border guard was shot
and killed by Polish troops, it was the Polish chargé d'affaires who had to deal with
the angry Soviet reaction. When France and Britain asked for Polish cooperation with the USSR
as the crisis mounted in the summer, the Poles again declined, although it is true that the
British and French did not try very hard to make the Polish government see reason. France and
Britain were themselves not serious about concluding a war-fighting alliance with the Soviet
Union, but that is
another story which I have told elsewhere . These were the circumstances that led to the
conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact on 23 August 1939. The initial reaction of
the Polish everyman in Warsaw to the news from Moscow, according to the British ambassador, was
bemused indifference. "Isn't Vasily a swine!" they were heard to say.
The Soviet volte-face did not take place in a vacuum. It was the direct result of
nearly six years of failed policy to organise collective security and mutual assistance against
Hitlerite Germany. No government in Europe wanted to ally wholeheartedly, or at all with
the Soviet Union against the Nazi menace. They all sought agreements in Berlin to turn the wolf
toward other prey. As for the Poles, they were spoilers and saboteurs of collective security.
The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was the direct result of British, French, and Polish
policy, and especially of the Munich accords selling out Czechoslovakia. What was sauce for the
goose, remarked a French diplomat, was sauce for the gander. It was the policy of the "nice
surprise" -- a turn of phrase Litvinov had once used -- that is, the policy of last resort
after collective security failed. It was the door for the Poles which finally closed.
President Putin's recent comments in Moscow about the origins of the war are supported by
the archival evidence. Polish government indignation, supported by comments from the
know-nothing US ambassador in Warsaw and from Berlin of all places, is pure propaganda based on
politically motivated fake history. "The USSR, left isolated," Putin concluded, "had to
accept the reality which the Western states created with their own hands." This statement seems
to me to sum up how and why war broke out in September 1939.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statement follows along similar lines. Here is an excerpt:
"Black Ribbon Day marks the sombre anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Signed between
the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1939 to divide Central and Eastern Europe , the
infamous pact set the stage for the appalling atrocities these regimes would
commit . In its wake, they stripped countries of their autonomy, forced families to flee
their homes, and tore communities apart, including Jewish and Romani communities, and others
. The Soviet and Nazi regimes brought untold suffering upon people across Europe , as
millions were senselessly murdered and denied their rights, freedoms, and dignity
[italics added]."
As a statement purporting to summarise the origins and unfolding of the Second World War, it
is a parody of the actual events of the 1930s and war years. It is politically motivated "fake
history"; it is in fact a whole cloth of lies.
Let's start at the beginning. In late January 1933 President Paul von Hindenburg, appointed
Adolf Hitler as German chancellor. Within months Hitler's government declared illegal the
German Communist and Socialist parties and commenced to establish a one party Nazi state. The
Soviet government had heretofore maintained tolerable or correct relations with Weimar Germany,
established through the treaty of Rapallo in 1922. The new Nazi government however abandoned
that policy and launched a propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union and against its
diplomatic, trade, and business representatives working in Germany. Soviet business offices
were sometimes trashed and their personnel roughed up by Nazi hooligans.
Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov
Alarm bells went off in Moscow. Soviet diplomats and notably the Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov, had read Hitler's Mein Kampf , his blueprint for the German
domination of Europe, published in the mid-1920s. The book became a bestseller in Germany and
was a necessary addition to the mantel piece or the living room table in any German home. For
those of you who may not know, Mein Kampf identified Jews and Slavs as
Untermenschen , sub humans, good only for slavery or death. The Jews were not to be the
only targets of Nazi genocide. Soviet territories eastward to the Ural Mountains were to become
German. France was also named as a habitual enemy which had to be eliminated.
"What about Hitler's book?" Litvinov often asked German diplomats in Moscow. Oh that, they
said, don't pay it any mind. Hitler doesn't really mean what he wrote. Litvinov smiled politely
in reaction to such statements, but did not believe a word of what he heard from his German
interlocutors.
In December 1933 the Soviet government established officially a new policy of collective
security and mutual assistance against Nazi Germany. What did this new policy mean exactly? The
Soviet idea was to re-establish the World War I anti-German entente, to be composed of France,
Britain, the United States, and yes, even fascist Italy. Although not stated publically, it was
a policy of containment and preparation for war against Nazi Germany should containment
fail.
In October 1933
Litvinov went to Washington to settle the terms of US diplomatic recognition of the USSR.
He had discussions with the new US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, about collective security
against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Iosif Stalin, Litvinov's boss in Moscow, gave his
approval to these discussions. Soviet-US relations were off to a good start, but in 1934 the
State Department -- almost to a man, anti-communists -- sabotaged the rapprochement launched by
Roosevelt and Litvinov.
At the same time Soviet diplomats in Paris were discussing collective security with the
French foreign minister, Joseph Paul-Boncour. In 1933 and 1934 Paul-Boncour and his successor
Louis Barthou strengthened ties with the USSR. The reason was simple: both governments felt
threatened by Hitlerite Germany. Here too promising Franco-Soviet relations were sabotaged by
Pierre Laval, who succeeded Barthou after the latter was killed in Marseilles during the
assassination of the Yugoslav King Alexander I in October 1934. Laval was an anti-communist who
preferred a rapprochement with Nazi Germany to collective security with the USSR.
He gutted a Franco-Soviet mutual assistance pact which was finally signed in May 1935 only
to delay its ratification in the French National Assembly. I call the pact the coquille
vide , or empty shell. Laval lost power in January 1936 but the damage had been done. After
the fall of France in 1940, Laval became a Nazi collaborator and was shot for treason in the
autumn of 1945.
In Britain too Soviet diplomats were active and sought to launch an Anglo-Soviet
rapprochement. Its aim was to establish the base for collective security against Nazi Germany.
Here too the policy was sabotaged, first by the conclusion of the Anglo-German naval agreement
in June 1935. This was a bilateral pact on German naval rearmament. The Soviet and French
governments were stunned and considered the British deal with Germany to be a betrayal. In
early 1936 a new British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, put a stop to the rapprochement
because of communist "propaganda". Soviet diplomats thought Eden was a "friend". He was nothing
of the sort.
Fascism represented force, power, and masculinity for European elites who often doubted
themselves and feared communism
In each case, the United States, France, and Britain halted promising discussions with the
Soviet Union. Why would these governments do something so seemingly incomprehensive in
hindsight? Because anti-communism and Sovietophobia were stronger motives amongst the US,
French, and British governing elites than the perception of danger from Nazi Germany. On the
contrary, these elites in large measure were sympathetic to Hitler. Fascism was a bulwark
mounted in defence of capitalism, against the spread of communism and against the extension of
Soviet influence into Europe. The great question of the 1930s was "who is enemy no. 1", Nazi
Germany or the USSR? All too often these elites, not all, but the majority, got the answer to
that question wrong. They preferred a rapprochement with Nazi Germany to collective security
and mutual assistance with the USSR. Fascism represented force, power, and masculinity for
European elites who often doubted themselves and feared communism. Leather uniforms, the odor
of sweat from tens of thousands of marching fascists with their drums, banners, and torches
were like aphrodisiacs for elites unsure of their own virility and of their security against
the growth of Soviet influence. The Spanish civil war, which erupted in July 1936, polarised
European politics between right and left and rendered impossible mutual assistance against
Germany.
Italy was a peculiar case. The Soviet government maintained tolerable relations with Rome
even though Italy was fascist and Russia, a communist state. Italy had fought on the side of
the Entente during World War I and Litvinov wanted to keep it on side in the new coalition he
was trying to build. Benito Mussolini had colonial ambitions in East Africa, however, launching
a war of aggression against Abyssinia, the last parcel of African territory which had not been
colonised by the European powers. To make a long story short, the Abyssinian crisis was the
beginning of the end of Litvinov's hopes to keep Italy on side.
In Romania too Soviet diplomats had some early successes. The Romanian foreign minister,
Nicolae Titulescu, favoured collective security and worked closely with Litvinov to improve
Soviet-Romanian relations. It was Titulescu who backed Litvinov in trying to obtain agreement
with France in 1935 for a pact of mutual assistance in spite of Laval's conniving and bad
faith. Between Titulescu and Litvinov there were discussions about mutual assistance. These too
came to nothing. Romania was dominated by a far right elite which disapproved of better Soviet
relations. In August 1936 Titulescu found himself politically isolated and was compelled to
resign. He spent much of his time abroad because he feared for his life in Bucharest.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
In Czechoslovakia, Eduard Beneš, like Titulescu, favoured collective security against
the Nazi menace. In May 1935 Beneš, the Czechoslovak president, signed a mutual
assistance pact with the USSR, but he weakened it to avoid going beyond the scope of the Soviet
pact with France, sabotaged by Laval. The Czechoslovaks feared Nazi Germany, and rightly so,
but they would not ally closely with the USSR without the full backing of Britain and France,
and this they would never obtain.
Czechoslovakia and Romania looked to a strong France and would not go beyond French
commitments to the USSR. France looked to Britain. The British were the key, if they were ready
to march, ready to ally themselves with the USSR, everyone else would fall into line. Without
the British -- who would not march -- everything fell apart.
The Soviet Union also tried to improve relations with Poland. Here too Soviet diplomats
failed when the Polish government signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in January
1934. The Polish elite never hid its preference for a rapprochement with Germany rather than
for better relations with the USSR. The Poles became spoilers of collective security sabotaging
Soviet attempts to organise an anti-German entente. They were at their worst in 1938 as Nazi
accomplices in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia before they became victims of Nazi
aggression in 1939. Soviet diplomats repeatedly warned their Polish counterparts that
Poland was headed to its doom if it did not change policy. Germany would turn on them and crush
them when the time was right. The Poles laughed at such warnings, dismissed them out of hand.
Russians are "barbarians", they said, the Germans, a "civilised" people. The choice between the
two was easy to make.
Let me be clear here. The archival evidence leaves no doubts, the Soviet government offered
collective security and mutual assistance to France, Britain, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
even fascist Italy, and in every case their offers were rejected, indeed spurned contemptuously
in the case of Poland, the great spoiler of collective security in the lead-up to war in 1939.
In the United States, the State Department sabotaged improving relations with Moscow. In the
autumn of 1936, all Soviet efforts for mutual assistance had failed, and the USSR found itself
isolated. No one wanted to ally with Moscow against Nazi Germany; all the above
mentioned European powers conducted negotiations with Berlin to lure the wolf away from their
doors. Yes, even the Czechoslovaks. The idea, both stated and unstated, was to turn Hitler's
ambitions eastward against the USSR.
Munich: selling out your friends to buy off your enemies
Then came
the Munich betrayal in September 1938. Britain and France sold out the Czechoslovaks to
Germany. "Peace in our time," Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, declared.
Czechoslovakia was dismembered to buy "peace" for France and Britain. Poland got a modest share
of the booty as part of the dirty deal. "Jackals," Winston Churchill called the Poles. In
February 1939 the Manchester Guardian called Munich, selling out your friends to buy off
your enemies. That description is apt.
In 1939 there was one last chance to conclude an Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact of mutual
assistance against Nazi Germany. I call it the "
alliance that never was ". In April 1939 the Soviet government offered France and Britain a
political and military alliance against Nazi Germany. The terms of the alliance proposal were
submitted on paper to Paris and London. In the spring of 1939 war looked inevitable. Rump
Czechoslovakia had disappeared in March, gobbled up by the Wehrmacht without a shot fired.
Later that month Hitler claimed the German populated Lithuanian city of Memel. In April a
Gallup poll in Britain showed massive popular support for a Soviet alliance. In France too
public opinion backed an alliance with Moscow. Churchill, then a Conservative backbencher,
declared in the House of Commons that without the USSR there could be no successful resistance
against Nazi aggression.
Logically, you would think that the French and British governments would have seized Soviet
offers with both hands. It did not happen. The Foreign Office rejected the Soviet alliance
proposal with the French grudgingly trailing behind. Litvinov was sacked as commissar and
replaced by Viacheslav M. Molotov, Stalin's right arm. For a time Soviet policy continued
unchanged. In May Molotov sent a message to Warsaw that the Soviet government would support
Poland against German aggression if so desired. Incredible as it may seem, on the very next
day, the Poles declined Molotov's proffered hand.
The Foreign Office rejected the Soviet alliance proposal with the French grudgingly
trailing behind
In spite of the initial British rejection of Soviet proposals, Anglo-Franco-Soviet
negotiations continued through the summer months of 1939. At the same time however British
officials got caught negotiating with the Germans in search of a détente of the last
hour with Hitler. It became public news in the British papers at the end of July as the British
and French were preparing to send military missions to Moscow to conclude an alliance. The news
caused a scandal in London and raised understandable Soviet doubts about Anglo-French good
faith. It was then that Molotov began to show an interest in German overtures for an
agreement.
There was more scandal to come. The Anglo-French military missions traveled to Moscow on a
slow chartered merchantman making a top speed of thirteen knots. One Foreign Office official
had proposed sending the missions in a fleet of fast British cruisers to make a point. The
Foreign Secretary, Edward Lord Halifax, thought that idea was too provocative. So the French
and British delegations went on a chartered merchantman and took five days to get to the USSR.
Five days mattered when war could break out at any moment.
Could the situation become any more tragic, any more a farce? Indeed it could. The British
chief negotiator, Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, had no written powers to sign an agreement with
the Soviet side. His French counterpart, General Joseph Doumenc, had a vague letter of
authority from the French président du Conseil. He could negotiate but not sign
an agreement. Doumenc and Drax were supernumeraries. On the other hand, the Soviet side was
represented by its commissar for war with full plenipotentiary powers. "All indications so far
go to show," advised the British ambassador in Moscow, "that Soviet military negotiators are
really out for business." In contrast, formal British instructions were to "go very slowly".
When Drax met the Foreign Secretary Halifax before leaving for Moscow, he asked about the
"possibility of failure" in the negotiations. "There was a short but impressive silence,"
according to Drax, "and the Foreign Secretary then remarked that on the whole it would be
preferable to draw out the negotiations as long as possible." Doumenc remarked that he had been
sent to Moscow with "empty hands." They had nothing to offer their Soviet interlocutors. The
British could send two divisions to France at the outset of a European war. The Red Army could
immediately mobilise one hundred divisions, and Soviet forces had just thrashed the Japanese in
heavy fighting on the Manchurian frontier. What the hell? "They are not serious," Stalin
concluded. And he was right. The French and British governments thought they could play Stalin
for a fool. That was a mistake.
After the bad faith, after all the conniving, what would you have done in Stalin's
boots, or any Russian leader's boots? Take the Poles, for example, they worked against Soviet
diplomacy in London, Paris, Bucharest, Berlin, even Tokyo anywhere they could put a spoke in
the Soviet wheel. They shared with Hitler in the spoils of Czechoslovak dismemberment. In 1939
they attempted until the last moment to sidetrack an anti-Nazi alliance in which the USSR was a
signatory. I know, it is all too incredible to believe, like an implausible story line in a bad
novel, but it was true. And then the Poles had the temerity to accuse the Soviet side of
stabbing them in the back. It was Satan rebuking sin. The Polish governing elite brought
ruin upon itself and its people. Even today it is the same old Poland. The Polish government is
marking the beginning of the Second World War by inviting to Warsaw the former Axis powers, but
not the Russian Federation, even though it was the Red Army which liberated Poland at high cost
in dead and wounded. This is a fact of history which Polish nationalists simply cannot bear to
hear and which they seek to erase from our memories.
The French and British governments thought they could play Stalin for a fool. That was a
mistake
After nearly six years of trying to create a broad anti-German entente in Europe, notably
with Britain and France, the Soviet government had nothing to show for its efforts.
Nothing . By late 1936 the USSR was effectively isolated, and still Soviet diplomats
tried to obtain agreement with France and Britain. The British and French, and the Romanians,
and even the Czechoslovaks, and especially the Poles sabotaged, spurned or dodged Soviet
offers, weakened agreements with Moscow and tried themselves to negotiate terms with
Berlin to save their own skins. It was like they were doing Moscow a favour by humoring, with
polite, knowing smiles, Soviet diplomats who talked about Mein Kampf and warned of the
Nazi danger. The Soviet government feared being left in the lurch to fight the Wehrmacht alone
while the French and the British sat on their hands in the west. After all, this is exactly
what the French and British did while Poland collapsed at the beginning of September in a
matter of days at the hands of the invading Wehrmacht. If France and Britain would not help
Poland, would they have done more for the USSR? It is a question which Stalin and his
colleagues most certainly asked themselves.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the result of the failure of nearly six years of Soviet
effort to form an anti-Nazi alliance with the western powers. The pact was ugly. It was Soviet
sauve qui peut , and it contained a secret codicil which foresaw the creation of
"spheres of influence" in Eastern Europe "in the event of territorial and political
rearrangement[s]". But it was not worse than what the French and British had done at Munich. "
C'est la réponse du berger à la bergère , the French ambassador in
Moscow remarked, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The dismemberment of
Czechoslovakia was the precedent for what then followed. As the late British historian A.J.P.
Taylor so aptly put it long ago: violent western reproaches against the USSR "came ill from the
statesmen who went to Munich . The Russians, in fact, did only what the Western statesmen had
hoped to do; and Western bitterness was the bitterness of disappointment, mixed with anger that
professions of Communism were no more sincere than their own professions of democracy [in
dealing with Hitler]."
There then occurred a period of Soviet appeasement of Hitlerite Germany no more attractive
than the Anglo-French appeasement which preceded it. And Stalin made a huge miscalculation. He
disregarded his own military intelligence warning of a Nazi invasion of the USSR. He thought
Hitler would not be such a fool as to invade the Soviet Union while Britain was still a
belligerent power. How wrong he was. On 22 June 1941 the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union
with a huge military force along a front from the Baltic to the Black Seas.
It was the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, 1418 days of the most horrendous, intense
violence. The USSR allied, finally, with Britain and the United States against Hitlerite
Germany. It was the so-called Grand Alliance. France of course had disappeared, crushed by the
German army in a military debacle in May 1940. During the first three years of fighting from
June 1941 until June 1944, the Red Army fought nearly alone against the Nazi Wehrmacht. How
ironic. Stalin had done all he could to avoid facing Hitlerite Germany alone, and yet there he
was, the Red Army fighting nearly alone against the Wehrmacht and Axis Powers. The tide of
battle turned at Stalingrad, sixteen months before the western allies landed in Normandy. Here
is what President Roosevelt wrote to Stalin on 4 February 1943, the day after the last German
forces surrendered in Stalingrad. "As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States of America, I congratulate you on the brilliant victory at Stalingrad of the armies
under your Supreme Command. The 162 days of epic battle for the city which has for ever honored
your name and the decisive result which all Americans are celebrating today will remain one of
the proudest chapters in this war of the peoples united against Nazism and its emulators. The
commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and the men and women, who have supported
them, in factory and field, have combined not only to cover with glory their country's arms,
but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the United Nations to bend every
energy to bring about the final defeat and unconditional surrender of the common enemy." As
Churchill put it to Roosevelt at about the same time: "Listen, who is really fighting today?
Stalin alone! And look how he is fighting " Yes, indeed, we should not, even now, forget how
the Red Army fought.
From June 1941 until September 1943 there was not a single US, British, or Canadian division
fighting on the ground of continental Europe, not one. The fighting in North Africa was a
sideshow where Anglo-American forces faced two German divisions when more than two hundred
German divisions were arrayed on the Soviet Front. The Italian campaign which began in
September 1943 was a fiasco tying down more Allied divisions than German. When the western
allies finally arrived in France, the Wehrmacht was a beaten-up shadow of what it had been when
German soldiers stepped across Soviet frontiers in June 1941. Normandy was an anti-climax,
enabled by the Red Army, and by no means the "decisive" battle of World War II which the
western Mainstream Media have made it out to be.
Whatever sins, whatever turpitudes, whatever mistakes the Soviet government committed
between September 1939 and June 1941, they were paid for in full by the colossal sacrifices and
victory of Soviet arms against Hitlerite Germany
In the Soviet Union the Germans pillaged, burned, murdered relentlessly in an attempted
genocide of the Soviet people, Slavs and Jews alike. An estimated 17 million civilians died at
the hands of Nazi armies and their Ukrainian and Baltic collaborators. Ten million Red Army
soldiers died in the war to liberate the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and to run down the
Nazi beast in its Berlin lair. Large areas of the Soviet Union from Stalingrad in the east to
the Caucasus and Sevastopol in the south to the Romanian, Polish and Baltic frontiers in the
west and the north were laid waste. While there were Nazi massacres of civilians at
Ouradour-sur-Glâne in France and in Lidice in Czechoslovakia, there were hundreds
of such massacres in the Soviet Union in Byelorussia and the Ukraine in places of which we do
not know the names or which are known only in still unexplored or unpublished Soviet archives.
Whatever sins, whatever turpitudes, whatever mistakes the Soviet government committed between
September 1939 and June 1941, they were paid for in full by the colossal sacrifices and victory
of Soviet arms against Hitlerite Germany.
In the light of these facts , the Trudeau August 23 rd statement is
politically motivated anti-Russian propaganda which serves no Canadian national interest.
Trudeau gratuitously insulted not only the government of the Russian Federation, but also all
Russians whose parents and grandparents fought in the Great Patriotic War. He attempts to
delegitimise the emancipatory character of the war of the USSR against the Hitlerite invader
and thereby to discredit the Soviet war effort. Trudeau's statement panders to the interests of
his Ukrainian minister for foreign affairs in Ottawa, Chrystia Freeland, a known Russophobe,
who celebrates the life of her late grandfather, a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator in occupied
Poland. She supports a regime in Kiev which emerged from the violent, so-called Maidan coup
d'état against the elected Ukrainian president, backed by fascist militias and from
abroad by the European Union and the United States. As preposterous as it may sound, this
regime celebrates the deeds of World War II Nazi collaborators, now treated as national heroes.
The Canadian prime minister desperately needs a history lesson before he again insults the
Russian people, and indeed denigrates the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers and sailors allied
with the USSR against the common foe.
Michael Jabara Carley September 1, 2019 | History The Canadian Prime Minister Needs a History
Lesson On August 23 rd the Canadian Prime Minister's office issued a statement
to remember the so-called "black ribbon day," a bogus holiday established in 2008-2009 by the
European Parliament to commemorate the victims of fascist and communist "totalitarianism" and
the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact in 1939. Various centre-right
political groupings inside the European Parliament, along with the NATO (read US) Parliamentary
Assembly initiated or backed the idea. In 2009, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, meeting in Lithuania, also passed a resolution "equating the roles of the USSR
and Nazi Germany in starting World War II."
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statement follows along similar lines. Here is an excerpt:
"Black Ribbon Day marks the sombre anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Signed between
the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1939 to divide Central and Eastern Europe , the
infamous pact set the stage for the appalling atrocities these regimes would
commit . In its wake, they stripped countries of their autonomy, forced families to flee
their homes, and tore communities apart, including Jewish and Romani communities, and others
. The Soviet and Nazi regimes brought untold suffering upon people across Europe , as
millions were senselessly murdered and denied their rights, freedoms, and dignity
[italics added]."
As a statement purporting to summarise the origins and unfolding of the Second World War, it
is a parody of the actual events of the 1930s and war years. It is politically motivated "fake
history"; it is in fact a whole cloth of lies.
Let's start at the beginning. In late January 1933 President Paul von Hindenburg, appointed
Adolf Hitler as German chancellor. Within months Hitler's government declared illegal the
German Communist and Socialist parties and commenced to establish a one party Nazi state. The
Soviet government had heretofore maintained tolerable or correct relations with Weimar Germany,
established through the treaty of Rapallo in 1922. The new Nazi government however abandoned
that policy and launched a propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union and against its
diplomatic, trade, and business representatives working in Germany. Soviet business offices
were sometimes trashed and their personnel roughed up by Nazi hooligans.
Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov
Alarm bells went off in Moscow. Soviet diplomats and notably the Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov, had read Hitler's Mein Kampf , his blueprint for the German
domination of Europe, published in the mid-1920s. The book became a bestseller in Germany and
was a necessary addition to the mantel piece or the living room table in any German home. For
those of you who may not know, Mein Kampf identified Jews and Slavs as
Untermenschen , sub humans, good only for slavery or death. The Jews were not to be the
only targets of Nazi genocide. Soviet territories eastward to the Ural Mountains were to become
German. France was also named as a habitual enemy which had to be eliminated.
"What about Hitler's book?" Litvinov often asked German diplomats in Moscow. Oh that, they
said, don't pay it any mind. Hitler doesn't really mean what he wrote. Litvinov smiled politely
in reaction to such statements, but did not believe a word of what he heard from his German
interlocutors.
In December 1933 the Soviet government established officially a new policy of collective
security and mutual assistance against Nazi Germany. What did this new policy mean exactly? The
Soviet idea was to re-establish the World War I anti-German entente, to be composed of France,
Britain, the United States, and yes, even fascist Italy. Although not stated publically, it was
a policy of containment and preparation for war against Nazi Germany should containment
fail.
In October 1933
Litvinov went to Washington to settle the terms of US diplomatic recognition of the USSR.
He had discussions with the new US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, about collective security
against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Iosif Stalin, Litvinov's boss in Moscow, gave his
approval to these discussions. Soviet-US relations were off to a good start, but in 1934 the
State Department -- almost to a man, anti-communists -- sabotaged the rapprochement launched by
Roosevelt and Litvinov.
At the same time Soviet diplomats in Paris were discussing collective security with the
French foreign minister, Joseph Paul-Boncour. In 1933 and 1934 Paul-Boncour and his successor
Louis Barthou strengthened ties with the USSR. The reason was simple: both governments felt
threatened by Hitlerite Germany. Here too promising Franco-Soviet relations were sabotaged by
Pierre Laval, who succeeded Barthou after the latter was killed in Marseilles during the
assassination of the Yugoslav King Alexander I in October 1934. Laval was an anti-communist who
preferred a rapprochement with Nazi Germany to collective security with the USSR.
He gutted a Franco-Soviet mutual assistance pact which was finally signed in May 1935 only
to delay its ratification in the French National Assembly. I call the pact the coquille
vide , or empty shell. Laval lost power in January 1936 but the damage had been done. After
the fall of France in 1940, Laval became a Nazi collaborator and was shot for treason in the
autumn of 1945.
In Britain too Soviet diplomats were active and sought to launch an Anglo-Soviet
rapprochement. Its aim was to establish the base for collective security against Nazi Germany.
Here too the policy was sabotaged, first by the conclusion of the Anglo-German naval agreement
in June 1935. This was a bilateral pact on German naval rearmament. The Soviet and French
governments were stunned and considered the British deal with Germany to be a betrayal. In
early 1936 a new British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, put a stop to the rapprochement
because of communist "propaganda". Soviet diplomats thought Eden was a "friend". He was nothing
of the sort.
Fascism represented force, power, and masculinity for European elites who often doubted
themselves and feared communism
In each case, the United States, France, and Britain halted promising discussions with the
Soviet Union. Why would these governments do something so seemingly incomprehensive in
hindsight? Because anti-communism and Sovietophobia were stronger motives amongst the US,
French, and British governing elites than the perception of danger from Nazi Germany. On the
contrary, these elites in large measure were sympathetic to Hitler. Fascism was a bulwark
mounted in defence of capitalism, against the spread of communism and against the extension of
Soviet influence into Europe. The great question of the 1930s was "who is enemy no. 1", Nazi
Germany or the USSR? All too often these elites, not all, but the majority, got the answer to
that question wrong. They preferred a rapprochement with Nazi Germany to collective security
and mutual assistance with the USSR. Fascism represented force, power, and masculinity for
European elites who often doubted themselves and feared communism. Leather uniforms, the odor
of sweat from tens of thousands of marching fascists with their drums, banners, and torches
were like aphrodisiacs for elites unsure of their own virility and of their security against
the growth of Soviet influence. The Spanish civil war, which erupted in July 1936, polarised
European politics between right and left and rendered impossible mutual assistance against
Germany.
Italy was a peculiar case. The Soviet government maintained tolerable relations with Rome
even though Italy was fascist and Russia, a communist state. Italy had fought on the side of
the Entente during World War I and Litvinov wanted to keep it on side in the new coalition he
was trying to build. Benito Mussolini had colonial ambitions in East Africa, however, launching
a war of aggression against Abyssinia, the last parcel of African territory which had not been
colonised by the European powers. To make a long story short, the Abyssinian crisis was the
beginning of the end of Litvinov's hopes to keep Italy on side.
In Romania too Soviet diplomats had some early successes. The Romanian foreign minister,
Nicolae Titulescu, favoured collective security and worked closely with Litvinov to improve
Soviet-Romanian relations. It was Titulescu who backed Litvinov in trying to obtain agreement
with France in 1935 for a pact of mutual assistance in spite of Laval's conniving and bad
faith. Between Titulescu and Litvinov there were discussions about mutual assistance. These too
came to nothing. Romania was dominated by a far right elite which disapproved of better Soviet
relations. In August 1936 Titulescu found himself politically isolated and was compelled to
resign. He spent much of his time abroad because he feared for his life in Bucharest.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
In Czechoslovakia, Eduard Beneš, like Titulescu, favoured collective security against
the Nazi menace. In May 1935 Beneš, the Czechoslovak president, signed a mutual
assistance pact with the USSR, but he weakened it to avoid going beyond the scope of the Soviet
pact with France, sabotaged by Laval. The Czechoslovaks feared Nazi Germany, and rightly so,
but they would not ally closely with the USSR without the full backing of Britain and France,
and this they would never obtain.
Czechoslovakia and Romania looked to a strong France and would not go beyond French
commitments to the USSR. France looked to Britain. The British were the key, if they were ready
to march, ready to ally themselves with the USSR, everyone else would fall into line. Without
the British -- who would not march -- everything fell apart.
The Soviet Union also tried to improve relations with Poland. Here too Soviet diplomats
failed when the Polish government signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in January
1934. The Polish elite never hid its preference for a rapprochement with Germany rather than
for better relations with the USSR. The Poles became spoilers of collective security sabotaging
Soviet attempts to organise an anti-German entente. They were at their worst in 1938 as Nazi
accomplices in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia before they became victims of Nazi
aggression in 1939. Soviet diplomats repeatedly warned their Polish counterparts that
Poland was headed to its doom if it did not change policy. Germany would turn on them and crush
them when the time was right. The Poles laughed at such warnings, dismissed them out of hand.
Russians are "barbarians", they said, the Germans, a "civilised" people. The choice between the
two was easy to make.
Let me be clear here. The archival evidence leaves no doubts, the Soviet government offered
collective security and mutual assistance to France, Britain, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
even fascist Italy, and in every case their offers were rejected, indeed spurned contemptuously
in the case of Poland, the great spoiler of collective security in the lead-up to war in 1939.
In the United States, the State Department sabotaged improving relations with Moscow. In the
autumn of 1936, all Soviet efforts for mutual assistance had failed, and the USSR found itself
isolated. No one wanted to ally with Moscow against Nazi Germany; all the above
mentioned European powers conducted negotiations with Berlin to lure the wolf away from their
doors. Yes, even the Czechoslovaks. The idea, both stated and unstated, was to turn Hitler's
ambitions eastward against the USSR.
Munich: selling out your friends to buy off your enemies
Then came
the Munich betrayal in September 1938. Britain and France sold out the Czechoslovaks to
Germany. "Peace in our time," Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, declared.
Czechoslovakia was dismembered to buy "peace" for France and Britain. Poland got a modest share
of the booty as part of the dirty deal. "Jackals," Winston Churchill called the Poles. In
February 1939 the Manchester Guardian called Munich, selling out your friends to buy off
your enemies. That description is apt.
In 1939 there was one last chance to conclude an Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact of mutual
assistance against Nazi Germany. I call it the "
alliance that never was ". In April 1939 the Soviet government offered France and Britain a
political and military alliance against Nazi Germany. The terms of the alliance proposal were
submitted on paper to Paris and London. In the spring of 1939 war looked inevitable. Rump
Czechoslovakia had disappeared in March, gobbled up by the Wehrmacht without a shot fired.
Later that month Hitler claimed the German populated Lithuanian city of Memel. In April a
Gallup poll in Britain showed massive popular support for a Soviet alliance. In France too
public opinion backed an alliance with Moscow. Churchill, then a Conservative backbencher,
declared in the House of Commons that without the USSR there could be no successful resistance
against Nazi aggression.
Logically, you would think that the French and British governments would have seized Soviet
offers with both hands. It did not happen. The Foreign Office rejected the Soviet alliance
proposal with the French grudgingly trailing behind. Litvinov was sacked as commissar and
replaced by Viacheslav M. Molotov, Stalin's right arm. For a time Soviet policy continued
unchanged. In May Molotov sent a message to Warsaw that the Soviet government would support
Poland against German aggression if so desired. Incredible as it may seem, on the very next
day, the Poles declined Molotov's proffered hand.
The Foreign Office rejected the Soviet alliance proposal with the French grudgingly
trailing behind
In spite of the initial British rejection of Soviet proposals, Anglo-Franco-Soviet
negotiations continued through the summer months of 1939. At the same time however British
officials got caught negotiating with the Germans in search of a détente of the last
hour with Hitler. It became public news in the British papers at the end of July as the British
and French were preparing to send military missions to Moscow to conclude an alliance. The news
caused a scandal in London and raised understandable Soviet doubts about Anglo-French good
faith. It was then that Molotov began to show an interest in German overtures for an
agreement.
There was more scandal to come. The Anglo-French military missions traveled to Moscow on a
slow chartered merchantman making a top speed of thirteen knots. One Foreign Office official
had proposed sending the missions in a fleet of fast British cruisers to make a point. The
Foreign Secretary, Edward Lord Halifax, thought that idea was too provocative. So the French
and British delegations went on a chartered merchantman and took five days to get to the USSR.
Five days mattered when war could break out at any moment.
Could the situation become any more tragic, any more a farce? Indeed it could. The British
chief negotiator, Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, had no written powers to sign an agreement with
the Soviet side. His French counterpart, General Joseph Doumenc, had a vague letter of
authority from the French président du Conseil. He could negotiate but not sign
an agreement. Doumenc and Drax were supernumeraries. On the other hand, the Soviet side was
represented by its commissar for war with full plenipotentiary powers. "All indications so far
go to show," advised the British ambassador in Moscow, "that Soviet military negotiators are
really out for business." In contrast, formal British instructions were to "go very slowly".
When Drax met the Foreign Secretary Halifax before leaving for Moscow, he asked about the
"possibility of failure" in the negotiations. "There was a short but impressive silence,"
according to Drax, "and the Foreign Secretary then remarked that on the whole it would be
preferable to draw out the negotiations as long as possible." Doumenc remarked that he had been
sent to Moscow with "empty hands." They had nothing to offer their Soviet interlocutors. The
British could send two divisions to France at the outset of a European war. The Red Army could
immediately mobilise one hundred divisions, and Soviet forces had just thrashed the Japanese in
heavy fighting on the Manchurian frontier. What the hell? "They are not serious," Stalin
concluded. And he was right. The French and British governments thought they could play Stalin
for a fool. That was a mistake.
After the bad faith, after all the conniving, what would you have done in Stalin's
boots, or any Russian leader's boots? Take the Poles, for example, they worked against Soviet
diplomacy in London, Paris, Bucharest, Berlin, even Tokyo anywhere they could put a spoke in
the Soviet wheel. They shared with Hitler in the spoils of Czechoslovak dismemberment. In 1939
they attempted until the last moment to sidetrack an anti-Nazi alliance in which the USSR was a
signatory. I know, it is all too incredible to believe, like an implausible story line in a bad
novel, but it was true. And then the Poles had the temerity to accuse the Soviet side of
stabbing them in the back. It was Satan rebuking sin. The Polish governing elite brought
ruin upon itself and its people. Even today it is the same old Poland. The Polish government is
marking the beginning of the Second World War by inviting to Warsaw the former Axis powers, but
not the Russian Federation, even though it was the Red Army which liberated Poland at high cost
in dead and wounded. This is a fact of history which Polish nationalists simply cannot bear to
hear and which they seek to erase from our memories.
The French and British governments thought they could play Stalin for a fool. That was a
mistake
After nearly six years of trying to create a broad anti-German entente in Europe, notably
with Britain and France, the Soviet government had nothing to show for its efforts.
Nothing . By late 1936 the USSR was effectively isolated, and still Soviet diplomats
tried to obtain agreement with France and Britain. The British and French, and the Romanians,
and even the Czechoslovaks, and especially the Poles sabotaged, spurned or dodged Soviet
offers, weakened agreements with Moscow and tried themselves to negotiate terms with
Berlin to save their own skins. It was like they were doing Moscow a favour by humoring, with
polite, knowing smiles, Soviet diplomats who talked about Mein Kampf and warned of the
Nazi danger. The Soviet government feared being left in the lurch to fight the Wehrmacht alone
while the French and the British sat on their hands in the west. After all, this is exactly
what the French and British did while Poland collapsed at the beginning of September in a
matter of days at the hands of the invading Wehrmacht. If France and Britain would not help
Poland, would they have done more for the USSR? It is a question which Stalin and his
colleagues most certainly asked themselves.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the result of the failure of nearly six years of Soviet
effort to form an anti-Nazi alliance with the western powers. The pact was ugly. It was Soviet
sauve qui peut , and it contained a secret codicil which foresaw the creation of
"spheres of influence" in Eastern Europe "in the event of territorial and political
rearrangement[s]". But it was not worse than what the French and British had done at Munich. "
C'est la réponse du berger à la bergère , the French ambassador in
Moscow remarked, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The dismemberment of
Czechoslovakia was the precedent for what then followed. As the late British historian A.J.P.
Taylor so aptly put it long ago: violent western reproaches against the USSR "came ill from the
statesmen who went to Munich . The Russians, in fact, did only what the Western statesmen had
hoped to do; and Western bitterness was the bitterness of disappointment, mixed with anger that
professions of Communism were no more sincere than their own professions of democracy [in
dealing with Hitler]."
There then occurred a period of Soviet appeasement of Hitlerite Germany no more attractive
than the Anglo-French appeasement which preceded it. And Stalin made a huge miscalculation. He
disregarded his own military intelligence warning of a Nazi invasion of the USSR. He thought
Hitler would not be such a fool as to invade the Soviet Union while Britain was still a
belligerent power. How wrong he was. On 22 June 1941 the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union
with a huge military force along a front from the Baltic to the Black Seas.
It was the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, 1418 days of the most horrendous, intense
violence. The USSR allied, finally, with Britain and the United States against Hitlerite
Germany. It was the so-called Grand Alliance. France of course had disappeared, crushed by the
German army in a military debacle in May 1940. During the first three years of fighting from
June 1941 until June 1944, the Red Army fought nearly alone against the Nazi Wehrmacht. How
ironic. Stalin had done all he could to avoid facing Hitlerite Germany alone, and yet there he
was, the Red Army fighting nearly alone against the Wehrmacht and Axis Powers. The tide of
battle turned at Stalingrad, sixteen months before the western allies landed in Normandy. Here
is what President Roosevelt wrote to Stalin on 4 February 1943, the day after the last German
forces surrendered in Stalingrad. "As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States of America, I congratulate you on the brilliant victory at Stalingrad of the armies
under your Supreme Command. The 162 days of epic battle for the city which has for ever honored
your name and the decisive result which all Americans are celebrating today will remain one of
the proudest chapters in this war of the peoples united against Nazism and its emulators. The
commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and the men and women, who have supported
them, in factory and field, have combined not only to cover with glory their country's arms,
but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the United Nations to bend every
energy to bring about the final defeat and unconditional surrender of the common enemy." As
Churchill put it to Roosevelt at about the same time: "Listen, who is really fighting today?
Stalin alone! And look how he is fighting " Yes, indeed, we should not, even now, forget how
the Red Army fought.
From June 1941 until September 1943 there was not a single US, British, or Canadian division
fighting on the ground of continental Europe, not one. The fighting in North Africa was a
sideshow where Anglo-American forces faced two German divisions when more than two hundred
German divisions were arrayed on the Soviet Front. The Italian campaign which began in
September 1943 was a fiasco tying down more Allied divisions than German. When the western
allies finally arrived in France, the Wehrmacht was a beaten-up shadow of what it had been when
German soldiers stepped across Soviet frontiers in June 1941. Normandy was an anti-climax,
enabled by the Red Army, and by no means the "decisive" battle of World War II which the
western Mainstream Media have made it out to be.
Whatever sins, whatever turpitudes, whatever mistakes the Soviet government committed
between September 1939 and June 1941, they were paid for in full by the colossal sacrifices and
victory of Soviet arms against Hitlerite Germany
In the Soviet Union the Germans pillaged, burned, murdered relentlessly in an attempted
genocide of the Soviet people, Slavs and Jews alike. An estimated 17 million civilians died at
the hands of Nazi armies and their Ukrainian and Baltic collaborators. Ten million Red Army
soldiers died in the war to liberate the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and to run down the
Nazi beast in its Berlin lair. Large areas of the Soviet Union from Stalingrad in the east to
the Caucasus and Sevastopol in the south to the Romanian, Polish and Baltic frontiers in the
west and the north were laid waste. While there were Nazi massacres of civilians at
Ouradour-sur-Glâne in France and in Lidice in Czechoslovakia, there were hundreds
of such massacres in the Soviet Union in Byelorussia and the Ukraine in places of which we do
not know the names or which are known only in still unexplored or unpublished Soviet archives.
Whatever sins, whatever turpitudes, whatever mistakes the Soviet government committed between
September 1939 and June 1941, they were paid for in full by the colossal sacrifices and victory
of Soviet arms against Hitlerite Germany.
In the light of these facts , the Trudeau August 23 rd statement is
politically motivated anti-Russian propaganda which serves no Canadian national interest.
Trudeau gratuitously insulted not only the government of the Russian Federation, but also all
Russians whose parents and grandparents fought in the Great Patriotic War. He attempts to
delegitimise the emancipatory character of the war of the USSR against the Hitlerite invader
and thereby to discredit the Soviet war effort. Trudeau's statement panders to the interests of
his Ukrainian minister for foreign affairs in Ottawa, Chrystia Freeland, a known Russophobe,
who celebrates the life of her late grandfather, a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator in occupied
Poland. She supports a regime in Kiev which emerged from the violent, so-called Maidan coup
d'état against the elected Ukrainian president, backed by fascist militias and from
abroad by the European Union and the United States. As preposterous as it may sound, this
regime celebrates the deeds of World War II Nazi collaborators, now treated as national heroes.
The Canadian prime minister desperately needs a history lesson before he again insults the
Russian people, and indeed denigrates the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers and sailors allied
with the USSR against the common foe.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's statement follows along similar lines. Here is an excerpt:
"Black Ribbon Day marks the sombre anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Signed between
the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in 1939 to divide Central and Eastern Europe , the
infamous pact set the stage for the appalling atrocities these regimes would
commit . In its wake, they stripped countries of their autonomy, forced families to flee
their homes, and tore communities apart, including Jewish and Romani communities, and others
. The Soviet and Nazi regimes brought untold suffering upon people across Europe , as
millions were senselessly murdered and denied their rights, freedoms, and dignity
[italics added]."
As a statement purporting to summarise the origins and unfolding of the Second World War, it
is a parody of the actual events of the 1930s and war years. It is politically motivated "fake
history"; it is in fact a whole cloth of lies.
Let's start at the beginning. In late January 1933 President Paul von Hindenburg, appointed
Adolf Hitler as German chancellor. Within months Hitler's government declared illegal the
German Communist and Socialist parties and commenced to establish a one party Nazi state. The
Soviet government had heretofore maintained tolerable or correct relations with Weimar Germany,
established through the treaty of Rapallo in 1922. The new Nazi government however abandoned
that policy and launched a propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union and against its
diplomatic, trade, and business representatives working in Germany. Soviet business offices
were sometimes trashed and their personnel roughed up by Nazi hooligans.
Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov
Alarm bells went off in Moscow. Soviet diplomats and notably the Commissar for Foreign
Affairs, Maksim M. Litvinov, had read Hitler's Mein Kampf , his blueprint for the German
domination of Europe, published in the mid-1920s. The book became a bestseller in Germany and
was a necessary addition to the mantel piece or the living room table in any German home. For
those of you who may not know, Mein Kampf identified Jews and Slavs as
Untermenschen , sub humans, good only for slavery or death. The Jews were not to be the
only targets of Nazi genocide. Soviet territories eastward to the Ural Mountains were to become
German. France was also named as a habitual enemy which had to be eliminated.
"What about Hitler's book?" Litvinov often asked German diplomats in Moscow. Oh that, they
said, don't pay it any mind. Hitler doesn't really mean what he wrote. Litvinov smiled politely
in reaction to such statements, but did not believe a word of what he heard from his German
interlocutors.
In December 1933 the Soviet government established officially a new policy of collective
security and mutual assistance against Nazi Germany. What did this new policy mean exactly? The
Soviet idea was to re-establish the World War I anti-German entente, to be composed of France,
Britain, the United States, and yes, even fascist Italy. Although not stated publically, it was
a policy of containment and preparation for war against Nazi Germany should containment
fail.
In October 1933
Litvinov went to Washington to settle the terms of US diplomatic recognition of the USSR.
He had discussions with the new US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, about collective security
against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Iosif Stalin, Litvinov's boss in Moscow, gave his
approval to these discussions. Soviet-US relations were off to a good start, but in 1934 the
State Department -- almost to a man, anti-communists -- sabotaged the rapprochement launched by
Roosevelt and Litvinov.
At the same time Soviet diplomats in Paris were discussing collective security with the
French foreign minister, Joseph Paul-Boncour. In 1933 and 1934 Paul-Boncour and his successor
Louis Barthou strengthened ties with the USSR. The reason was simple: both governments felt
threatened by Hitlerite Germany. Here too promising Franco-Soviet relations were sabotaged by
Pierre Laval, who succeeded Barthou after the latter was killed in Marseilles during the
assassination of the Yugoslav King Alexander I in October 1934. Laval was an anti-communist who
preferred a rapprochement with Nazi Germany to collective security with the USSR.
He gutted a Franco-Soviet mutual assistance pact which was finally signed in May 1935 only
to delay its ratification in the French National Assembly. I call the pact the coquille
vide , or empty shell. Laval lost power in January 1936 but the damage had been done. After
the fall of France in 1940, Laval became a Nazi collaborator and was shot for treason in the
autumn of 1945.
In Britain too Soviet diplomats were active and sought to launch an Anglo-Soviet
rapprochement. Its aim was to establish the base for collective security against Nazi Germany.
Here too the policy was sabotaged, first by the conclusion of the Anglo-German naval agreement
in June 1935. This was a bilateral pact on German naval rearmament. The Soviet and French
governments were stunned and considered the British deal with Germany to be a betrayal. In
early 1936 a new British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, put a stop to the rapprochement
because of communist "propaganda". Soviet diplomats thought Eden was a "friend". He was nothing
of the sort.
Fascism represented force, power, and masculinity for European elites who often doubted
themselves and feared communism
In each case, the United States, France, and Britain halted promising discussions with the
Soviet Union. Why would these governments do something so seemingly incomprehensive in
hindsight? Because anti-communism and Sovietophobia were stronger motives amongst the US,
French, and British governing elites than the perception of danger from Nazi Germany. On the
contrary, these elites in large measure were sympathetic to Hitler. Fascism was a bulwark
mounted in defence of capitalism, against the spread of communism and against the extension of
Soviet influence into Europe. The great question of the 1930s was "who is enemy no. 1", Nazi
Germany or the USSR? All too often these elites, not all, but the majority, got the answer to
that question wrong. They preferred a rapprochement with Nazi Germany to collective security
and mutual assistance with the USSR. Fascism represented force, power, and masculinity for
European elites who often doubted themselves and feared communism. Leather uniforms, the odor
of sweat from tens of thousands of marching fascists with their drums, banners, and torches
were like aphrodisiacs for elites unsure of their own virility and of their security against
the growth of Soviet influence. The Spanish civil war, which erupted in July 1936, polarised
European politics between right and left and rendered impossible mutual assistance against
Germany.
Italy was a peculiar case. The Soviet government maintained tolerable relations with Rome
even though Italy was fascist and Russia, a communist state. Italy had fought on the side of
the Entente during World War I and Litvinov wanted to keep it on side in the new coalition he
was trying to build. Benito Mussolini had colonial ambitions in East Africa, however, launching
a war of aggression against Abyssinia, the last parcel of African territory which had not been
colonised by the European powers. To make a long story short, the Abyssinian crisis was the
beginning of the end of Litvinov's hopes to keep Italy on side.
In Romania too Soviet diplomats had some early successes. The Romanian foreign minister,
Nicolae Titulescu, favoured collective security and worked closely with Litvinov to improve
Soviet-Romanian relations. It was Titulescu who backed Litvinov in trying to obtain agreement
with France in 1935 for a pact of mutual assistance in spite of Laval's conniving and bad
faith. Between Titulescu and Litvinov there were discussions about mutual assistance. These too
came to nothing. Romania was dominated by a far right elite which disapproved of better Soviet
relations. In August 1936 Titulescu found himself politically isolated and was compelled to
resign. He spent much of his time abroad because he feared for his life in Bucharest.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
In Czechoslovakia, Eduard Beneš, like Titulescu, favoured collective security against
the Nazi menace. In May 1935 Beneš, the Czechoslovak president, signed a mutual
assistance pact with the USSR, but he weakened it to avoid going beyond the scope of the Soviet
pact with France, sabotaged by Laval. The Czechoslovaks feared Nazi Germany, and rightly so,
but they would not ally closely with the USSR without the full backing of Britain and France,
and this they would never obtain.
Czechoslovakia and Romania looked to a strong France and would not go beyond French
commitments to the USSR. France looked to Britain. The British were the key, if they were ready
to march, ready to ally themselves with the USSR, everyone else would fall into line. Without
the British -- who would not march -- everything fell apart.
The Soviet Union also tried to improve relations with Poland. Here too Soviet diplomats
failed when the Polish government signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in January
1934. The Polish elite never hid its preference for a rapprochement with Germany rather than
for better relations with the USSR. The Poles became spoilers of collective security sabotaging
Soviet attempts to organise an anti-German entente. They were at their worst in 1938 as Nazi
accomplices in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia before they became victims of Nazi
aggression in 1939. Soviet diplomats repeatedly warned their Polish counterparts that
Poland was headed to its doom if it did not change policy. Germany would turn on them and crush
them when the time was right. The Poles laughed at such warnings, dismissed them out of hand.
Russians are "barbarians", they said, the Germans, a "civilised" people. The choice between the
two was easy to make.
Let me be clear here. The archival evidence leaves no doubts, the Soviet government offered
collective security and mutual assistance to France, Britain, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
even fascist Italy, and in every case their offers were rejected, indeed spurned contemptuously
in the case of Poland, the great spoiler of collective security in the lead-up to war in 1939.
In the United States, the State Department sabotaged improving relations with Moscow. In the
autumn of 1936, all Soviet efforts for mutual assistance had failed, and the USSR found itself
isolated. No one wanted to ally with Moscow against Nazi Germany; all the above
mentioned European powers conducted negotiations with Berlin to lure the wolf away from their
doors. Yes, even the Czechoslovaks. The idea, both stated and unstated, was to turn Hitler's
ambitions eastward against the USSR.
Munich: selling out your friends to buy off your enemies
Then came
the Munich betrayal in September 1938. Britain and France sold out the Czechoslovaks to
Germany. "Peace in our time," Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, declared.
Czechoslovakia was dismembered to buy "peace" for France and Britain. Poland got a modest share
of the booty as part of the dirty deal. "Jackals," Winston Churchill called the Poles. In
February 1939 the Manchester Guardian called Munich, selling out your friends to buy off
your enemies. That description is apt.
In 1939 there was one last chance to conclude an Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact of mutual
assistance against Nazi Germany. I call it the "
alliance that never was ". In April 1939 the Soviet government offered France and Britain a
political and military alliance against Nazi Germany. The terms of the alliance proposal were
submitted on paper to Paris and London. In the spring of 1939 war looked inevitable. Rump
Czechoslovakia had disappeared in March, gobbled up by the Wehrmacht without a shot fired.
Later that month Hitler claimed the German populated Lithuanian city of Memel. In April a
Gallup poll in Britain showed massive popular support for a Soviet alliance. In France too
public opinion backed an alliance with Moscow. Churchill, then a Conservative backbencher,
declared in the House of Commons that without the USSR there could be no successful resistance
against Nazi aggression.
Logically, you would think that the French and British governments would have seized Soviet
offers with both hands. It did not happen. The Foreign Office rejected the Soviet alliance
proposal with the French grudgingly trailing behind. Litvinov was sacked as commissar and
replaced by Viacheslav M. Molotov, Stalin's right arm. For a time Soviet policy continued
unchanged. In May Molotov sent a message to Warsaw that the Soviet government would support
Poland against German aggression if so desired. Incredible as it may seem, on the very next
day, the Poles declined Molotov's proffered hand.
The Foreign Office rejected the Soviet alliance proposal with the French grudgingly
trailing behind
In spite of the initial British rejection of Soviet proposals, Anglo-Franco-Soviet
negotiations continued through the summer months of 1939. At the same time however British
officials got caught negotiating with the Germans in search of a détente of the last
hour with Hitler. It became public news in the British papers at the end of July as the British
and French were preparing to send military missions to Moscow to conclude an alliance. The news
caused a scandal in London and raised understandable Soviet doubts about Anglo-French good
faith. It was then that Molotov began to show an interest in German overtures for an
agreement.
There was more scandal to come. The Anglo-French military missions traveled to Moscow on a
slow chartered merchantman making a top speed of thirteen knots. One Foreign Office official
had proposed sending the missions in a fleet of fast British cruisers to make a point. The
Foreign Secretary, Edward Lord Halifax, thought that idea was too provocative. So the French
and British delegations went on a chartered merchantman and took five days to get to the USSR.
Five days mattered when war could break out at any moment.
Could the situation become any more tragic, any more a farce? Indeed it could. The British
chief negotiator, Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, had no written powers to sign an agreement with
the Soviet side. His French counterpart, General Joseph Doumenc, had a vague letter of
authority from the French président du Conseil. He could negotiate but not sign
an agreement. Doumenc and Drax were supernumeraries. On the other hand, the Soviet side was
represented by its commissar for war with full plenipotentiary powers. "All indications so far
go to show," advised the British ambassador in Moscow, "that Soviet military negotiators are
really out for business." In contrast, formal British instructions were to "go very slowly".
When Drax met the Foreign Secretary Halifax before leaving for Moscow, he asked about the
"possibility of failure" in the negotiations. "There was a short but impressive silence,"
according to Drax, "and the Foreign Secretary then remarked that on the whole it would be
preferable to draw out the negotiations as long as possible." Doumenc remarked that he had been
sent to Moscow with "empty hands." They had nothing to offer their Soviet interlocutors. The
British could send two divisions to France at the outset of a European war. The Red Army could
immediately mobilise one hundred divisions, and Soviet forces had just thrashed the Japanese in
heavy fighting on the Manchurian frontier. What the hell? "They are not serious," Stalin
concluded. And he was right. The French and British governments thought they could play Stalin
for a fool. That was a mistake.
After the bad faith, after all the conniving, what would you have done in Stalin's
boots, or any Russian leader's boots? Take the Poles, for example, they worked against Soviet
diplomacy in London, Paris, Bucharest, Berlin, even Tokyo anywhere they could put a spoke in
the Soviet wheel. They shared with Hitler in the spoils of Czechoslovak dismemberment. In 1939
they attempted until the last moment to sidetrack an anti-Nazi alliance in which the USSR was a
signatory. I know, it is all too incredible to believe, like an implausible story line in a bad
novel, but it was true. And then the Poles had the temerity to accuse the Soviet side of
stabbing them in the back. It was Satan rebuking sin. The Polish governing elite brought
ruin upon itself and its people. Even today it is the same old Poland. The Polish government is
marking the beginning of the Second World War by inviting to Warsaw the former Axis powers, but
not the Russian Federation, even though it was the Red Army which liberated Poland at high cost
in dead and wounded. This is a fact of history which Polish nationalists simply cannot bear to
hear and which they seek to erase from our memories.
The French and British governments thought they could play Stalin for a fool. That was a
mistake
After nearly six years of trying to create a broad anti-German entente in Europe, notably
with Britain and France, the Soviet government had nothing to show for its efforts.
Nothing . By late 1936 the USSR was effectively isolated, and still Soviet diplomats
tried to obtain agreement with France and Britain. The British and French, and the Romanians,
and even the Czechoslovaks, and especially the Poles sabotaged, spurned or dodged Soviet
offers, weakened agreements with Moscow and tried themselves to negotiate terms with
Berlin to save their own skins. It was like they were doing Moscow a favour by humoring, with
polite, knowing smiles, Soviet diplomats who talked about Mein Kampf and warned of the
Nazi danger. The Soviet government feared being left in the lurch to fight the Wehrmacht alone
while the French and the British sat on their hands in the west. After all, this is exactly
what the French and British did while Poland collapsed at the beginning of September in a
matter of days at the hands of the invading Wehrmacht. If France and Britain would not help
Poland, would they have done more for the USSR? It is a question which Stalin and his
colleagues most certainly asked themselves.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the result of the failure of nearly six years of Soviet
effort to form an anti-Nazi alliance with the western powers. The pact was ugly. It was Soviet
sauve qui peut , and it contained a secret codicil which foresaw the creation of
"spheres of influence" in Eastern Europe "in the event of territorial and political
rearrangement[s]". But it was not worse than what the French and British had done at Munich. "
C'est la réponse du berger à la bergère , the French ambassador in
Moscow remarked, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The dismemberment of
Czechoslovakia was the precedent for what then followed. As the late British historian A.J.P.
Taylor so aptly put it long ago: violent western reproaches against the USSR "came ill from the
statesmen who went to Munich . The Russians, in fact, did only what the Western statesmen had
hoped to do; and Western bitterness was the bitterness of disappointment, mixed with anger that
professions of Communism were no more sincere than their own professions of democracy [in
dealing with Hitler]."
There then occurred a period of Soviet appeasement of Hitlerite Germany no more attractive
than the Anglo-French appeasement which preceded it. And Stalin made a huge miscalculation. He
disregarded his own military intelligence warning of a Nazi invasion of the USSR. He thought
Hitler would not be such a fool as to invade the Soviet Union while Britain was still a
belligerent power. How wrong he was. On 22 June 1941 the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union
with a huge military force along a front from the Baltic to the Black Seas.
It was the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, 1418 days of the most horrendous, intense
violence. The USSR allied, finally, with Britain and the United States against Hitlerite
Germany. It was the so-called Grand Alliance. France of course had disappeared, crushed by the
German army in a military debacle in May 1940. During the first three years of fighting from
June 1941 until June 1944, the Red Army fought nearly alone against the Nazi Wehrmacht. How
ironic. Stalin had done all he could to avoid facing Hitlerite Germany alone, and yet there he
was, the Red Army fighting nearly alone against the Wehrmacht and Axis Powers. The tide of
battle turned at Stalingrad, sixteen months before the western allies landed in Normandy. Here
is what President Roosevelt wrote to Stalin on 4 February 1943, the day after the last German
forces surrendered in Stalingrad. "As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States of America, I congratulate you on the brilliant victory at Stalingrad of the armies
under your Supreme Command. The 162 days of epic battle for the city which has for ever honored
your name and the decisive result which all Americans are celebrating today will remain one of
the proudest chapters in this war of the peoples united against Nazism and its emulators. The
commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and the men and women, who have supported
them, in factory and field, have combined not only to cover with glory their country's arms,
but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the United Nations to bend every
energy to bring about the final defeat and unconditional surrender of the common enemy." As
Churchill put it to Roosevelt at about the same time: "Listen, who is really fighting today?
Stalin alone! And look how he is fighting " Yes, indeed, we should not, even now, forget how
the Red Army fought.
From June 1941 until September 1943 there was not a single US, British, or Canadian division
fighting on the ground of continental Europe, not one. The fighting in North Africa was a
sideshow where Anglo-American forces faced two German divisions when more than two hundred
German divisions were arrayed on the Soviet Front. The Italian campaign which began in
September 1943 was a fiasco tying down more Allied divisions than German. When the western
allies finally arrived in France, the Wehrmacht was a beaten-up shadow of what it had been when
German soldiers stepped across Soviet frontiers in June 1941. Normandy was an anti-climax,
enabled by the Red Army, and by no means the "decisive" battle of World War II which the
western Mainstream Media have made it out to be.
Whatever sins, whatever turpitudes, whatever mistakes the Soviet government committed
between September 1939 and June 1941, they were paid for in full by the colossal sacrifices and
victory of Soviet arms against Hitlerite Germany
In the Soviet Union the Germans pillaged, burned, murdered relentlessly in an attempted
genocide of the Soviet people, Slavs and Jews alike. An estimated 17 million civilians died at
the hands of Nazi armies and their Ukrainian and Baltic collaborators. Ten million Red Army
soldiers died in the war to liberate the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and to run down the
Nazi beast in its Berlin lair. Large areas of the Soviet Union from Stalingrad in the east to
the Caucasus and Sevastopol in the south to the Romanian, Polish and Baltic frontiers in the
west and the north were laid waste. While there were Nazi massacres of civilians at
Ouradour-sur-Glâne in France and in Lidice in Czechoslovakia, there were hundreds
of such massacres in the Soviet Union in Byelorussia and the Ukraine in places of which we do
not know the names or which are known only in still unexplored or unpublished Soviet archives.
Whatever sins, whatever turpitudes, whatever mistakes the Soviet government committed between
September 1939 and June 1941, they were paid for in full by the colossal sacrifices and victory
of Soviet arms against Hitlerite Germany.
The downplaying of Russian participation at Pyeongchang, is seemingly done to spin the image
of many Russian cheats being kept out. At the suggestion of the World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) closely vetted Russians for competition at
the 2018 Winter Olympics. In actuality, the 2018 Russian Winter Olympic participation wasn't so
off the mark, when compared to past Winter Olympiads – something which (among other
things) puts a dent into the faulty notion that Russia should be especially singled out for
sports doping.
At the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, Russia had its largest ever Winter Olympic contingent of
232 , on account of the host nation being allowed a greater number of participants. The
168 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang is
9 less than the Russians who competed at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Going back further,
Russian Winter Olympic participation in 2006 was at
190 , with its 2002 contingent at
151 , 1998 having
122 and 1994 (Russia's first formal Winter Olympic appearance as Russia)
113 .
The aforementioned Reuters piece references a " historian ", Bill Mallon, who is keen
on using the 1992 Summer Olympic banning of Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and
Montenegro) as a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the upcoming Summer Olympics.
In this instance, Alan Dershowitz's periodic reference to the " if the shoe is on the other
foot " test is quite applicable . Regarding Mallon, " historian " is put in
quotes because his historically premised advocacy is very much incomplete and overly
propagandistic.
For consistency sake and contrary to Mallon, Yugoslavia should've formally participated at
the 1992 Summer Olympics. The Olympic banning of Yugoslavia was bogus, given that the IOC and
the IOC affiliated sports federations didn't ban the US and USSR for their respective role in
wars, which caused a greater number of deaths than what happened in 1990s Bosnia. The Reuters
article at issue references a United Nations resolution for sanctions against Yugoslavia,
without any second guessing, in support of the preference (at least by some) to keep politics
out of sports as much as possible.
Mallon casually notes that Yugoslav team sports were banned from the 1992 Summer Olympics,
unlike individual Yugoslav athletes, who participated as independents. At least two of the
banned Yugoslav teams were predicted to be lead medal contenders.
Croatia was allowed to compete at the 1992 Summer Olympics, despite that nation's military
involvement in the Bosnian Civil War. During the 1992 Summer and Winter Olympics, the former
USSR participated in individual and team sports as the Unified Team (with the exception of the
three former Soviet Baltic republics, who competed under their respective nation). With all
this in mind, the ban on team sports from Yugoslavia at the 1992 Summer Olympics, under a
neutral name, appears to be hypocritical and ethically challenged.
BS aside, the reality is that geopolitical clout (in the form of might making right), is
what compels the banning of Yugoslavia, unlike superpowers engaged in behavior which isn't less
egregious. Although a major world power, contemporary Russia lacks the overall geopolitical
influence of the USSR. Historian Stephen Cohen and some others, have noted that post-Soviet
Russia doesn't get the same (for lack of a better word) respect accorded to the USSR. This
aspect underscores how becoming freer, less militaristic and more market oriented doesn't (by
default) bring added goodwill from a good number of Western establishment politicos and the
organizations which are greatly influenced by them.
On the subject of banning Russia from the Olympics, Canadian sports legal politico Dick
Pound, continues to rehash an inaccurate likening with no critical follow-up. (
An exception being yours truly .) Between
2016 and
2019 , Pound references the Olympic banning of South Africa, as a basis for excluding
Russia. South Africa was banned when it had apartheid policies, which prevented that country's
Black majority from competing in organized sports. Russia has a vast multiethnic participation
in sports and other sectors.
As previously noted , the factual premise to formally ban Russia from the Olympics remains
suspect. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is set to review Russia's appeal to have the
recommended WADA ban against Russia overturned, as Western mass media at large and sports
politicos like Pound continue to push for a CAS decision against Russia.
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy
day
in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia stepped
out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby restaurant, and
then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had happened to them? Did they
suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some dark
affaire
and the
object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an accidental victim?
The police received a call that day at
4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The Skripals
were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to look like
attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before they might know
what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided that
it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate a former
intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was released four
years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians," so the Tory
hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident in Salisbury, the
British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian government was the prime suspect
in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei Skripal.
On 12 March the
foreign secretary summoned
the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234, had
been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the Russian
government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian ambassador 24 hours to
respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any stockpiles of chemical weapons
or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime
minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a coma,
were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia
" (italics
added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into English
(beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to have produced
this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was "
highly likely
" that
the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister said in
the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or the
Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed
it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations were redolent of those in 2014
alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in the shooting down of Malaysian
Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine.
Within hours
of the destruction of MH 17, the United States
and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of being responsible.
The western
modus operandi
is
the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the
Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called
novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose
control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia
guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no
evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in
Alice
in Wonderland
.
On 13 March the Russian embassy informed
the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the Salisbury
incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The eloquent Russian
foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British dmarche as a "circus
show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that Russia would not respond to
such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the
poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our
experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal
Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqu: " The
[Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit
Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British
side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of
the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in
The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in
1997.
On 14 March the British government
expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British diplomats and
shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the British appealed to
their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries
did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to appease
the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to join the
stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled
sixty
diplomats and closed the
Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions and the closure of
the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a major confrontation. The
British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of
military action
.
In the meantime, President Putin weighed
in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and
nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian]
presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry,
investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to
Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a balloon, it
blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall apart almost from
the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper
Kommersant
leaked
a British PowerPoint presentation
sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted,
inter alia
,
that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified the substance,
which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia". Both these
statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not
determine the
origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the formula for making a
so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now
lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in 2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com
. In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright undergraduate
chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst those governments
having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The Russian embassy in London
noted in
a published report
that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent named
'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types of chemical
poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a series of new
chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by Russian expat
researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an attempt to artificially
link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation did
not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity" including,
inter alia
, the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the Ukraine and the
shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All of these claims are
audacious lies
, easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced events are also unrelated
to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the Russian Federation. In fact, the
British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda,
bourrage de crne
, as preposterous as
any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the
Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be directly
involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other evidence to try to
determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British government at first refused to
go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the Russian government to have access to
the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals. That idea is "perverse", said British
authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain
itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a
resolution to the executive council, that it should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the
required vote of approval. The British were
attempting to hijack
the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem has not worked.
On 12 April the OPCW released
a
report
stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the
identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said
nothing
about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British
accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I read
the OPCW communiqu, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used
against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW published report
avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it should have been instant
acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have survived at the time of this writing.
Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling
mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at
a
meeting in Moscow
provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a
substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant
acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have
developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so. Traces of A-234 were also
identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the A-234 agent would cause death to
anyone affected by it. "Moreover,"
according to the Russian embassy in London
, "considering its high volatility, the detection
of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious
as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh authorities have
tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a "toxic
chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a
well-known Swiss
lab
, which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus lied when they
said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical".
Unless
Porton
Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the OPCW,
or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve agent. The
British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the public report issued
on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO
countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain
the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorise
a false flag attack
against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the
prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of
evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A
prima facie
case can be made
that the British government is lying about the Skripal
affaire
. Suspicion always falls upon
those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical
smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which
explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government
appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times
published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire
across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror
put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These
stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that gullible?
The secret assassin's manual reminds me
of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany,
purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist
revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924
and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the
red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities
claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to
ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and
understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the
letter" was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if they
have something to hide. It is
dj vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth?
Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest that
the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police have sought
to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an
unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities access to a Russian citizen
in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any chapter of international law, which
the British government now respects? British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family
in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks
grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of
Manchurian Candidate? Have they induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new
identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her
father? Based on
a statement
attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it
begins to look that way
. Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a
fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that British authorities
are acting as though they have something to hide. Even
German
politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia. Damage control is
underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe
anything
the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that they
are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that
they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the
same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?
The Tories are trying doggedly to
maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied
deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilising European, indeed world peace and
security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British
electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who
risk to provoke war against the Russian Federation.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
May
OPCW
United Kingdom
Print this article
Michael Jabara Carley
April 18, 2018 |
World
The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy
day
in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia
stepped out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby
restaurant, and then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had
happened to them? Did they suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some
dark
affaire
and the object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an
accidental victim?
The police received a call that day
at 4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The
Skripals were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to
look like attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before
they might know what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided
that it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate
a former intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was
released four years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians,"
so the Tory hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident
in Salisbury, the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian
government was the prime suspect in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei
Skripal.
On 12 March the
foreign secretary summoned
the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234,
had been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the
Russian government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian
ambassador 24 hours to respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any
stockpiles of chemical weapons or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime
minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a
coma, were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia
"
(italics added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into
English (beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to
have produced this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was "
highly
likely
" that the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister
said in the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our
country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging
nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations
were redolent of those in 2014 alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in
the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine.
Within hours
of the
destruction of MH 17, the United States and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of
being responsible.
The western
modus operandi
is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum
to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the
so-called novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did
Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect
declared Russia guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no
presumption of innocence, no evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as
the Red Queen declared in
Alice in Wonderland
.
On 13 March the Russian embassy
informed the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the
Salisbury incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The
eloquent Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British
dmarche as a "circus show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that
Russia would not respond to such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to
provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister,
Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership,
about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic]
substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign
ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign
ministry in Moscow issued a communiqu: " The [Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another
crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive'
measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that."
The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of the Skripals should be
examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague,
according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in
1997.
On 14 March the British government
expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British
diplomats and shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the
British appealed to their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling
Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries
did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to
appease the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to
join the stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled
sixty
diplomats and
closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions
and the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a
major confrontation. The British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of
military action
.
In the meantime, President Putin
weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete
absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the
eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In
any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did
the trail of guilt lead to Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a
balloon, it blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall
apart almost from the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper
Kommersant
leaked
a British PowerPoint presentation
sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted,
inter
alia
, that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified
the substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia".
Both these statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not
determine the origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the
formula for making a so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and
chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in
2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com
. In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright
undergraduate chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst
those governments having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The
Russian embassy in London noted in
a published report
that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent
named 'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types
of chemical poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a
series of new chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by
Russian expat researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an
attempt to artificially link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation
did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity"
including,
inter alia
, the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the
Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All
of these claims are
audacious lies
, easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced
events are also unrelated to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the
Russian Federation. In fact, the British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda,
bourrage de crne
, as preposterous as any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the
Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be
directly involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other
evidence to try to determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British
government at first refused to go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the
Russian government to have access to the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals.
That idea is "perverse", said British authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure
laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the
Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a resolution to the executive council, that it
should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the required vote of approval. The British
were
attempting to
hijack
the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem
has not worked. On 12 April the OPCW released
a report
stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the
identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said
nothing
about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British
accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I
read the OPCW communiqu, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic
chemical used against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW
published report avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it
should have been instant acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have
survived at the time of this writing. Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a
simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at
a meeting in Moscow
provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced
with a substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than
an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO
countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so.
Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the
A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it. "Moreover,"
according to the Russian embassy in London
, "considering its high volatility, the detection
of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely
suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh
authorities have tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers
only to a "toxic chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the
substance to a
well-known
Swiss lab
, which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus
lied when they said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical".
Unless
Porton Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin,
and so informed the OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a
novichok nerve agent. The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its
independence, for the public report issued on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ
toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the
Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury,
did MI5 or MI6 authorise
a false flag attack
against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by
the prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail
of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A
prima facie
case can be
made that the British government is lying about the Skripal
affaire
. Suspicion always
falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and
rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret
evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the
British government appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times
published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire
across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror
put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual.
These stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman"
that gullible?
The secret assassin's manual
reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in
Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a
socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in
October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It
was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority
government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third
party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done
now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took
seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if
they have something to hide. It is
dj vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at
the truth? Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest
that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police
have sought to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered
Yulia Skripal to an unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities
access to a Russian citizen in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any
chapter of international law, which the British government now respects? British authorities
have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's
cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on
the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate? Have they
induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United
States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her father? Based on
a statement
attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it
begins to look that way
. Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite
simply a fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that
British authorities are acting as though they have something to hide. Even
German
politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia.
Damage control is underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to
think critically believe
anything
the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that
they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we
know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British,
but all the same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present
government in London?
To the top
2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic
Culture online journal
www.strategic-culture.org
.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
<div><img src="https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/10970266" alt=""/></div>
When the bullets start flying and the bombs start dropping, terrible things can happen
that no one has planned for. This is one of the great tragedies of war. Unintended
consequences and so-called "collateral damage."
"... What no one is mentioning is: the US airstrikes on Iraqi military bases, and Soleimani's murder contributed greatly to the hair trigger response of Iran's air defense forces. If Washington did not turn the heat up on both Iraq and Iran there would have been no need for Iran's retaliation, and thus the level of Iran's domestic defense forces would not have been so nervous as to pull the trigger downing the airliner. ..."
"... Former CIA high-ranking official accidentally reveals the type of the false flag operation that the US imperialists will orchestrate to start a war with Iran https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2020/01/former-cia-high-ranking-official.html ..."
"... It reminds me too much of MH-17, which was not hit with a BUK but with bullets. Iran should have closed its airspace because such tricks are to be expected, irrespective of the cause of the current accident. ..."
When the Pentagon confirmed the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, U.S.
President Donald Trump took to social media to post a single image of the American flag to the
adulation of his followers. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the other flag
synonymous with U.S. foreign policy, that of the 'false flag' utilized to deceive the public
and stir up support for endless war abroad. While the chicken hawk defenders of Trump's
reckless decision to murder one of the biggest contributors in the defeat of ISIS salivated
over possible war with Iran, their appetite was spoiled by Tehran's retaliatory precision
strikes of two U.S. bases in Iraq that deliberately avoided casualties while in accordance with
the Islamic Republic's right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations charter.
The reprisal successfully deescalated the crisis but sent a clear message Iran was willing to
stand up to the U.S. with the backing of Russia and China, while Washington underestimated
Tehran which forewarned the Iraqi government of its impending counterattack so U.S. personnel
could evacuate.
In the hours following the ballistic missile strikes, reports came in that a Boeing 737
international passenger flight scheduled from Tehran to Kiev, Ukraine had crashed shortly after
takeoff from Imam Khomeini International Airport, killing all 176 passengers and flight crew on
board. Initial video of the crash of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 (PS752) showed
that the aircraft was already in flames while descending to the ground, leading to speculation
it was shot down amid the heightened political crisis between Iran and Washington. In the days
following, a second obscure video surfaced which only increased this suspicion. Meanwhile,
Western governments quickly concluded that an anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile brought
PS752 down and were eager to point the finger at Iran before any formal investigation. Many
people, including this author, were admittedly skeptical as to how a plane taking off from
Tehran could have been mistaken five hours after the strikes in Iraq.
Nevertheless, those with reservations turned out to be wrong when days later the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) came clean that its aerospace forces made a "human error" and
accidentally shot the passenger plane down after mistaking it for a incoming cruise missile
when it flew close to a military base during a heightened state of alert in anticipation of
U.S. attack. Many have noted that Iran's honorable decision to take responsibility for the
catastrophe is in sharp contrast with Washington's response in 1988 when the U.S. Navy shot
down Iran Air Flight 655 scheduled from Tehran to Dubai over the Strait of Hormuz in the
Persian Gulf, killing all 290 occupants, after failing to cover it up. Just a month later, Vice
President George H.W. Bush would notoriously state he would " never apologize for the United
States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are ." Although he was not directly
referring to the incident, one can only imagine what the reaction would be if Iranian President
Hassan Rouhani were to say the same weeks after shooting down the Ukrainian plane, let alone an
American one. Predictably, Tehran's transparency has gone mostly unappreciated while the Trump
administration is already trying to use the disaster to further demonize Iran.
Oddly enough, Ukrainian International Airlines is partly owned by the infamous
Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch, politician and energy tycoon Igor Kolomoisky, who was notably one
of the biggest financiers of the anti-Russian, pro-EU coup d'etat which overthrew the
democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Kolomoisky is also a principal
backer of current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky whose dubious phone call with Trump
resulted in the 45th U.S. president's impeachment last month. In another astounding
coincidence, Kolomoisky's Privat Group is believed to control Burisma Holdings, the
Cypress-based company whose executive board 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter
was appointed to following the Maidan junta. The former Vice President admitted that he bribed
Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor who was looking into his son's corruption by threatening
to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees.
Kolomoisky, AKA "the Chameleon", is one of the wealthiest people in the ex-Soviet country
and was formerly appointed as governor of an administrative region bordering Donbass in eastern
Ukraine following the 2014 putsch. He has also funded a battalion of volunteer neo-Nazi
mercenaries fighting alongside the Ukrainian army in the War in Donbass against
Russian-speaking separatists which the military aid temporarily withheld by the Trump
administration that was disputably contingent upon an investigation of Biden and his son goes
to. In 2014, another infamous plane shootdown made international headlines when Malaysian
Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) scheduled from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over the
breakaway Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers and
crew.
From the get-go, the Obama administration was adamant that the missile which shot down the
Boeing 777 came from separatist rebel territory. However, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin
Mohamad denounced the charges brought against the Russian and Ukrainian nationals indicted in
the NATO-led investigation, dismissing the entire probe as a politically motivated effort
predetermined to scapegoat Moscow and exclude Malaysian participation in the inquiry from the
very beginning. Mohamad is featured in the excellent documentaryMH17: Call for Justice
made by a team of independent journalists which contests the NATO-scripted narrative and
reveals that the Buk missile was more likely launched from Ukrainian Army-controlled territory
than the DPR. One of Kolomoisky's hired guns could also have been responsible.
Shamefully, Iran's admission of guilt in the PS752 downing is already being used by
establishment propagandists to discredit skeptics and conflated with similar contested past
events like MH17 in order to intimidate dissenting voices from speaking up in the future. The
Bellingcat 'investigative journalism' collective which made its name incriminating Moscow for
the MH17 tragedy are the principle offenders. Bellingcat bills itself as an 'independent'
citizen journalism group even though its founder Eliot Higgins is employed by the Atlantic
Council think tank which receives funding from NATO, the U.S. State Department, the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros' Open Society Foundation NGO, and numerous other
regime change factories. Despite its enormous conflict of interest, Bellingcat remains highly
cited by corporate media as a supposedly reputable source. At the outset, nearly everything
about the PS752 tragedy gave one déjà vu of the MH17 disaster, including the rush
to judgement by Western governments, so it was only natural for many to distrust the official
narrative until more facts came out.
None of this changes that the use of commercial passenger jets as false flag targets for
U.S. national security subterfuge is a verifiable historical fact, not a 'conspiracy theory.'
In 1997, the U.S. National Archives declassified a 1962 memo proposed by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense for then-Secretary of State Robert McNamara entitled
" Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba ." The document outlined a series
of 'false flag' terrorist attacks, codenamed Operation Northwoods, to be carried out on a range
of targets and blamed on the Cuban government to give grounds for an invasion of Havana in
order to depose Fidel Castro. These scenarios included targets within the U.S., in particular
Miami, Florida, which had become a haven of right-wing émigrés and defectors
following the Cuban Revolution. In addition to the sinking of a Cuban refugee boat, one
Northwoods plan included the staging of attacks on a civilian jet airliner and a U.S. Air Force
plane to be pinned on Castro's government:
"8. It is possible to create and incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban
aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States
to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the
flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a
non-scheduled flight.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban
MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack."
Although Operation Northwoods was rejected by then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy which many
believe was a factor in his subsequent assassination, Cuban exiles with the support of U.S.
intelligence would later be implicated in such an attack the following decade with the bombing
of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in 1976 which killed all 73 passengers and crew on board. In
2005, documents released by the
National Security Archive showed that the CIA under then-director George H.W. Bush had advanced
knowledge of the plans of a Dominican Republic-based Cuban exile terrorist organization, the
Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), at the direction of former CIA
operative Luis Posada Carriles to blow up the airliner. The U.S. later refused to extradite
Carriles to Cuba to face charges and although he never admitted to masterminding the bombing of
the jet, he publicly confessed to other attacks on tourist hotels in Cuba during the 1990s and
was later arrested in 2000 for attempting to blow up an auditorium in Panama trying to
assassinate Castro.
In 1962, the planners of Operation Northwoods concluded that such deceptive operations would
shift U.S. public opinion unanimously against Cuba.
"World opinion and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the
international image of Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and
unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."
The same talking points are used by the U.S. government to demonize Iran today. Initially,
some Western intelligence sources also
concluded that it was a malfunction or overheated engine that brought PS752 down in
corroboration with the Iranian government's original explanation until the narrative abruptly
shifted the following day. That they were so quick to hold Iran accountable without any
investigation gave the apparent likelihood that PS752 could have fallen prey to a
Northwoods-style false flag operation designed to further isolate Iran and defame its leaders
after they took precautions to avoid U.S. casualties in their retaliatory strikes for the
killing of Soleimani. Maintaining the image of Iran as a nefarious regime is crucial in
justifying hawkish U.S. policies toward the country and Iran's noted restraint in its
retaliation put a dent in that impression, so many were suspicious and rightly so.
It was also entirely plausible that U.S. special operations planners could have consulted
the Northwoods playbook replacing Cuba with Iran and the right-wing gusanos who were to assist
the staged attacks in Miami with the Iranian opposition group known as Mujahedin e-Khalq
(MEK/People's Mujahedin of Iran) to do the same in Tehran. In July of last year, Trump's
personal lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gave a paid speech at the
cult-like group's compound in Albania where he not only referred to the group as Iran's
"government-in-exile" but stated
the U.S's explicit intentions to use them for regime change in Iran. The MEK enjoys high level
contacts in the Trump administration and the group was elated at his decision to murder
Soleimani in Baghdad.
From 1997 until 2012, the MEK was on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations
until it was removed by the Obama administration after its expulsion from Iraq in order to
relocate the group to fortified bases in Albania and the NATO protectorate of Kosovo. The
latter disputed territory is a perfect fit for the rebranded group having been founded by
another deregistered foreign terrorist organization, the al-Qaeda linked Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA), whose leader, Hashim Thaçi, presides over the partially-recognized state. The MEK
are no longer designated as such despite the State Department's own account of its
bloody history:
"During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran to destabilize and
embarrass the Shah's regime; the group killed several US military personnel and civilians
working on defense projects in Tehran. The group also supported the takeover in 1979 of the
US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 the MEK carried out attacks on Iranian embassies in 13
different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations
overseas."
Declassified documents revealing the sinister plans in Operation Northwoods which shockingly
made it all the way to the desk of the president of the United States and the foreknowledge of
Cubana Airlines Flight 455 are just two examples of solid proof that false flag attacks against
civilian passenger planes are a part of the Pentagon's modus operandi as disclosed in its own
archives and there is no reason to believe that such practices have been discontinued. That the
U.S. is still cozy with "former" terror groups like MEK seeking to repatriate is good reason to
believe its use of militant exiles for covert operations like those from Havana has not been
retired. If there were jumps to conclusions that proven serial liars could be looking for an
excuse to stage an attack to lay the blame on Iran, it is only because the distinct probability
was overwhelming. Even so, a stopped clock strikes the right time twice per day and that is
all Iran's acknowledgment of its liability proves -- that even the world's most
unreliable and criminal sources in Washington and Langley can be accurate sometimes
What no one is mentioning is: the US airstrikes on Iraqi military bases, and Soleimani's
murder contributed greatly to the hair trigger response of Iran's air defense forces. If
Washington did not turn the heat up on both Iraq and Iran there would have been no need for
Iran's retaliation, and thus the level of Iran's domestic defense forces would not have been
so nervous as to pull the trigger downing the airliner.
But, if's a huge word.
Israel has had control of Iran's Russian middle systems for years. Russia gave them the
codes.
I think Israel blew up the aircraft. I can't find a link but I heard a huge number of
Soleimani loyalists were arrested in Iran. Someone should have a link to that from Twitter or
somewhere.
I think that there was some kind of collaboration between Khamenei, Israel and the US to
remove Soleimani who had designs on a coup.
I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.
I also don't know who was on that plane. So it's unclear if it was good or bad it was
destroyed. Who knows who those 176 dual Iranian Nationals were.
I just know that if Israel had control of those missile units and it would embarrass Iran
for that to be revealed it makes sense for Iran to claim the lesser of two deep shames.
Particularly if there has been some kind of tacit acceptance of a status as a vassal state
to either the US or Israel behind the scenes to preserve the regime.
Perhaps the MEK or a different vassal ruler who is really crypto Jewish will be appointed
in Solemeinis place, and Iran will hence offer a symbolic enemy to justify the continuation
of the military industrial complex in both Israel and the US.
Even a blind squirrel, even a broken clock twice a day.. The Empire's statements and blind
accusations could have been for any tragedy in a country they were psyopsing, only a matter
of chance for them to be right at some time. In any case, it wasn't intentional on Iran's
part.
Only if accidental means a joint Russian/Iranian hit on a Ukrainian plane carrying fleeing
cia/mossad agents.
This whole situation has once again displayed how easy it is for the zio-media to control
what we see and hear and believe. Disturbingly, that means that things like metoo and
"believe all women" are operations too.
@the grand wazoo I wouldn't be surprised it the FDR shows that the plane strayed off its
registered Flightpath and was involved in a covert recon mission that went bad.
It reminds me too much of MH-17, which was not hit with a BUK but with bullets. Iran should have closed its airspace
because such tricks are to be expected, irrespective of the cause of the current accident. There is no immediate reason
for Iranians to fly to Ukraine, or anywhere else. It may sound silly but flying is still a special and dangerous thing and
should not be taken for granted.
For someone who doesn't watch television or read Iranian newspapers it was only reported
on Twitter and then repeated by PressTV and others on internet. Which parts of the story are
real?
Of course, it was a huge and most regrettable mistake. Doubtless, the Iranians will
compensate the victims for what that is worth. Most of the passengers were Iranians. I
suspect that many of the "Canadians" Trudeau is on about are of Iranian descent. They would
certainly be considered to be Iranians in Iran.
The series of coincidences highlighted in this article are remarkable. It has
synchronicity splashed all over it.
I worked at Tehran airport for some years prior to the Revolution. After the Revolution, I
volunteered to return on behalf of Raytheon (of all companies) to get some money owing. No
one else was prepared to go there. Iran Air personnel were delighted to meet me again and
they promptly paid the bill. I took a holiday to the Caspian with my ex-girlfriend.
A further piece of synchronicity is that I am currently visiting Kiev. The world is a
truly incestuous place.
Set aside the beatup of two operations that neither the CIA or any American agency carried
out the author has apparently failed to see the obvious. That is that the Iranians had no
possibility of covering up the missile strike. Or did he imagine that everyone who might tell
the truth could be kept permanently separated from plane parts and bodies which would have
shown unmistakeable and undeniable evidences of the strike.
"... The 16-month study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) called Iran's Networks of Influence claims that the networks, including Shia militias fighting in what it says is a "grey zone", for instance, are something Iran heavily relies on, even to a greater extent than conventional military forces. ..."
"... Although the report concedes that overall military balance is still in favor of the US and allies, the balance of effective forces has shifted towards Iran and is currently in the Islamic Republic's favour. The study goes on to claim that "Iran is fighting and winning wars 'fought amongst the people', not wars between states". ..."
"... The study has also come up with a number of calculations: the extraterritorial al-Quds force and various militias reportedly amount to 200,000 fighters. Meanwhile, the total cost of Iran's activities in Iraq and Yemen was $16 billion, and Lebanon's Hezbollah reportedly receives $700 million in grants from the Islamic Republic. ..."
A fresh in-depth study of Iran's military capabilities and balance of power in the embattled
Middle East has assumed that regional wars are being waged on two layers - between states and
in a so-called "grey zone", where no conventional force can counterbalance Iran's sovereign
dominance. As one of the most detailed assessments of Iran's military strategy suggests, the
Islamic Republic's "third party capability" has becomes Tehran's most prominent weapon of
choice.
The 16-month study by the International
Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) called Iran's Networks of Influence claims that the
networks, including Shia militias fighting in what it says is a "grey zone", for instance, are
something Iran heavily relies on, even to a greater extent than conventional military
forces.
The network is said to be operating differently in most countries, having been designed by
Tehran as a key means of countering regional instability and international pressure alike, with
the policy "having consistently delivered Iran advantage without the cost or risk of direct
confrontation with adversaries".
Although the report concedes that overall military balance is still in favor of the US and
allies, the balance of effective forces has shifted towards Iran and is currently in the
Islamic Republic's favour. The study goes on to claim that "Iran is fighting and winning wars
'fought amongst the people', not wars between states".
The report details at length the balance of power in the region painting it as "complex and
congested battle spaces involving no rule of law or accountability, low visibility and
multiple players who represent a mosaic of local and regional interests".
The study has also come up with a number of calculations: the extraterritorial al-Quds force
and various militias reportedly amount to 200,000 fighters. Meanwhile, the total cost of Iran's
activities in Iraq and Yemen was $16 billion, and Lebanon's Hezbollah reportedly receives $700
million in grants from the Islamic Republic.
The report comes as Iran continues to battle US-imposed economic sanctions, which closely
followed Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in
May 2018.
On 8 May, the first anniversary of the move, Tehran announced that it would start
scrapping its nuclear obligations stipulated by the JCPOA every 60 days unless European
signatories did their best to save the agreement, safeguarding Iran's interests amid
Washington's re-imposed sanctions.
Boeing's is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one
has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it
"uninterruptible" -- so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off -- but it can be
activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies.
Patrick Laforet
•
19 hours ago This is an interesting article on the possible causes and motivations of the
downing of the Boeing in Iran. It's clear that when we ask the question "Who benefits greatly
from this event", we are forced to say the US. (Google translation is decent)
.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE UKRAINIAN BOEING KILLED (show down) IN IRAN
.
https://inforuss.info/chto-...
Yeah, an airliner shootdown because the (tired, stressed, undertrained) SAM operators fucked
up. Fuckups are inherent to military operations in wartime, peacetime often enough too, and
the time of this accident was both combined, and that certainly made it likelier to happen,
too, dammit.
I am pleased to see Iran assume responsibility, promptly enough I reckon, for the
shootdown. I trust it will be writing suitable sized checks to the heirs, and one to the
Ukrainian airline too. About all that can be done; something that needs doing for everyone's
sake.
Iran's assuming responsibility for its shootdown of a civilian airliner by accident
contrasts to ours'.* The USA still is dodging its responsibility for the 1980 Itavia DC-9
shootdown. Most nobody in the USA knows about that incident, but I am told it remains an
ongoing sore/issue in Italy/Italian politics. My piece from years ago is here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/21/jimmy-carter-in-austin/
. Since writing this, I wrote Mr. Carter via the Carter Library and via his church in Plains,
GA, but never heard back. Unpleasant conclusions about Mr. Carter's integrity must be drawn
from this. And similar conclusions about the USA's, and its people's.
My condolences to the families.
Daniel N. White
*Yeah, and the French Navy and nation, too. Apparently back in '68 the French Navy
inadvertently shot down an Air France Caravelle over the Med. Immediate hiding of information
and physical evidence started and continues to this day. [Did you think I'd pass up this
opportunity to kick the French?]
When I compare these, it appears that the IRGC estimate of where the missile hit is WELL
AFTER transmission of flight data has ended.
Also, logically, a plane climbing a short distance from an airport should not resemble a
drone. Might an operator assume a drone if the plane were DESCENDING?
Thus, there's the possibility of a scenario where a bomb under the cockpit causes
the plane to start descending and the IRGC fire a missile as a because the plane's descent
causes the operator to surmise that it is a drone instead of a plane.
Might there have been a bomb AND missile hit?
Note: This possibility arises only because of what seems to be a mismatch in the data from
the airplane and the IRGC's estimate of where the plane was hit. Perhaps IRGC's graphic is
incorrect?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Aside: AFAICT the plane wasn'tturning back to the airport ! It was
on a normal flight path which turned slightly but that turning was apparently exacerbated
after the plane was hit. That increased turning made it SEEM like it was turning back to the
airport.
Many of you still seemed perplexed as to why Iran allowed commercial flights to go on during
such a potentially tense time. Let me make it clear for everyone, they were tricked by the
ZioAmericans. Basically, the Iranians were allowed to get their " face saving attack " on the
Americans while thinking this would be the end of the whole episode. Little did they suspect
that the US had prepared the Ukrainian plane scenario followed by instantaneous protests. The
Iranians walked into a trap.
- Swiss Back Channel Helped Defuse U.S.-Iran Crisis -
The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate,
followed by a flurry of back and forth messages -
@Vasco da Gama Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided here. It is not accurate
to claim only Tehran was restricted:
Exactly. And if the Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority had followed the FAA lead and
grounded its aircraft in Iran , the Ukraine Air aircraft would not have gotten shot
down .
The Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority didn't exactly perform well either.
@Fog Of War Many of you still seemed perplexed as to why Iran allowed commercial flights to go on
during such a potentially tense time. Let me make it clear for everyone, they were tricked by
the ZioAmericans.
A more plausible reason is here . The relevant except
follows:
"The first thing a country should do in case of escalation of the military conflict is to
close the sky for civilian flights," said retired Ukrainian Gen. Ihor Romanenko, a military
analyst. " But this entails serious financial losses , fines and forfeits, therefore a
cynical approach prevailed in Iran."
CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:25 utc |
379Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 5:52 utc |
380
Jackrabbit 368 "Aside: AFAICT the plane wasn't turning back to the airport! It was on a
normal flight path which turned slightly but that turning was apparently exacerbated after
the plane was hit. That increased turning made it SEEM like it was turning back to the
airport."
From the Ukraine description of the damage, the pilots would be unlikely to have any
control over the plane even if they were not dead or incapacitated. From my understanding the
aircraft was on its way back to the airport when it crashed.
Iran government was intitaly very sure the aircraft came down due to a tehnical problem which
makes me think the pilots radioed in that they had a problem before they were hit. This is
why I think the plane was hit after the turn back to the airport.
if they turn back to the the airport brought the plane to where it was facing the military
site during the turn this may have caused the airdefence crew to fire. Already on high alert,
their coms down and perhaps the planes transponder stops transmitting whould be more than
enough suspition to down the aircraft.
A preplanned operation that cut air defence coms and disabled the aircraft (as in cut one
engine plus transponder) at the same time.
In b's previous piece on the aircraft, b had this to say "The airplane climbed out of Tehran
airport in a rather straight line. The teams that man the Tor systems around Tehran must be
used to the regular radar track of civil planes coming out of Tehran airport. That makes an
accidental launch somewhat unlikely."
This is still very relevent. Something about that flight was different causing the Tor
crew to fire. A sudden turn back to the airport along with trasponder transmissions stopping
and air defence comms down would cause this.
The Iranian apologia is a masterclass in grace..
Unfortunately the courage to admit responsibility is not understood as a civilised response,
but that is what one expects from barbarians.
Iran has admitted that it shot down the plane. Perhaps that was the intention of this
tragedy.
Do you remember how it was in Tehran in the election year of 2008?
Luce Ducet of the BBC was on the streets spruiking for the Iranian "colour revolution". But
Amadenijad won regardless.
They are trying it again but it won't work. Never does.
However there will be chaos and that has proven to be tremendously profitable.
DontBelieveEitherPr.@214 ( and other recent trolls)
Please do us a favor by helping with the following issues:
(1) list all countries invaded by the US compared to Iran. Each instance of an invasion of
a given country is required as some countries were invaded several times;
(2) In the last 200 years list all countries overthrown by a coup by the US and its
proxy's compared to Iran;
After failing in this simple task go back commenting somewhere else...
There are still a couple of things that bother me about this.
1.) is that for those of you who are saying it would be hard to distinguish an incoming
enemy plane from a commercial airliner such as Pometheus @ 178 who said:
6) A RADAR signature CANNOT distinguish a commercial airline aircraft from a military
aircraft - especially since some military aircraft use 737 airframes.
would that also apply to a cruise missile? That is, would it also be difficult to
distinguish between a commercial airliner and a cruise missile? Because, from what I've seen,
that's the claim that's being made -- that the SAM operator responsible for launching the
missile against the airliner was on high alert due to warnings of possible cruise missile
launches against Iran and that he mistook the target for a cruise missile -- or at least
suspected that it was -- which, according to the narrative, is why he only had a 10-second
window within which to make the decision to launch and why when there were "communication
problems" that prevented him from getting a hold of his superiors, he had to basically flip a
coin -- and unfortunately made the wrong choice. Now, I don't know if this narrative is still
current, because what I read did say this account was an "early assessment", but if it is, if
it's still what they're saying -- is it plausible? is what I'm asking. Or would this
represent a hole in their narrative? Maybe someone on here could clarify this for me?
Possibly Prometheus?
The other thing that bugs me, is who took the footage of the plane actually being hit? How
did he know to train his camera in that direction at that particular place and time? Is it
somebody who just hangs around and films planes that happen to be passing by? Or is it some
camera that is maybe in a fixed position, like a security camera, that just happened to pick
this up? (and actually, I have to say, it doesn't look like security camera footage to me) Or
what? Because it is conceivable that this could indicate foreknowledge... which, of course,
would indicate a planned event as opposed to an accident. Maybe someone could shed light on
this for me as well?
But because of my lingering doubts I have also entertained the possibility raised by paul
@ 188 that the Iranians may be lying about this in order to prevent (what would be certain)
further escalation. What better way to defuse the situation than by claiming it was all just
an unfortunate accident? (I guess what I have in mind is that it could have conceivably been
an MEK, CIA, Mossad operation timed to eclipse the Soleimani and al-Muhandis murder stories
and also further their campaign of escalation against Iran.)
Of course, I'm not maintaining that it's the case, necessarily. But the possibility did
cross my mind even before I came across paul @ 188's comment. And there are some obvious
problems with this narrative as well... which I probably don't need to go into here. But
whatever the case may be, I'd still like an answer to the misgivings I raised above... if
someone could shed light on them, I'd appreciate it.
Speculation: The cases with planes turned into weapons all seem to be Boeings and not
Airbuses if I am not mistaken, 4 Boeings @ 911 plus this one (PS752). You could argue that
MH370 (vanished) and MH17 (altered flight path) possibly also fall into this category, they
were Boeing planes. So a guess is that the Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP) plays a
role in some or all of these cases, and possibly other ones as well.
If BUAP was used to disable the PS752 pilots + all communication and then switch off one
engine during full throttle take-off, what does that do to the flight path? Perhaps an
interesting flight simulator exercise, but it would obviously turn. As others have pointed
out, a civilian plane does not have IFF and will therefore be identified as hostile when it
suddenly appears in front of a Tor-M1 battery because it was made to turn.
A detailed time-line would be useful, i.e. times for take-off, communication loss, when
the plane started turning, missile launch, missile hit, final crash. It could possibly narrow
the field of possibilities.
"I don't think it is beyond the US to have used the opportunity to test Iranian
radars."
Remember the Soviet downing of Flight KAL 007 back in September '83. The fear of WW3 then
was just as real as what we experienced last week. The US purposefully confused KAL 007's
identity by flying RC-135 reconnaissance flights near it before its reaching Soviet airspace
(both are Boeing, easy to mistake for each other). Some have mentioned that the pilot was
Korean CIA. Either way the US got invaluable data on Soviet air defenses by its incursion
near Vladivostok, and the USSR was attacked by the capitalist media afterward just as Iran is
now.
Whether via hacking or sabotage of the plane, transponder or IFF (e.g., as Peter AU1
outlines @232) or something else entirely, this kind of action or outright weaponization of
Ukrainian flight PS 752 is a possibility here as well.
ps -- massive thanks to bevin for very powerful comments @30 and @242.
Indeed it is speculation but that sometimes has its place to help break up the
mass-programming going on.
Remote drone control and flight by instruments are very close in technologies and one
could easily imagine
the inbuilt functions and back-doors provided in modern aircraft -- especially Boeing
variants for the obvious reasons.
Full-spectrum dominance (control when needed) has a meaning.
The IT technology for running total virtual computing systems were in commercial use in
the 1970s.
[e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_(operating_system)]
Today's modern commercial aircraft are almost entirely software driven and therefore simply
another virtual
machine. Flight simulators clearly operate on this principle.
I would suggest that MH370 night flight was more likely the class case study with a tribe
of top Chinese technologists being
re-routed on a flight out of Malaysia to "Paradise Island" (Diego Garcia) before the plane
was either ditched into the Indian
Ocean or re-cycled as a convenient relabeled option etc. In fact, from memory there were
several interesting scenarios around
MH17 that included cadavers and other features. I'm not sure where these ended up in the
wash.
The point being that unless there is something out the window in the real world to verify
against (like position of sun etc)
then I'm sure for military purposes a large airliner could be totally enclosed in a virtual
world simulation from the crew and
passenger perspective -- and quite possibly also satellite tracking for engine monitoring by
suppliers.
Before MH370 and MH17 Malaysia was being rather difficult and independent (and critical of
the Occupation of Palestine).
Apart from the geopolitical impacts, just the subsequent commercial impact on Malaysian
Airlines brought a rather
sudden silence, compliance and silence from the Malaysian quarter. And here we are again,
perhaps, simply a new cast of
actors as victims etc.
It is correct that the FAA ban relates to the region and not just Tehran (FIR Tehran). I had
checked that after my comment. It is still pointing to the fact that, as confirmed by
statements by Iran, that there was a lot of movement in the airspace around Iran and possibly
in Iran, and that civilian planes could be affected by misidentification - just the way it
happened, but with almost 150 Iranians on board of the plane (some with dual citizenships).
In my view, it is not feasible to assume the US did not respond to the Iranian strikes. The
US hit hard and fast, just as Trump had said. The US outmaneuvered Iran from an angle they
were not prepared for, right inside Iran, right in Tehran. The US come out of this clean. The
lack of an overt response to the Iranian strikes can't be emphasized enough; same goes for
the involvement of the CIA with Pompeo and Haspel.
Iran has been seduced by Trump and the illusory promise of symbolic actions/theatre. Iran
has lost the phony war because it failed to see the US is not just a unwelcome visitor that
will leave the Middle East when they are made to feel uncomfortable. The US cannot leave
the Middle East because it would destroy itself if it did so.
I don't agree with your first proposition. I don't even think it is possible for Iran to
have any illusions as to what they are up against militarily or the idiocy and malevolence of
the USA. They are also aware of the near term chance to fracture the continuity of Trump as
President and hope for a better or vaguely smarter person. If there is symbolism, then the
Iranians made it clear 'this is a slap in the face'. That means an initial gesture of
displeasure or challenge to a duel perhaps. It is not the revenge the Iranians have promised
to extract from the occupying forces of the five eyes plus NATO plus Saudi sponsored ISIS. I
anticipate there will soon be stage two of the vengeance extraction.
The USA will leave the Middle East either in tatters or with a smart withdrawal. The
battlefield has just enlarged and entered new and murderous dimensions (thanks mainly to the
assassination strategy of the USA) much as it did in Vietnam after the French were
slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu. This will take some time to play out and there may be no victor
but there will be a withdrawal of the USA.
You say the USA cannot withdraw due to its dependence on petrodollar cover of its
currency. I say it has very little choice. The entire Shia and even perhaps some mighty angry
Sunni are keen to kick the USA cadaver about the public square.
Osama Bin Laden was Sunni!! The forces of the USA are diustributed throughout the Sunni
lands at their invitation ;- the USA occupies Sunni holy lands: this from NEO-
As of now, the US has 5,000 troops in the UAE; 7,000 in Bahrain; above 13,000 in Kuwait;
3,00o in Jordan; 3,000 in Saudi Arabia; 10,000 in Qatar; 5,000 in Iraq; around 1,000 in
Syria -- all of course well within the range of Iranian missiles, making them an extremely
attractive targets for the Iranian forces.
Only in Iraq, about 5,000 US troops could very well be sitting ducks if the Popular
Mobilisation Forces were to launch a war of attrition. If history is any guide to future,
it might be unrealistic to completely rule out a replay of the 1983 Beirut barracks
bombings
The USA can huff and puff as much as it likes but I suspect they will be displeased and
shaken shitless if a couple of the vessels docked in Bahrain only a few kilometers from Iran
suddenly are sitting on the seabed.
What is revenge ADKC? What if the new leader of Oman is persuaded to end the invasion of
Yemen? This could leave the USA badly shaken. There is no certainty that the long war of
revenge will produce good results for Iran but any other course would be craven surrender to
both the USA and its Sunni running dogs and the Israeli paper tiger.
A shadowy tech firm with deep ties to Israeli intelligence and newly inked contracts to
protect Pentagon computers is partnering with Lockheed Martin to gain unprecedented access to
the heart of America's democracy.
There is the possibility of the uninterruptible auto pilot. It does exist but information
on if
it is installed in many Boeing planes is vague. Others here have mentioned the number of
incidents
Boeing aircraft have been involved in. I had thought of MH17 and MH370 but there is also 9 11
and
the Korean flight into soviet airspace. Many of the boeing aircraft are mechanical with
hydraulic
assist controls so it would require something like the uninterruptible auto pilot to
completely
take over the plane from the ground.
The Ukrainian NG has the mechanical controls, but its engines are computer controlled as are
some other
functions in the aircraft plus I believe the aircraft has an automated data link back to
boeing. This may
well have been sufficient for Boeing to turn of the Transponder and cut an engine so the
plane would turn
towards the military site. This would be more than sufficient to ensure the downing of the
aircraft under
the circumstances.
With an engine down the pilot would have immediately notified air traffic control and say he
was turning back.
This would also explain why the Iranian government were initially certain the crash was due
to technical issues.
Israel wants the US to take out any Iranian nuclear programme. The escalation needed for
such a hit was the only way to do that for Trump. Congress would never approve.
My guess is that Bushehr strikes failed to make an impression whatever they were intended
to hit, so it is back to regime change.
If it could ever be proven that Boeing planes are being used as RC weaponized drones, the
fallout would be epic.
Posted by: Sorghum | Jan 11 2020 23:18 utc | 312
No. It is enough to prove than one can switch off the transponder from a remote
place. I have told in case you fly some aircraft over Germany and switch off the
transponder it would take 2 minutes till you accompanied by a fighter jet.
Boeing's "uninterruptible" autopilot "would be activated ... remotely via radio or satellite
links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency."
Not sure how long this lasts before someone messes it up with a mile long link. Why b does
not delete comments that disrupt the formatting is a good question.
In any event Iran played right into the US -Israeli hands. They should not have responded.
I said at the outset they would be smart not to. They simply should have followed protocol
under international law (feeble and futile as it would be). They accomplished nothing with
their missiles and showed weakness (30% missed or were duds) If they felt the need to
retaliate it should have been a covert op that provided plausible deniability.
I'm still baffled at the airline shoot down. Radar should have shown that the Boeing 737
was on a commonly used flight path heading away from the airport -- if it was inbound into
the country it would be easier to explain misidentification . The Boeing 737 should have been
transmitting a transponder identification code. If the equipment that picks that up, called
an IFF interrogator, was malfunctioning, battery operators would have considered the path and
speed of the plane on radar. The Flight was rising toward 8,000 feet at a leisurely 275 knots
when flight tracking data from its transponder cut out, a normal profile for an airliner. So
it is departing the area, climbing through medium altitude, not trying to hide its signature,
looking like a routine operation and its shot down?
I'd say if they shot this plane down they are a mess and that perhaps there are some
disloyal elements within the military who might want change and seized the opportunity to
make them look bad. Sanctions take a toll on moral and support of the people. Thats the
intention. Maybe its working.
I am sure the US and Israel will be ready to jump in and help restore peace and help with
reconstruction after the coming revolution. That wont be cheap so we (they) will have to get
50% of the oil/gas, and maybe a Trump Tower in Tehran (after he leaves office).
The Iranian "slap in The face" was effectively arranged with the US. What does that
mean?
The assassination of Soliemani was not a stupid irrational act - it was a warning to Iran,
Iraq and Iran that there will be no rapproachment. What does that mean for the likelihood of
Oman taking a stand against US interests?
You dismiss the petrodollar as it if has no real bearing, but it is everything - without
the petrodollar the US crumbles. And, what you also fail to realise is that the US cannot
extract itself from the petrodollar therefore it US trapped and compelled to to do anything
it can to defend the petrodollar.
Mao the uninterruptible auto pilot in the 21stcenturywire article is for fly by wire
aircraft. Airbus are fly by wire as are some boeing models, but the 737s, apart from engine
controls are not. 737 Max has fly by wire spoilers. On a fly by wire all that is required is
to override or replace pilot input signals into the computer to take control of the flight
controls.
The article speaks of embedded software being the uninterruptible auto pilot.
Nobody is asking questions why didn't Iran close down their airspace if they were expecting
retaliation, perhaps because they needed a human shield in case Americans attacked? And they
were expecting retaliation that is what the IRGC said.
i'm still not sure if some kind of hacking or cyberattack messed up the ability of iranian
defense to respond to the plane. at any rate, the ultimate responsibility lies with the u.s.
and israel who want regime change in iran and have tried to achieve that for decades.
@pretzelattack Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the
Islamic Revolution. Most likely Iranian defenses got hacked, their communications lines were
down, but that does not excuse them for not closing the airspace (perhaps they needed a human
shield in case Americans attacked).
People here writing stuff as if Iran and Russia are like ww2 allies. No they are not, even
Putin said Russia is never going to allied herself with 1 country against another country in
the middle east, that means Putin's Russia is seeking equilibrium in the middle east. It
explains why Russia hesitated (after selling) to deliver the S-300 as agreed to Iran, while
willing to sell S-400 to Iraq. That is because Russia wants the whole Middle East to be able
to defend themselves against USA/Zionists and against each other -- that is equilibrium.
they could have just screwed up, too, dave. that happens in war. that doesn't put them on
some kind of equal footing with the u.s. and israel. iran hasn't attacked any other countries
that i know of, what have they done exactly to topple other governments anywhere?
@pretzelattack On what planet have you been living? Iran has been trying to export their
Islamic revolution throughout the region and elsewhere where there are muslims ever since
1979. Iran has a neo-con and a conservative faction. The neo-cons are radicals who are
seeking worldwide Islamic Revolution, the conservatives want to keep their revolution within
their own borders, it is like Stalin vs Trotsky, Stalin wanted communism in 1 country,
Trotsky wanted world wide revolution.
dave
You have just been spreading shit that it was never delivered. Upgraded S-300 systems were
delivered to Iran as soon as UNSC nuclear related sanctions were lifted.
@pretzelattack No they haven't screwed up, they (Iranian government) denied IRQGC's request
to close down the airspace. Same thing as with Ukraine, Ukraine did not close down their
airspace while they knew beforehand (as has been proven by news articles before the MH17
shootdown) there was a BUK in hands of rebels (if that news is true), the rebels were also
actively shooting down military jets with manpads. Yet the Ukraine did not close down the
airspace, they were using the airliners as human shield as has been proven by the fact their
jets were shadowing the airliners.
"Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic
Revolution."
1. Which governments was Iran at odds with other than Western colonial stooges working for
Western imperial goals? Which leads to:
2. Any attempted "export" by Iran has been clear-cut self defense against relentlessly
aggressive Western exportation of imperial globalized capitalism. It's even more clear-cut
one-way US/Western aggression than in the case of the Cold War. Iran's 20th century
experiences with Western aggression in all forms is far more than enough to justify anything
they have done in response, which in any event has been relatively very modest.
415
"People here writing stuff as if Iran and Russia are like ww2 allies."
They may not be natural "allies", but they've long had a shared enemy in Western
imperialism in the Mideast. They still have that shared interest, which is becoming
increasingly existential whether Putin or the Iranians want to admit that to themselves or
not. I know this berserker US government. It ain't going home willingly. It's not going to go
gentle into that goodnight.
dave, i didn't say anything about closing down the airspace, although that could be another
screwup; i was talking about shooting down the plane. but since you bring it up, do you have
any evidence they were using planes as human shields, or any evidence about how the airspace
was not closed in the first place? still waiting on the questions of what governments iran
has tried to overthrow and how.
This is infuriating i just receieved an emergency alert regarding the picker nuclear power
plant telling me to watch local media yet cbc news still has no information what happend in
pickering its still wall to wall coverage of ithe iran air crash disaster
@pretzelattack Though nothing compared to what the Americans have been doing, they were
spreading their Islamic ideology throughout the region ever since the Islamic revolution of
1979, by exporting the concept of suicide bombings to the Palestinian areas (Hamas, Islamic
Jihad), their involvement with Yemen where houthi are trying to overthrow their government,
they have been involved in Bosnia. The middle east has seen a Islamic revival thanks to the
Iranians and the Americans who needed an Islamic block against secular and socialist block of
the 3rd world and 2nd world.
"Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic
Revolution."
There wasn't any export that I was aware of. And certainly not regime change. The only
question was the Shi'a of Iraq, and Sistani rejected the Iranian model of vilayat-i
faqih.
@pretzelattack not closing down airspace while IRGC has asked for it because of possible
retaliation, that to me sounds like their politicians wanted victims at the hands of the
Americans in front of the world (for propaganda purposes). That is the same as in Sarajevo
where Bosnian Muslim government forces placed heavy weaponry in the middle of the heavily
populated city targeting Serb villages/positions around the city. That is classic human
shield against enemy retaliation, also good for propaganda purposes and world opinion in case
the enemy retaliates and creates casualties among civilians. UNPROFOR commander got really
angry at the Bosnian forces and demanded withdrawal of the heavy weaponry from the heavily
populated area, the UNPROFOR commander even threatened to bomb Bosnian Muslim positions
because of this provocation by the Bosnian Muslim government forces.
the yemenis are being slaughtered by the saudis, i don't see the iran aid as regime change.
and the u.s. had a secular block against the socialist world in saddam till they threw him
under the bus. i'm not sure who came up with the idea of suicide bombing, but i don't
associate it specifically with iran. it's just another tactic, no more objectionable than
pushing typing something on a keyboard half a world away and blowing somebody up by drone,
and i don't see how it relates specifically to iran trying to overthrow other governments. i
don't support iran's theocratic leanings, but my impression is that prior to the u.s. and
u.k. deposing mossaddegh iran was more of an inward looking country.
"The middle east has seen a Islamic revival thanks to the Iranians and the Americans who
needed an Islamic block against secular and socialist block of the 3rd world and 2nd
world."
Yes indeed, the Arabs and the Mideast in general originally wanted to go the route of
secular nationalism and only turned to a more religious-oriented movement when the West made
nationalist progress impossible. Islamic radicalism wasn't their first choice. From what I've
read it sounds like Sayyid Qutb originally had less of an audience than my obscure blog. But
they came to realize it was their only effective option.
That, too, is 100% on the West. All fundamentalisms are modern movements of reaction
against the aggression of other movements within modernity, most obviously Western cultural,
economic, military imperialism.
The US drove the Yugoslav firestorm by unilaterally recognizing Bosnian independence while
the UN was still trying to work out a negotiated settlement. The US egged them on by implying
or promising military support. The Bosnians were more like pawns and at any rate certainly
were not Iranian proxies acting in accord with what you allege with zero evidence to be
Iran's aggressive Islamist plan for world domination.
"I'm still baffled at the airline shoot down. Radar should have shown that the Boeing 737
was on a commonly used flight path heading away from the airport -- if it was inbound into
the country it would be easier to explain misidentification."
Look, I'm not in any position to say what did (or did not) happen. And neither is anyone
else outside a very small covert closed group -- and that probably includes the Iranians with
their (allegedly) modern rocket technology and somewhat 19th century thinking and governance
systems.
What I do assume is: any technology that the public finds on the magazine/website du jour
is already out dated by at least one cycle and probably edging into the release for
commercial market phase.
In a previous post I suggested that any virtual software computer system (of which modern
jet airliners are mostly -- with a bit of flying hardware attached) can be, in theory, easily
separated out into an onion-layered virtual operating system environment which, for all
intents and purposes, provides 100% of the simulated environment data/parameters between the
layers and applications. The cybernetic world has run on this in the business world since the
late 20th century. I doubt the military are in catch-up mode -- quite the opposite, I'd
assume.
How do you or I know that what the Iranian 'saw,' or more importantly, thought they saw in
that 10 second 'engineered' gap?
One does not need to go full-spectrum Matrix or SkyNet thinking (just yet) to see where
this is headed. But I raise an eyebrow at any narrow thinking precluding advanced AI
scenarios that synthesis real-world and psychological-world vectors to exploit and manipulate
the situation in focus towards desirable outcomes.
Knowing the Iranian character and worldview, and the religious top-down control culture
and systems of command (and their weaknesses), allows for strategic modelling of scenarios
that, if not directly controlled and created in the virtual 'digital' software world --
probably a few years off yet except in niche environments (hello major MIC supplier Boeing!)
-- then at least in terms of statistical 'swarms' of data that nudge the real world towards
higher probability preferred scenario. Whether Bayesian statistics is relevant or not, there
are advanced options to experiment with.
This cluster-fuck by the Iranian military, set off by an equivalent of 21st century
"Archduke Franz Ferdinand" event is like watching (unfortunately, imo, and only because I
believe a balanced multi-polar world is a safer scenario) a Mexican peasant running after his
hat just blow off his head by a gust of wind. Comical if not so bloody dangerous for the
global geopolitical and economic context.
NK is another case altogether. They have enough nuke or no-nuke (as does Israel
apparently) binary options to be treated with some junk-yard guard dog 'respect'. But the
romantic poets and intellectuals of Tehran (with their 4,000 years of increasingly irrelevant
cultural history) are just being played with like a wounded mouse by a cat.
I had written off the USA in accord with the public narrative until this event. Now I've
sat back and looked at it again and the pattern looks entirely different. Trump or not, this
has coordinated psyops dimensions flashing red all over, imo.
If what I have set out here as a possible (plausible?) scenario is even anywhere near a
reality then Iran (Mullah version) is on the edge of collapse. The people will rise up for
any number of reasons -- but one critical emerging one will be simply utter frustration with
trying to live and work in the modern global world with a state-based ideology suited for the
Crusades of the Middle Ages. Why not just uniform up in 'British Red Coats' with a red cross
labeled "shoot here!" across the heart? [*]
The last item of interest towards this view is the almost hysterical reaction by the US to
Russia's S300/S400/S500... technology expanding into broader markets. I'd suggest, apart from
being high-class radar and missile technology, it is also likely resistant to the digital
manipulation risk that 'sees' a Boeing lilting sideways (and mapping mentally) as a cruise
missile within a critical window of weakness etc. Perhaps one can see behind the Oz wizard
curtain better?
----
[*] - Since 9/11 it has been clear to some in the systems/cybernetics fields that an emerging
'chaos' orientated global governance model was coming into play. The use of the periodic
'shock' is the key. Think defibrillation as the metaphor to keep a certain heart-beat rhythm
going while chaos (systemic fibrillation) reigns -- and is even promoted in some contexts.
The book to read on the theory is "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick (1987). He
applies/explains the defibrillation principles. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos:_Making_a_New_Science
)
USA has attacked secular Iraq, secular Lybia, they helped Al Qaeda and other Islamists in
their battle against secular governments (Afghanistan), USA (democrats) are in bed with the
Muslim Brotherhood, USA has helped the Muslim Brotherhood and instigated the revolution in
overthrowing the secular/military government of Egypt. USA was involved with the Arab Spring
which targeted secular governments.
Soviet Union and USA both supported Saddam's Iraq against Iran, then USA dumped Saddam
starting in 1991.
Seems to me you need to swot up on the Sunni and Shia.
When you find out the differences come back.
This for instance...
Craig Murray 4th Jan
Quote
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11,
in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of
them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its
gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied
to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are
beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies
and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been
horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist
terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi
attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast
majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were
responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth
relates to the Pentagon's estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became
the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop
deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands
of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani,
remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias –
whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea
that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible.
Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was "responsible for hundreds of American deaths" is
intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved
in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the
right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of
the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational
command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with
every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally
supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply
assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
@Russ Yes Bosnia was primarily US proxy, Alija Izetbegovic, Bosnian Muslim leader, he staged
a coup with US backing, before he organized the illegal arming of his political party with
illegal weapons, they started the war by attacking Yugoslav forces, Alija Izetbegovic wanted
an Islamic State according to the Iranian revolution (as he had written in his book "Islamic
Declaration"), many Iranian mujahideen (including Solaymani himself) besides famous Al Qaeda
members went to Bosnia to fight (together). The Clinton administration gave the green light
to Iran for their support to the Bosnian Muslims (which also included Sunni Islamic radicals
and known 911 hijackers). Iran is willing to support Sunni terrorists if that is in their
geopolitical interests, just as they supported Sunni radicals in the Palestinian areas
(suicide bombings). Now Iran is enemy with Sunni radicals/terrorists, but Iran always wanted
to unite all Islamic forces against Israel (and Christian world). Russia is seeking
equilibrium in the middle east, Putin does not want to allied himself with 1 country against
another country in the middle east, Russia does not want to allied herself with Iran against
Israel, or the other way around.
No more "whatabout" distraction from Iranian incompetence and guilt. One shootdown at a time.
Iranian officers must be punished, commanders dismissed, compensation offered.
US and other Western crimes are separate, keep them separate.
"It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down that night, esp. in view of the
FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran."
This questions has been asked multiple times by numerous people, b included. Speculation
only, but one possibility is that after the missile strike on the air bases the Iranian
government was expecting a military response from the U.S., perhaps even Shock and Awe Ver 2.
Maybe in that highly tense period somebody high up decided it would be better not to close
the airspace immediately, thinking it would complicate matters for the U.S. And if a civilian
plane did get hit in the cross-fire, the U.S. could be rightfully blamed.
Immediately after this horrific tragedy the leaders of the US Canada Austria Germany Holland
as well as other Western leaders claimed that a missile had brought the plane down sighting
"intelligence." How did the Western leaders know so quickly? Were their intelligence
organizations privy in any way in bringing down the plane? Through hacking air defense radars
or some other high-tech tools?
As the fog of War lifts, as we proceed forward I suspect we will know more. A lot
more.
-That now The Donald comes Twitting in Farsi is the obvious evidence that he does not
manage his Twitter account, but one of his "ideologues", or a CIA agent...I bet Steven
Miller...that nazi disguised in a gentleman suit trying, without success, to constrain his
overwhelming rage againt everybody who do not profess his ideas...
-The regime in Oman will do nothing and will never join the Axis of Resistance, as a
regime which resulted from a coup d´etat supported by the US/UK against its own
father/monarch. We will be dándonos con un canto en los dientes if they remain
somwhow "neutral"...
People who are more worried for their long time made up turbans, who hate getting untidy by
any reason, do not usually take part in any fight, but like to remain as espectators...
That same could be said of the Swiss...who had the entrails to remain neutral during the nazi
carnage, in the voew of all Europe being invaded, destroyed, submitted...hence they are now a
rich country who act mainly as postman of the US...they had never to recover and rebuilt
anything from smithereens as the rest of all....
-@Vintage Red, I join your expression of gratitude to bevin, although had to search for
your numbered comments amongst the sea of trolls, but you notice the clear contrast with
other alleged leftist resident of always ( notice how well they swim here in this sea of
trolls and how they have taken advantage today to be prolific....)
That of bevin would be the common stance of any decent honest leftist, or person, in the
world. The others resident here, who seem part time lefties, they really are not, but
Trotskyite NATOist capitalist imperialist fifth column, the ones who have disintegrated and
dismantled the genuine left in Europe and the whole West with their confussing stances, one
day they say this, the other just the opposite....they criticize, slightly, the US, but then,
at the first opprtunity, fall over any country or people from the resistance field as a
hammer, justifying that way the evil deeds of the US and its cohort of criminal collaborating
governments in Europe and North America.
-I continue finding the Russian stance in all these events shamefully mild, when not
totally absent.
The US and five eyes Orwellian hypocracy is far worse than any suicide attackers - in fact
they now back the majority of them - the destruction a good part of the world in their war of
terror, the humanitarian bombs and right to protect, weapons of mass destruction and vials of
white powder regime changing friend and foe alike... the other day I had the pleasure of
happening to be near a radio and had to listen to MH17 2.0 narrative ad nauseam. When Iran
officials still thought the plane had come down due to technical problems fife new not only
that it was downed by a surface to air missile, but that it was downed with a Tor
missile.
With that it was completely obvious five eyes had pulled off another MH17 stunt.
And now shit head trolls like yourself and garbage man come to infest this site.
Now that Iran admitted downing the plane by mistake, some western journalists are pushing the
narrative that it did it on purpose, and not by accident:
Stephen Bryen is the broken clock who was, for the first time in his life, right about the
cause of the downing of the plane. Now he's riding on this excitement and is going one step
further, echoing Trudeau's accusation one day earlier.
His main point of argument is that it is not possible the Tor operator had "only 6
seconds" to decide.
In the last thread, people who used the "it's too much coincidence" argument won the
debate against all odds.
Now it's time for another "it's too much coincidence" argument: why, of all planes, it was
a Boeing? Why, of all nationalities, it was Ukraine?
If Iran really downed the plane on purpose, then we're in counter-intelligence territory.
The list of the names of the passengers is already out; some people here highlighted the fact
that there were nuclear scientists in it; others highlighted the fact that the Americans can
"mask" the signatures of a Boeing to make it look like a military plane; others got so far as
to speculate about some kind of autopilot from afar. The correct question, though, should be:
what did the Iranians discovered in or about that specific flight of such importance that
they thought it better to publicly admit they downed it "by mistake"?
Yes thats the same message that came with the alert no details on what happend though.
Pickering has a terrible safety record so the government assurances mean very little to me if
they felt this was important enough to send out an emergency warning saying you dont need to
do anything they should at least give some explantion of what happend - as im typing they
send out another emergency alert saying the first alert was sent in error what a bunch of
monkeys what is going on another Hawaii missile drill
vk "what did the Iranians discovered in or about that specific flight of such importance that
they thought it better to publicly admit they downed it "by mistake"
Over the last years, Iran has gone to great pains to do things by the letter of
international law. It has top quality diplomats and statesmen like Zarif. It wishes to trade
with the world, be accepted by the world while retaining sovereignty and way of life. IT
complied with the original stipulation of the nuke deal for a year after US pulled out, and
with the introductions of US sanctions, European countries pulled out of deals and trade with
Iran. Even now Iran is still within the terms of the nuke deal as the are stipulations on
what can be done if a party pulls out or does not abide by the deal.
Iranian government for the first day or so where sure the plane had come down due to
technical problems. When they found it had been shot down as their enemies were saying, it
was a major blow. Those few days of denying it had been shot down undone much of the
painstaking diplomatic work they had accomplished over a decade or so.
Also on the military side, Iranian military have proven to be very professional and high
tech, but this shootdown will be used against them to try and show incompetence as many of
the trolls here are doing.
"Ukraine did not close down the airspace, they were using the airliners as human shield as
has been proven by the fact their jets were shadowing the airliners."
If we accept your view then we must accept that this was an intended win/win situation for
Ukraine; Ukraine could use civilian aircraft for cover and, also, induce the rebels to shoot
down a civilian aircraft. (I have a different view of MH17 but it would be OT to go
into).
The MH17 scenario that you describe can only be comparable to Iranian shooting down PS752
if the US used similar tactics (presumably by use of electronic warfare) in order to induce
Iran to shoot down PS752...
...or is it that your posts are full of fact-free, poorly researched whataboutism that
should just be disregarded by any thinking person?
vk @444 asks the correct question? Perhaps, Iran know much more but a pre-requisite is
that they must take responsibility for what they did - shooting down PS752) - and, perhaps,
this is not what the US/west expected Iran to do? How would Iran know? Perhaps, Russian
monitoring of US EW activity has revealed much more than the US expected? And, perhaps,
Russia will not agree to any public relevation at present?
To your list of Sunni terrorists´ victims, add all those resulting from terrorist
attacks in Europe in the last years, by, then discovered, suspciously Sunni extremists
related to mosques and mullahs funde by KSA for long time old known of the security services
of any European country which has suffered these terrorist attacks....
Everybody a bit informed and their dogs knows by now that all these attacks were made to
create "shock and awe" amongst the gullible population to jusitify European intevention in
the illegal wars on Lybia, Syria and Iraq....What the gullible population do not know is that
their governments were allying in all those invaded and slaughtered countries the same Sunni
extremist terrorist who have slaughtered their own population in Europe, and not only, but
morevoer they gave them prizes... like with the case of the UK MI6 founded/funded/trained
White Helmets of HM...
There is a lot of tin hat conspiracy theorising in this thread (1) centred on an alleged FAA
ban on US flights over "Tehran", and (2) that the Ukraine flight allegedly turned back to the
airport before being hit by the missile.
The nonesense over the alleged FAA ban on US flights over "Tehran" has thankfully already
been dealt with by the posting of the full text of the NOTAMs: the FAA ban, which applied
only to US aircraft, was for all US flights in the whole of Iran airspace and the whole of
Iraq airspace. Such a ban is fully to be expected in view of recent US military actions.
As regards the alleged turn of the aircraft. The
Flightradar24 site shows the actual path of the Ukraine flight up to the point the
transponder signals ceased (the point where the missile hit), and compare it both with the
other 9 flights from Tehran that morning, and with the previous 45 scheduled flights by
PS752. It is crystal clear that the only turn the aircraft made up to the point it was hit
was 100% in line with it's scheduled flight plan. The only difference that could be drawn is
that in terms of angle of climb it was well below average - almost but not quite the lowest
of the 45 flights - because the aircraft was way overweight and therefore had difficulty
climbing even on full power. The pilot Peter Haisenko
wrote in detail about that. The turn, however, (up to the end of transponder
transmissions) was only about 50 degrees, and was completely in line with other flights. The
turn was also completed well before the missile hit - when the missile hit it was already
established on straight and level flight.
The video of the Aerospace Commander's presentation shows a very sketchy hand-drawn
diagram which is not to scale, with an exaggerated turn (but still depicted as less than the
claimed 90 degrees). However the Aerospace Commander's sketch and the Flightradar24 charts
are wholly in agreement despite the very inaccurate sketch - this is clear from the locality
map given by Flightplan24, and further down the page the elevation plan, which shows the
topography in 3-D.
In the latter picture you can clearly see the mountains in the background, and two smaller
pointed hills in the foreground. From the video it is clear that the air defence base was at
the top of the second (further) of these small hills, obviously utilising the high ground for
the defence of Tehran. Virtually all the flights shown by Flightradar24 first start to turn
at exactly the same point - level with the first hill - and turn towards a path going
immediately to the left of the second hill where the air defence is mounted. This means that
immediately on completion of the turn, all these flights would be pointing nearly directly at
the air defence base, exactly as shown on the commander's sketch (except that the latter
exaggerated somewhat the angle of turn). Comparing the map with the 3-D view this can be seen
quite clearly.
This does not say anything about whether there was a turn after being hit - if the missile
hit one engine this would automatically cause the aircraft to turn unless compensated for by
the pilots, who may have been already dead - that is irrelevant to this issue.
I do share the gut feeling that the incident may have been set-up by the US, because there
are a lot of grounds for suspicion, but as far as I know there is no concrete evidence in the
public domain in support of that suspicion at this stage - certainly not in terms of an
unusual turn before being hit by the missile.
Grounds for the Iranians to believe they had detected cruise missiles are likely very
strong - the US uses electronic warfare measures (see the link posted by Peter AU) which
cause the Iranian radar to see phantom images of moving objects. Many US aircraft were moving
around the outside(??) of Iranian airspace, presumably creating these phantom radar images of
cruise missiles, therefore the Iranians would presumably have "seen" these suspected cruise
missiles in the border regions, assumed they then penetrated Iranian territory unseen by
hugging the ground through the mountains, in which case they could suddenly appear
subsequently at some stage where radar can detect them.
The fact that the plane was brought down because of the conflict initiated by Trump makes
everything about it very suspicious. Just because Iran states that it is responsible does not
disqualify the possibility that they were not made to make this mistake. We do not know the
facts as to what the Iranian defense system saw as that Ukrainian plane was flying.
I continue to be highly suspicious of the fact that it is a Ukrainian plane. Ukraine is
firmly in the Anglo-Zionist camp, period. Zelensky or not the deal was sealed when V. Nuland
finished her work in Kiev. The only reason Ukraine made a deal with Russia is because it is
in financial trouble and needs revenue. The West will not keep it afloat. So thinking that
suddenly it is conducting its own foreign policy is incorrect.
As an aside. Does a sovereign country bring in a man like this to help it run its country
?
Mikheil Saakashvili - born 21 December 1967) is a Georgian and Ukrainian politician.[7][8]
He was the third President of Georgia for two consecutive terms from 25 January 2004 to 17
November 2013. From May 2015 until November 2016, Saakashvili was the Governor of Ukraine's
Odessa Oblast.[1][9][10] He is the founder and former chairman of the United National
Movement party.
How about this one,
Natalie Ann Jaresko is an American-born Ukrainian investment banker who served as Ukraine's
Minister of Finance from December 2014 until April 2016.[1] In 20 March 2017, she was
appointed as executive director of the Financial Oversight & Management Board for
Puerto Rico.
or this one,
Aivaras Abromavičius is a Lithuanian-born Ukrainian investment banker and politician.
On 31 August 2019 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Abromavičius the
Director General of Ukroboronprom.[1] Previously he was Ukraine's Minister of Economy and
Trade starting in December 2014 (Abromavičius announced his resignation on 3 February
2016). He did not retain his post in the Groysman Government that was installed in 14 April
2016.[2]
Ukraine is a Captured State.
Thus the possibility exists that that plane may have had some equipment placed in it in
Kiev that could trick the Iranian Defense system to think a craft is a danger to it. Kiev
would have been a safe place to do it (reasons above). If this were true does anyone here
believe that announcing this fact Public opinion would believe it ? I for one don't. Russia
knows how that worked out with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). No matter what Iran would
have said that would have been spun in the West as attempting to blame someone else. Thanks
to this all attention in the Media would have been on Iran which Trump would have loved.
Again, Russia knows how this was played out in Malaysia MH17 case. The average CNN viewer in
that case would not see how the BUKA Russian was being used as evidence that it was Russia
that shot the plane down.
Iran did the right thing in admitted that it was responsible whether it was their fault
or not. There was simply no way to win in the case of having being fooled into
shooting the plane down.
The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came
down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when
the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe
this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes.
Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran
speech.
Iran deserves respect, if only because it openly and honestly admitted its responsibility for
what happened. This shows the maturity and courage of the political and military leadership
of this country.
It is clear that the plane was shot down unintentionally. It is also obvious that Iran was
provoked by the actions of the United States.
This is called life. That happens. And not only that. Human factor. We cannot avoid this
and 100% eliminate all risks.
In 1914, an idiot killed a monarch, which led to a large-scale war and the death of
millions of people. Human factor. Soldiers accidentally make the wrong buttons. Workers at an
oil factory smoke in the wrong place, resulting in huge fires. People do not notice an
extinct burner on a gas stove, resulting in an explosion, collapse of the house and death of
people. Vacationers tourists did not extinguish after themselves a fire in the forest, as a
result of which a giant fire covers thousands of hectares of territory. During the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, American Patriot systems destroyed a friendly British Tornado fighter bomber
(in addition to the destroyed American fighters). In February 2017, the Russian Aerospace
Forces mistakenly attacked the Turkish military in northern Syria. In 2001, Ukrainian air
defense, conducting military exercises, shot down a Russian passenger plane TU-154 over the
Black Sea, 78 people died. So on and so on... The technique and equipment is imperfect.
People all the more.
The Iranian situation is very similar to what happened in September 2018. Syrian air
defense shot down a Russian military plane, provoked by deliberate actions by Israeli
aviation. Just to remind that the Russian side has made it clear who is the true culprit of
the tragedy. In the case of Iran, the same thing. It is one thing if the plane crashes as a
result of a pilot error or a technical malfunction. But when it is now clear that plane was
shot down, and the Iranian air defense acted as it was provoked by the actions of the United
States, then the guilt of the United States only increases.
Iran bears very little, if any responsibility in this matter.
The United States is entirely to blame-what has occurred is exactly what the
US government was aiming at. It has created an atmosphere of fear and panic
in the knowledge that it would create chaos-that normal government would break down
and mistakes be made.
The US plays with the lives of people. It plays God, a God dedicated to the principle of pure
evil.
It plays with people's lives, the lives of the 'ants' that Harry Lime saw from above
Vienna,
as a matter of course. In Gaza children with cancer cannot get treatment because the US and
Israel
want to make life harder for their parents. The evil objective is to madden the people to the
point
that they will rise up and kill those who oppose the Occupation. In Colombia, Bolivia,
Honduras, Ecuador
and Brazil-even as we speak Death Squads-trained armed and financed-by the US and Israel
stalk those
who want to reform their society. In Venezuela the supply of food and medicine is interrupted
as far as
the power of the US and its allies extends.
Around the world where there are evil deeds being carried out, where children are starving,
medicines are
withheld, protesters are being assassinated and militias are terrorising the population-the
hands of the
United States and its allies are always evident. It was they who imported tens of thousands
of wahhabis
into Afghanistan, Russia, China and the battlegrounds that we all know in order to kill,
frighten and impoverish
the people. The people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon and far beyond- all of
them have seen their
living standards diminished, their security removed their hopes of happiness systematically
thwarted.
In order, evil order, to punish them, not for anything that they have done but in the hope
that they will
surrender themselves to the United States and its agents, submit.
The truth is that human history has never seen a regime like that now ruling the United
States and attempting
to rule the world. Nothing compares with it, the Nazis were simply malicious pygmies in
comparison.
Many people from Trudeau to posters here refuse to admit what is crystal clear and what
history will
confirm: all the deaths that come, daily, weekly, yearly from this assumption by the United
States of
prerogatives, religion reserves for God; all the deaths that come from this juvenile playing
with the lives of
ordinary people are entirely the choice of the US government.
Trudeau bears more responsibility for the deaths of these airline passengers than anyone in
Iran. It was his choice to
keep the Embassy doors closed, to withdraw diplomatic representation and to join the US in
its sanctions
against the Iranian people. He has made the same choice in Venezuela, where similar accidents
may occur (have occurred
as in the sabotage of the power grid). People died then, people die daily and they do so
because of choices made by
governments playing with the lives of the people.
Everyone of the victims would be alive today had not the mafia in Washington decided to smash
up their society.
And they would almost certainly have been alive still had Trudeau and Freeland-and the four
parties in Ottawa- done
, what most Canadians want them to do and disassociate themselves and Canada from the evil
games Washington plays.
I hope that no Iranian is tricked into surrendering to evil. I hope that the tone of the
Revolutionary Guards-one
of sincere regret and manly apology- does not inform their future moves which must be to
re-double their commitment
to the defence of their country and the defeat of the most evil government the world has ever
seen.
Re: Trudeau's escalating attempts at scene-stealing
The odious, opportunistic popinjay Trudeau seems to have calculated that it's time for him
to upgrade his "brand" from "dashing young Bonnie Prince Justin" to "Mature Statesman with
Gravitas".
Thus, his predilection for elbowing his way to the head of the Western Hegemony Official
Spokesperson line and bumptiously blowing off his big bazoo.
The new beard is a "tell"; some men, especially handsome but "baby-faced" men, are
susceptible to an abiding adolescent impulse to grow facial hair in order to appear more
mature. It can't be a coincidence that Trudeau's beard correlates with his increased penchant
for making (fatuous) bold and aggressive pronouncements on geopolitical crises.
I know that Trudeau has a pedigree that nominally puts him in the top drawer of Canada's
political aristocracy. Still, he reminds me a lot of the Venezuelan golpista
boy-toy Juan "Random Guy" Guaidó.
Prometheus - Thank you for your information. I previously thought the transponder signal
would identify the plane as a civilian aircraft but one question remains for me: even without
IFF would the airtraffic control not (verify the identity)and be in contact with the pilot
when the course is changed? Is there no coordination between civlian and military
air-control? (especially in such a tense situation)
(the Ukrainain plane turned around - why?)
Still ...despite the admission it is strange that an aviation expert like Peter Haisenko
(retired Lufthansa pilot with special technical knowledge who knows Tehran airport well) came
to a very different conclusion: (excerpt from German Original - my translation)
Weil mittlerweile bekannt ist, dass die Boeing nach dem ersten Aufprall noch etwa 500 Meter
über den Boden geschrammt ist, darf man davon ausgehen, dass sie in flachem Winkel den
Boden berührt hat, etwa wie bei einer Landung. Sie ist also nicht „ungespitzt"
in den Boden gerammt.
Since it is now known the Boing grazed the ground for about 500 metres after impact it is
reasonable to assume that she touched the ground at a flat-angle, like in a regular landing.
[...]
Das deutet wiederum darauf hin, dass sich die Piloten in ihrer Notlage gar nicht bewusst
waren, wie nahe sie dem Boden bereits sind und völlig unerwartet Bodenkontakt hatten.
[...]
This is an indication that the Pilots were not aware of their emergency (how close to the
ground they were) and unexpectedly touched the ground. [...]
Fest steht wohl, dass die ukrainische Boeing nach dem Start einen Motorschaden hatte. Und
zwar einen soliden, mit Feuer und Totalausfall.
It appears to be certain that the Ukrainian Boeing suffered an engine breakdown after
take-off, a severe one with fire and total failure.
Zunächst stelle ich fest, dass es nahezu unmöglich ist, ein Passagierflugzeug in
dieser Flugphase abzuschießen. Man müsste schon jemanden mit einer kleinen
Boden-Luft-Rakete im erwarteten Abflugkorridor platzieren, der dann dem abfliegenden Jet
die Rakete hinterher schießt. Dieses hitzesuchende Projektil könnte dann einen
Motor treffen, was aber kein zwingender Grund für einen Absturz ist. Mit einem Motor
kann das Flugzeug weiter fliegen, wenn die Rahmenumstände entsprechend aller
Vorschriften gesetzt worden sind. Eine größere, aufwendigere
Flugabwehreinrichtung scheidet für diese Flugphase und den Ort aus. Nicht nur wegen
der geringen Höhe über Grund, sondern auch, weil es solche Anlagen in dieser
Gegend nicht gibt. Wenn, dann befinden sie sich im weiteren Umkreis, um Angriffe aus
größerer Höhe weit vor der Stadt abzuwehren. Warum ist es dann
überhaupt zu dem Absturz gekommen?
Haisenko asserts that " it is nearly impossible to shoot down a passenger plane in this
phase of the flight. In order to do that you'd need to place a (sort of) MANPAD in the
expected flight-corridor and the heat-seaking missile could then destroy one of the
engines.But this does not automatically lead to the crashing of the plane since it is able
to fly with one engine [...] A bigger anti-aircraft system is not suitable for this phase
of the flight ... these systems aim to intercept (destroy) targets flying at much higher
altitutes and farther away from the cities ... So why did the crash happen?
Obviously he wrote that before the Iranian admission was published and with limited
knowledge but still one wonders if electronic warfare played a role and certain parties
wanted that plane to crash ... (at least a closer look at the passenger list seems
advisable)
That is one of the best posts I have ever read and I have read more than a few.
Never a truer word.
If it needed a precis.......
Madeleine Albright.
The deaths of of 500,000 Iraqi children is a price worth paying.
This from a woman who had played a leading role in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the
handing of the Serbian province of Kosovo to the KLA a forerunner of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Today a narco criminal islamic state - and a base for the bloodletting and birthing of the
European Caliphate.
And unlimited proxies for the USA War Of!! Terror across the Middle East.
Pure evil.
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.
The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came
down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when
the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe
this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes.
Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran
speech.
Adding:
This would also explain why this is the first time the US did not respond to a state
attacking US institutions/military bases. The Us, in fact, did respond: "Let this serve as a
WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian
sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very
high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran
itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"
we have (!) targeted (that must mean there were plans for imminent actions in place, it's
not saying "we will target") Iranian sites, some at a very high level (!), very fast (!) and
very hard.
Their response went horribly wrong. Maybe a US drone was found. Maybe the US jammed
communication systems. It's all speculation but it could be that the US response is the cause
for the shooting down of the plane. It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down
that night, esp. in view of the FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran. The Iranian
civil flights authority should have known about this, or is information of this kind
proprietary, i.e. not shared across countries/systems? The FAA is a lead aviation agency,
it's not as if the aviation agency of Tristan da Cunha had issued such a ban.
The FAA banning US aircraft flying over Tehran after Iran had struck the bases - my gut
tells me the US had planned and were executing a response involving a target in Tehran which
resulted in the plane being targeted by Iranian air defense systems... the jamming of
communication systems (which would have been part of the US response) would be the direct
cause for the plane being targeted. If this is true the US has this blood on their hands, not
Iran. Again, that's why Trump was clearly under the influence of some drugs. Because that
blood is on his hands, or rather, his big mouth and big ego.
...
"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we
have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and
those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."
How would the passenger plane have been accidentally targeted?
That is less clear, but is one of the challenges facing any missile operator. While
military aircraft will plot course to avoid radar, civilian airliners are equipped with
transponders that identify the craft and their flight path set and share it with military
bases in the area.
Theoretically, the Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 should have been identified as a civilian
craft on any radar. But if the Western assessment is true, this incident will join other
tragic incidents of civilian planes being shot down by anti-aircraft weaponry.
In 2014, Malaysia Airline Flight 17 was suspected to have been inadvertently shot down
by Russian missiles, though Moscow has consistently denied any involvement. And in 1988, a
US warship engaging with Iranian gunboats in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes, shot down
an Iranian passenger plane after mistaking it for a jet fighter, killing all 290 people on
board.
They have a nice map of Iran's rocket range. The map explains the Russian attitude towards
Iran which is complex. Iran's rockets do NOT reach the USA but they reach the whole of the
Middle East and a large part of Russia.
To all the smart asses:Yes Iran should have closed the airport but other have some
responsibility too. The Ukraine for example. Allowing planes to fly in to what is practically
a war zone. Not that thei have done it before..
The aircraft was hit when it had turned directly towards the Tor unit, at that point a
turn of nearly ninety degrees which I take it was located at the military site.
"Iranian air defense units have taken inappropriate actions dozens of times, including
firing antiaircraft artillery and scrambling aircraft against unidentified or misidentified
targets," noted a heavily classified Pentagon intelligence report, which added that the
Iranian military's communications were so inadequate and its training deficiencies so
significant that "misidentification of aircraft will continue."
The Ukraine plane was the target and the operation was successfull.
this was the only way US could strike Iran without Iran striking US bases throughout the
regin plus Israel.
When Trump threatened strikes against 52 cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the killing of
Soleimani, Iran said Isreal would also be hit (it has been noticeable US and Isreal have
beeing trying pass of US as threatening Iran as indipendent of Isreal).
This is when the Trump admin and Israel would have settled on the takedown of a civian
craftby Iran air defence. This makes Iran look fools in the eyes of fools as has occurred
here and not the highly professional force they truly are.
Iranians have gathered in the streets of Tehran to demand the resignation of Ayatollah
Seyed Ali Khamenei after the regime admitted it had mistakenly shot down a civilian
passenger plane.
Angry crowds gathered on Saturday night in at least four locations in Tehran, chanting
'death to liars' and calling for the country's supreme leader to step down over the tragic
military blunder, video from the scene shows.
What began as mournful vigils for Iranian lives lost on the flight soon turned to
outrage and protest against the regime, and riot police quickly cracked down, firing tear
gas into the crowd.
'Death to the Islamic Republic' protesters chanted, as the regime's security forces
allegedly used ambulances to sneak heavily armed paramilitary police into the middle of
crowds to disperse the demonstration.
I don't blame the Iranians protesting the unnecessary deaths of their compatriots through
sheer incompetence and lack of coordination among civil and military officials. They clearly
should have grounded all commercial flights. Their air defense units should have at least the
basic ability to discern between a commercial jet and military aircraft & missiles. If
they are this incompetent or their systems are so poor how do they expect to withstand the
onslaught of an air attack by the US that would include thousands of missiles and thousands
of sorties a day! Tehran will be flattened.
We agree that there was a US response, and that the plane was involved in this response.
You think it was the idea from the beginning to trick Iranian air defense into shooting this
particular plane down, I think there was a different target and things did not go according
to plan, while the plane played a role. Both of us are speculating. You think the operation
was successful, I say no, things went wrong. The US could not continue with their operation
as this would have made it obvious they had utilized the plane in some way. It's different
from the incident where Syria shot down a Russian military plane when Israeli jets used it as
cover - this here was a civilian plane. So, speculation from my side.
It's also to be observed that 146 people on the plane were Iranian citizens; this could
speak for your theory as this is a problem for the government of Iran (protests)
("One-hundred forty-six victims held Iranian passport, ten Afghan, five Canadian, four Swede
and two Ukrainian. All nine crew members consisting of three cockpit crew and six cabin crew
were Ukrainian. Note: A number of victims could have had multiple nationalities, so other
news reports might introduce them with different nationalities than the ones in this report.
The above list concerns the passport with which they left the Islamic Republic of Iran air
border.")
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Iran-CAO-PS752-Initial-Report.pdf
I have no means to know. I am sure, though, that the big mouthed announcement of Trump is
real. There was a response. I hope the dams won't hold for this one.
Various MSM have stories of victims. The British and Canadian victims I saw in these
articles all had Iranian names. Students expats ect returning to Iran for a visit.
One couple to get married in Iran.
Seemed to be a large number of university students including a couple of professors.
Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided
here . It is not accurate to claim only Tehran was restricted:
KICZ A0001/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN
FLIGHTS IN THE BAGHDAD FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR)
(ORBB) - 07 JAN 23:45 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 07 JAN 23:49 2020
KICZ A0002/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN
FLIGHTS IN THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR) (OIIX) - 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM.
CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020
Notice these cover national airspace, it is not limited to the cities they refer to. The
timezones are UTC.
Well Israel and neocons sure have a good laugh how well it turned out for them past week. Not
sure how Iran will be able to get back from this anytime soon, now being attacked both from
abroad and internally. Not to mention the collaboration between protesters and the west.
This site and its comments have been an unfortunate repository of ridiculous, reflexive
anti-American nonsense over the past few weeks. The speculation about the flight, and
inability to accept Iranian responsibility, was one of the more silly charades.
Posted by: Daniel Lennon | Jan 11 2020 16:46 utc | 185
I would add anti-Semitic too....
In my own country can't criticise Mossad actions on the news.. it would be anti-Semitic
too...
So here what came from a Forbes article that helped uncover a huge Mossad Operation
targeting Cyprus Larnaka airport (their Cypriot allies)
The 2 "ex" agents identified is only probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
9.5 million smart phones it is estimated were hacked by the Mossad Stingray like tech
discuised as plain ambulances alone in Larnaka air port during the time of the operation.
This is looking to be a very complex operation the US and five eyes is pulling off. Rather
than simply reacting to events after the killing of Soleimani, the killing was inteded to set
up circumstances to induce Iran into firing at a civilian aircraft. The act of war in killing
the Iranian military official and diplomat followed by threats against Iranian cultural
sites. With Iran air dfences on high alert, all it required was to cut air defence coms and
turn an aircraft at the same time. Once that is aclomplashed, making Iran look incompetent in
the eyes of the world it is straight into the pre-organised regime change operation.
I hope Russia and China will be giving Iran a bit of an assist in this because they are
facing a very dangerous moment. Anything can happen now that US thinks it has Iran on the
backfoot. And I think Iran is on the backfoot at the moment. What has happened has shocked
them. Zarif and others, saying the plane definitely was not shot down and then realising they
were wrong.
Very dangerous period for Iran as US will now press its attack harder, and perhaps in more
unexpected ways. Hopefully the crew that fired will not be punished because of this. If they
are, air defense crew will be hesitant to make decisions anytime their coms are cut.
The IRGC said they had asked for all flights to be grounded but the request was not acted on.
This is the area hopefully the Iranian investigation will focus on.
VK "Right after the assassination of Soleimani, Pompeo went publicly and said Iran was "one
step closer to regime change""
The Assassination was the first step. Trump threats against Iran cultural sites the second
step. Iran retaliation against the US bases the third step. Downing the civilian aircraft
step four. And guess what... regime change operation kicks into gear.
But for Trump's murder of Soleimani, the Iranians would not have been so jumpy.
Trump's murder of Soleimani, was a significant factor in making the Iranians jumpy.
These deaths go on Trump's death count card along with all the dead in Syria.
"... What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a carrier battle group marooned on land ..."
The tramp & nutNyahoo machismo show continues to be fun to watch. Both
show off their penis worms as they arrogantly claim they can crush iran. Both the usa and
israel keep banging on the doors and walls of their pissed-off neighbors' houses. That
eventually gets you murdered whether in baltimore or baghdad.
A crushable iran is true if and only if they can mount a full-on nuclear war on Iran.
But such horrendous cheating means all bets are off, and iran's allies will provide the
nukes required to melt down the American homeland too. Nobody, not even Russia and china,
can afford to stay in the sidelines in a nuclear war in the 2020s.
What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy
enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a
carrier battle group marooned on land. Sitting ducks, with nice armor, nukes and all, are
... still sitting ducks. nutNyahoo should ask his technical crew just how few megatons are
needed, or just a few thousand modern missiles are required to transform sitting ducks into
nicely roasted peking ducks.
So a conventional war it is. The usa and israel has exactly zero, zilch and nada chances
of winning a war with iran. The usa keeps forgetting that it is a dying empire with dying
funding value and mental resources. Just like israel which oddly thinks dozens of f-35s
will give it immunity through air superiority. Proof of this fact that iran will win comes
from simply asking american and israeli war experts to go on cnn or the washington post on
how they intend to win a war with iran.
Im sure these expert bloviators will say that it is as easy as winning a naval war
against china, which is capable of launching only 3 new warships in a week. Or an even
easier time against russia, which can launch only a few thousand hypersonic nuke missiles
because its GDP is no bigger than that of texas.
The Pentagon is super slow to adapt and learn. If you understand that
bureaucracy is an ancient organizational structure and that the organizational culture of
the Pentagon is pathologically dysfunctional you could have predicted the moral and
financial bankruptcy of America 15-20 years ago. The "Why?", finally made sense when I
discovered what a sociopath was.
It's about time the US practices what it preachs and start behaving like a normal
country instead of a spoiled narcissistic brat. see more
US military & strategic thought became lazy during the
late days of the Cold War. It mirrored the decline & fall of the foundations of its
opponent, USSR. Post-Cold War, US military & strategic thinking flushed into the sewer.
It was all about maintaining the military as some sort of a social policy jobs program,
operating legacy tech as the mission. And then came the "world-improvers" -- beginning w
the Clinton Admin -- who worked to turn the world into a global "urban renewal" project;
meaning to mirror the success US Big Govt showed in the slums of American cities from sea
to sea. The past 30 yrs of US strategic thinking and related governance truly disgusts me.
see more
Soviet union fall had very different reasons and Soviet military thought was
doing quite well then along with military. Current russian military wonders is completion
of what was started then and not finished earlier because of the disintegration of the
Soviet state. The soviet fall however is extremely regrettable because there was a new way how things can
be done that Soviet union was showing to the world. USA fall long term is a very good thing
because USA is a paragon of how things should be done the old way and basically a huge
parasite. Many negative trends that are afflicting the world were started by USA. Unlimited
individualism and consumerism would be a couple of those. see more
Why does almost every person on Earth feel the need to force others to
bend the knee to their beliefs?
Religious beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in an
afterlife, political beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in this
world.
The world would be a far better, more civilized, of world if such beliefs were only
shared on a voluntary basis.
As for individualism, I would rather be free than live in a modern day egalitarian
hunter-gatherer tribe run by modern day psychopathic alpha-males.
That is certainly not a recipe for success. see more
It also mirrors the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It was Emperor
Augustus that decided the costs to further expand the Empire were too great after losing
one (or two?) legions against the Germanic tribes.
The US has reached its greatest extent. We are living through it. The US didn't go forward
into war with Iran twice. The odds of humanity surviving this immense turn of history is
looking better. see more
Frankly, nothing in common. I read this comparison all the
time.
Yes, Augustus decided not to continue along with expansion into Germany after losing 3
Varus legions due to ambush.
But he famously noted that it does not worth to go fishing with golden hook. Basically
speaking, Germany was not worth fighting for. Poor and remote it had nothing to offer. Just
a drain on resources. As long as conquest was moving smoothly it was ok, but after losses
were inflicted Augustus decided it was not worth it.
Roman expansion under augustus was carried mostly to consolidate previous conquests and
create strategical debth along core and strategical provinces also creating linkage.
When enemy far stronger than germans posed resources which made the whole conquest worthy
no amount of resistance saved Dacians and Parthia also almost died under Trajan attack.
Roman policies were adequate and wise. Treaties were respected, allies supported and
benefited. Empire was build around Mediterranean creating good communication and routes
considering obviously limits of that day technology.
Rome did not behave like crazy and did not deliver threats that she could not follow
through. When war was decided upon thorough preparations were taken. Political goals were
achieved. Wars were won. When Adrian considered that empire was overextended in Parthis, he
simply abandoned all conquered territories. Just like that.
Logical calm thinking USA,is not capable of. Rome truly based upon superior military and
diplomacy dominance lasted many centuries. USA few decades. One hit wonder, lucky fool I
would call it. see more
Yes, this is somewhat puzzling. As I said, let's wait and see where it all
develops to, but as Twisted Genius succinctly observed -- Iran now controls tempo because she
has conventional superiority. Anyone who has precision-guided, stand off weaponry in good
numbers will be on top. see more
The old submarine saying is, "There are two kinds of ships; submarines, and
targets." . The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets;
precision-guided missiles, and targets." (And per the photos, those Iranian missiles were
quite precise; bulls-eyes.) . Iran and its missiles demonstrated that the entire strategic foundation for US mil presence
in the Middle East is now obsolete. Everything the US would ever want to do there is now
subject to Iran's version of "steel rain." Every runway, hangar, aircraft parking area;
every supply depot or warehouse; every loading pier, fuel site, naval pier. Everything...
is a target. And really... there's no amount of US "airpower" and "tech" than can mitigate
the Iran missile threat. . Meanwhile, related thinking... Iran's true strategic interest is NOT fighting a near-term
war w/ USA. Iran wants US to exit Middle East; and Iran wants to be able to pursue its
nuclear program. Soleimani or no, Iran appears to have its eyeballs fixed on the long-term
goals. see more
The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets;
precision-guided missiles, and targets."
Exactly, and Iran has long-range TLAMs in who knows what numbers, That, in its turn,
brings about the next issue of range for Iranian indigenous anti-ship missiles. Not, of
course, to mention the fact of only select people knowing if Russia transferred P-800 Onyx
to Iran She certainly did it for Syria. If that weapon is there--the Persian Gulf and
Hormuz Strait will be shut completely closed and will push out CBGs far into the Indian
Ocean. see more
It is simply pathetic after decades of talking non stop about developments of
anti missiles and huge amounts wasted and nobody is responsible. This is the way capitalism
works.profits is everything and outcomes secondary. Thankfully russia has got soviet
foundation and things so far are working well. I come to think that in our times no serious
industrial processes should be allowed to stay in private hands. Only services and so.e
other simpler stuff under heavy state control to ensure quality. Otherwise profit
orientation will eventually destroy everything like with Boeing.
I know, i already wrote a full scale war scenario in one of
the comments. Iran can destroy all US bases in 2000 km range. But this does not mean that
it can not be bombed back to the stone age, if the US really wishes so. The problem for the
US is the high cost as well as the high debt levels, but it does have the technical
capability to do that after 2 - 3 years of bombing.
Also low yield tactical nukes are designed to lower the treshold of the use of nukes in
otherwise conventional war, producing less international outrage than the megaton city
buster bombs. Why do you think the US is developing them again? Because they would want to
use them in conventional conflicts.
Here btw is Yurasumy, he also says that the US can technically bomb Iran back to the
stone age, but the cost will be too high.
Again--what's the plan and what's the price? Iran HAS Russia's ISR on her side in case
of such SEAD.
Does the United States want to risk lives of thousands of its personnel (not
to speak of expensive equipment) in Qatar, KSA, Iraq. Does Israel want to "get it"?
There
are numbers which describe such an operation (it was. most likely, already planned as
contingency). Immediate question: when was the last time USAF operated in REAL dense ECM
and ECCM environment? I do not count some brushes with minimal EW in Syria.
Russia there
uses only minimally required option, for now. Iran has a truck load EW systems, including
some funny Russian toys which allowed Iran to take control of US UAVs, as an example. As I
say, this is not Iraq and by a gigantic margin. see more
I already said that debt levels do not allow it and the price
would be too high, but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By
conventional means. It is another question that it is not in good fiscal shape. Anyway, US
ballistic missiles (non nuclear armed) will be hard to stop by EW. Even if Iran gets rid of
50 % of incoming TLAMs, the US will keep sending more and more until most infrastructure,
bridges, oil refineries, power plants, factories, ports etc. are destroyed. This is why i
said it would take 2 - 3 years. see more
but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By conventional
means
That is the whole point: NO, it doesn't. Unless US goes into full mobilization mode and
addresses ALL (plus a million more not listed) requirements for such a war which I listed
in the post. Well, that or nukes. see
more
Yurasumy is a pretty good analist and he thinks that they can. I do not
see it for the US being too hard to produce more TLAMS, ICBMs and IRBMs (conventional) to
sustain the effort for 2 years, by that time most iranian infrastructure will be destroyed.
If the fiscal situation allowes it. see more
I don't know who Yarasumy is and what is his background, but unlike him I
actually write books, including on modern warfare. This is not to show off, but I am sure I
can make basic calculations. This is not to mention the fact that even Sivkov agrees with
my points and Sivkov, unlike Yarsumy, graduated Popov's VVMURE, served at subs, then
graduated Kuznetsov Academy, then Academy of the General Staff and served in Main
Operational Directorate (GOU) until retiring in the rank of Captain 1st Rank from the
billet of Combat Planning group. So, I would rather stick to my opinion.
see more
Why do you think that the US can not destroy Iran with IRBMs? Actually this
is their strategy vs China. If they think its viable vs China, then it should be viable vs
Iran too. see more
Because unlike the US, Russia's Air Defenses have a rather
very impressive history of shifting the balance in wars in favor of those who have them,
when used properly. But then I can quote for you a high ranking intelligence officer:
A friend of mine who has expertise in these matters wrote me:
Any air defense engineer with a securityclearance that isn't lying through his teeth
will admit that Russia'sair defense technology surpassed us in the 1950's and we've never
been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our Patriot
3's look like fucking nerf guns.
Mathematics is NOT there for the United States for a real combined operations war of
scale with Iran. Unless US political class really wants to see people with pitch-forks.
see more
"Mathematics is not there..." . Neither is the industrial base, including supply lines. Not the mines, mills, factories to
produce any significant levels of warfighting materiel such as we're talking about here.
Not the workforce, either. Meanwhile, where are the basic designs for these weps? The years
of lab work, bench tests, pilot specimens & prototypes, the development pipeline? The
contractors to build them? the Tier 2, 3, 4 suppliers? Where are the universities that
train such people as are needed? Where is the political will? Where is the government
coordination? Where is the money? Indeed, every Democrat and probably half the Republicans
who run for office campaign on controlling military spending; not that USA gets all that
much benefit from the current $800 billion per year. see more
You see, here is the difference--I can calculate approximate required force
for that but I don't want to. It is Friday. You can get some basic intro into operational
theory (and even into Salvo Equations) in my latest book. Granted, my publisher fought me
tooth and nail to remove as much match as possible. But I'll give you a hint--appearance of
S-500 on any theater of operations effectively closes it off effectively for any missile or
aircraft operations when deployed in echeloned (multi-layer) AD. see more
"... Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living. ..."
"... So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor. ..."
My comment @342 should have read: "The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the
rest of the world to fund its wars,"
---------
Your comment about capitalist accumulation doesn't hold (as a motivator for the US) when
we have a capitalist monopolist situation. Rate of profit is not about growth (of real
goods); it is about reducing competition and scarcity. When you are the monopolist you can
charge what you like but profit becomes meaningless - the monopolist power comes from the
control of resources - the monopolistic capitalist becomes a ruler/monarch. You no longer
need ever-increasing customers so you can dispense with them if you so chose (by reducing the
population). One bottle of water is far more valuable and a lot less trouble to produce that
100 millions bottles of water. There is no point in AI to provide for the needs of "the
many"; AI becomes a means to dispense with "the many" altogether.
Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free
or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living.
So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of
retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's
capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor.
So they warned Americans about incoming missile strikes, but did not cancel passenger
flights... "As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases,
it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the
attack."
Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights
were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night
take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . .
Notable quotes:
"... To let the civilians planes to flight while expecting they could have an US retaliation is a big mistake, because, as the Israeli did in the shooting-down of the IL-20 in Syria, the US plane could choose to be "radar-shadowed" by the civilians planes and use the civilians planes as shields before bomb the Iranian targets ..."
"... They should have grounded all commercial flights. Really, Really dumb on Iran's part. And I see the saker has been mum on the whole affair. ..."
"... It definitely shoots some holes in his propping up of the Iranian military/government to show how ready and focused they are for an American invasion. ..."
"... Why did the US keep info under wraps in the intelligence briefing to members U.S. Congress ... afterwards they specifically said there was. NO intelligence Ukraine airliner was shot down ... lots to learn for all. Not following the Putin playbook. Or other cover-ups like NATO downing an Italian passenger jet near Ithaca. Ukraine themselves have accidentally shot down a Siberian airliner by exercises above the Black Sea. ..."
"... Pretty hard to believe an accident this stupid. Sorry. ..."
The Iranian Armed Forces General Staff just
admitted (in Farsi,
English translation ) that its air defenses inadvertently shot down the Ukrainian
flight PS 752 shortly after it took off on January 8 in Tehran :
2- In early hours after the missile attack [on US' Ain al-Assad base in Iraq], the
military flights of the US' terrorist forces had increased around the country. The
Iranian defence units received news of witnessing flying targets moving towards Iran's
strategic centres, and then several targets were observed in some [Iranian] radars, which
incited further sensitivity at the Air Defence units.
3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline's Flight
PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a
sensitive military site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target.
In such conditions, due to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit
[by the Air Defence], which caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the
deaths of several foreign nationals.
4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy
with the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the
human error. It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the
operational procedures of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of
such errors. It will also immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization
of the Armed Forces for prosecution.
To let the civilians planes to flight while expecting they could have an US
retaliation is a big mistake, because, as the Israeli did in the shooting-down of the IL-20
in Syria, the US plane could choose to be "radar-shadowed" by the civilians planes and use
the civilians planes as shields before bomb the Iranian targets
At the very least, it does show us that anxieties were running very high that
evening/early morning with no "in-the-know" arrangement for how the deescalation was going
to pan out.
They should have grounded all commercial flights. Really, Really dumb on Iran's
part. And I see the saker has been mum on the whole affair.
It definitely shoots some holes in his propping up of the Iranian
military/government to show how ready and focused they are for an American
invasion.
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.
So much for engine malfunction. fives eyes said it was a missile so I thought it would have
been their proxies like Ukraine, but not the case this time. Downing the drone firing only
one missile, precision strikes on the US base... shit happens especially when the US and
five eyes are involved and creating the fog of war. Hope it doesn't make the Iranians
hesitate when they next need to fire one.
Yes, why didn't Iran ground all commercial flights while there was hostilities and the
potential for reprisal missile and air attacks? Their air defenses can't be that good if
they can't distinguish between a commercial jet and a military jet.
Indeed does not bode well in the event of war with the US which would destroy much of
Iran.
For the trolls currently infesting this site - Iraq, a relatively small country when it
comes to superpowers has been successfully fending off the US for fourty years. Fourty
years when they could be attacked by the US at any time. They have developed their own air
defences plus high tech missiles that accurately hit a US base within an Iraqi base. Trump
is intent on destroying Iran. The US regime wouldn't hesitate to use a civilian plane to
try and penetrate Iran's defences. US is as culpable of this downing as was the crew of the
US ship that far from home and on Iran's doorstep downed the Iranian passenger jet.
Well. Looks like Iran will have to lay low for awhile or at least until the US starts the
war for real. Not necessarily a bad thing?
At least the victims families get some closure. Iran should propose that some of their
frozen assets be released to pay restitution.
The downing of the plane probably helped avoid an American retaliation for the missile
strikes.
Iran cleared up the crash site where the passenger jet came down and before admitting its
responsibility on Friday, said it wanted to handle the black box data itself.
The debris of the Boeing 737 has been removed from the crash site near Tehran
before Ukrainian investigators have even arrived , sparking fears of a cover-up.
It was a dead giveaway yesterday when Iran started clearing the debris from the crash
site before any independent investigators arrived. When you add that to video that showed
the Ukranian airliner exploding in the air, it would have indicated a decent probability
that Iran was hiding something. But....most everyone in the earlier threads on the downing
of the jet were finding all kinds of excuses why it couldn't have been an Iranian air
defense missile.
Yes this is a horrible tragedy and I wish Iran had grounded all flights until they were
certain all was clear. But in real life accidents and mistakes happen, sometimes very
tragic and costly.
But all this talk of Iranian 'incompetence' and 'loss of moral high ground' is utter
nonesense.
Iran handled this tragic mistake about as well as anyone could. Indeed far better than
many others have. Especially when you consider that they knew that their enemies would use
everything in an inform8war against them. Given the circumstances, Iran handled the
aftermath as well as possible. 'Why did it take Iran so long to admit it?' Well, 'so long'
is 3 days. And even before that, they invited experts from Boeing and even the NTSB to help
with the investinvestigation.
And now those who wished to use this incident against Iran are stuck. What can they say?
The US making a fuss about it will only offer an opportunity to remind everyone of IA655.
Iran has already admitted it and apologized. Not much more to use.
And none of this changes the fact that Iran is the only country to openly retaliate
against the US military and have the US back down.
The following link has interesting info about some of the people killed in the Ukrainian
flight PS 752. Originally, I wasn't going to mention this article because in it it said
"...A crash which US authorities are now saying was caused by Iran's own missile defence
systems. An explanation which Iran seems to be accepting for the moment. ..." but as that
seems to be the case. This tragic shootdown will make Russia cautious in supplying Iran
with missiles.
My Ship was headed to the Gulf on the Monday after the Friday Vincennes Incident.
I was in my Homeport in Japan that Evening. Spent Supper and Watched Music Videos at the
Officers' Club. As I got off my Bike at the Pier - an Associate told me that We shot down
an Iranian F-14.
We already had Skirmishes the Previous Summer with the USS Stark, which Kicked Off the
Naval Convoys of Operation Earnest Will.
We know that the IRNians were harassing the Vincennes with their Gunboats. The Vincennes
were told to leave the Area several times afterwards; but Disobeyed - Seeking to Destroy.
The Air Warfare Team were hell bent on the Hunt, they Deluded Themselves to believe that a
Hostile Aircraft was approaching. With no Comms/Responses and no one checking Commercial
Flight Paths, they Shot Down the Airliner.
I confirmed this with the Officer leading the Anti Surface Team on the Vincennes that
Day - when I met him during an MBA Prospective Tour at Harvard years later.
Human Error - Rushed Judgement. Now we need to see if the Aircraft did Deviate from the
Path / Warnings+Comms were ongoing - and to see if it wasn't a Cover for Intel Photo Ops
over the Base.
The United States KNEW about the tragic event from the moment it happened. Military
satellites in the sky can make sharper photo's than reporters on the ground of the crash
site. The intelligence was shared with 5 Eyes plus ... incl. at least Israel and The
Netherlands (PM Mark Rutte if MH-17 fame).
Why did the US keep info under wraps in the intelligence briefing to members U.S.
Congress ... afterwards they specifically said there was. NO intelligence Ukraine airliner
was shot down ... lots to learn for all. Not following the Putin playbook. Or other
cover-ups like NATO downing an Italian passenger jet near Ithaca. Ukraine themselves have
accidentally shot down a Siberian airliner by exercises above the Black Sea.
Pretty hard to believe an accident this stupid. Sorry.
Could an Iranian have been turned by foreign agents to shoot down a passenger airliner,
and then claim it was an accident?
Or could Iran have been enticed to make a false admission to protect Boeings reputation
and/or the Ukraine airlines reputation. Perhaps a carrot of lesser severity in the new
sanctions?
There is no way to know really. I suppose its simplest to just take Irans admission as
truth. If US fighters were flying over Irans airspace I suppose thats an adequate
defense.
Still, its hard to see it. I mean if that was the case and enemy aircraft were intruding
over Irans airspace local civilian planes wouldn't have been cleared to take off by ATC
because there is no way to guarantee the flight path is clear. They just wouldn't. And if
they did Iran has just basically admitted how incompetent they are. I mean they knew what
was coming since they launched the missiles into Iraq. They had to have a plan on if there
was a retaliatory response They had to be tracking any incoming flights very carefully as
potential targets. A flight taking off from Tehran cant possibly be confused as an attacker
unless their air defense system and training of operators is FUBAR
I'm going back and watch Fake Wrestling. Its more believable
somebody
five eyes will come at you covered in any type of sheep clothing. Australian aid to east
timor, UK's white helmets, plenty of stories of CIA inserting itself into aid agencies.
Operation northwoods was one scheme put forward but not carried out. Sounds like the
Ukraine plane may have made a sudden turn to head back to the airport but towards a
protected site without allowing time for air defences to be notified.
There may be more to this story when flight records are retrieved.
According to the commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iranian air defence systems mistook the Boeing 737 for a
cruise missile. The plane was shot down with a short-range projectile, he added.
Sounds very much like the situation with the Russian Il-20 that was brought down in Syria
last year. Was someone trying to use the Ukrainian jet as a cover to attack the IRGC site?
Hostile planes in the area.
Flight 752 making an approach "positioning itself at the altitude and form of a hostile
flight".
Maybe some experts will explain how common is it for an airliner to have an altitude and
trajectory consistent with a hostile flight (of an attacking missile).
Apparently the plane first took on extra fuel because it was overloaded and then
offloaded cargo because then it was even more overloaded. This seems illogical. What is the
standard practice in these cases?
And then there was someone who was there early in the morning ready to take video of the
flight.
And we had pictures of the missile fragment very soon after the crash. Someone knew what
to look for and searched for it.
Remote controlled hijacking???
Many questions-few answers.
Perhaps the solution is to have a S-300 or S-400 system put in place just like Putin did
after the IL-20 shootdown.
Quote from Farsnews
***
"Following threats by the criminal US president and military commanders to strike a large
number of targets on the Islamic Republic of Iran's territory in case of an Iranian attack
and due to the unprecedented aerial movements in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran's
Armed Forces were on highest levels of alert to respond to any possible threats," the
statement said.
"In the early hours after the missile attack, military flights of the US terrorist
forces increased around the country and defense units received some reports about flying
objects that were moving towards the country's strategic centers as several targets
appeared on radar screens which made the air defense units more sensitive," it added.
"Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, flight number 752 of the Ukrainian
airline company left Imam Khomeini airport and then approached a sensitive military center
after a turn, positioning itselt at the altitude and form of a hostile flight and was hit
because of a human error and unintentionally under such conditions, and as a result a
number of our country men and women and some foreign citizens lost their lives," it
added.
****
My first thought on seeing the news that the Iranian military had admitted to shooting
down UIA Flight PS752 was similar to yours.
By making this admission, the Iranians nip in the bud any conspiracy theories and
narratives that their enemies might try to weave and convince the public around the world
(and especially diaspora Iranians) insinuating their guilt, whether actual or not, in the
plane crash.
Supposing the Iranians did deliberately shoot down the plane, there may be a reason why
they decided to say it was an accident: such an admission not only absolves them from
accusations of cold-bloodedness which might cost them the trust of their neighbours (and
others beyond their neighbourhood) but also relieves them of having to explain the real
reason for shooting down the plane - because that reason may very well be something
involving Ukraine in a regime-change activity or operation against Iran or one of its
allies.
Chechens are known to be in Ukraine, and to be fighting for and against Kiev. What other
groups not normally resident in Ukraine might have arrived there in the years since
Yanukovych's ousting as President in February 2014, being trained as fighters to fight in
other lands that have committed the unholy sin of defying the United States and the masters
Washington DC serves?
What the Iranians have done in admitting culpability is sure to displease a lot of
people, not satisfy them. They sure didn't see that one coming.
But shortly before the crash , the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration announced
an emergency flight restriction for U.S. airlines flying over areas of Iraq and Iran. The
FAA warned of the " potential for miscalculation or misidentification " of
civilian planes because of increased military tensions in those areas.
Iran will now be taken to the cleaners. The entire IRGC is classified by Washington as a
terrorist organisation so I imagine some US vulture law firm is already looking at taking
action in American courts against Iran in the full expectation that each victim's estate
will be awarded billions of dollars compensation and the US law firm will earn billions in
fees. Iran should get ahead of this game and make offers of substantial compensation (far
more than the legal minimum) to the families of all the victims.
"Russian anti-aircraft missile "Tor" hit the liner in the lower part of the front of the
fuselage, directly under the cockpit.
A direct hit and the cabin flared up inside. Instantly turned off the transponder of the
aircraft, which gives signals about the flight. Instantly lost contact.
While there is no data, one or two missiles have caused such damage. It is possible that
the second missile also hit the fuselage from below close to the first. But all this
remains to be clarified."
If this is the case, it is doubtful the pilots and perhaps the cockpit controls would
have been in any condition to turn the aircraft after the first hit.
This is one good reason to make certain Iran does not get nuclear weapons.
Russia and China absolutely are working to keep Iran from getting nukes. And those are
Iran's closest "allies", who are risking sanctions to help Iran survive the maximum
pressure hybrid war.
Time to get real about Iran.
The regime should have let the Russians sell them the S-400, and let the Russians build
an integrated defense system with communications for all units. It might have prevented
such a tragedy. But the regime is full of pride and wants its weapons to be built by Iran.
Thus, tragedy has befallen Iran. Needlessly.
They need to come up with a diplomatic, negotiating strategy (like listen to Putin) and
change the present terms of engagement. The US will crush them economically otherwise.
Trump doesn't have to fire a shot. Iran is stumbling backward, not just on a back foot.
Back in Autumn 1999, the International Journal published what was either my first or
my second academic article (I produced another in the same year and can't remember which came
first). It's title was '"Ready to Kill but not to Die": NATO Strategy in Kosovo'. As you might
gather from the title, it wasn't altogether sympathetic to what NATO did during its 1999
bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. The Kosovo war was, you might say, my 'red pill' moment,
when I went from being the loyal military officer of my youth into someone who realized that
his own countries weren't above a bit of military aggression allied to a hefty dose of
falsehood and propaganda.
Since then I have repeatedly argued firmly against war (or 'military intervention', 'peace
enforcement', or whatever other term people prefer to use to make it look like it's not war)
whenever it's been proposed. I have argued in favour of substantial cuts in defence spending in
the countries in which I have lived and of which I am a citizen (the UK and Canada). I
published academic articles and chapters in scholarly books laying out the case against
'humanitarian intervention', the 'responsibility to protect', the 'obligation to rebuild', and
so on. I even wrote a short book ( Doing Less with Less ), arguing that the UK would not
only save money but would also be much more secure if it spent less on defence and was less
involved in trying to set the world to rights through the use of military power. I repeated
this argument again several years later in a couple of works for a British think tank, the
Institute of Economic Affairs.
At the same time, exploiting my position as a 'public intellectual', I moved into the world
of op-eds and political writing in an effort to influence public opinion outside of academia.
In December 2002, for instance, I wrote a piece for The Spectator denouncing the
impending invasion of Iraq and pouring scorn on the idea that Iraq was knee-deep in weapons of
mass destruction, if only the UN inspectors could find them. And later, in pieces for the
Ottawa Citizen and other outlets, I expressed scepticism about NATO's military and
humanitarian operations in Afghanistan, the likelihood of military success in Iraq, the bombing
campaign against Libya, and the desire to topple Bashar al-Assad in Syria, among other
things.
I never expected that any of this would have an immediate impact on public policy. But I
felt that someone had to say something, and hoped that my writings might in some small way
contribute to a gradual change in the intellectual climate. If nothing else, they would put
ideas on the table which could be picked up by others at some later point in time when external
circumstances altered to such an extent that it became clear that a change in direction was
needed. 'Surely', I thought to myself, 'those in charge will eventually realize what a mess
their policies have created and will want to find an alternative. So, we need to prepare the
ground now.'
Looking back at it all, I don't see that I got anything seriously wrong about the immoral
and counterproductive nature of the military policies pursued by Western states in the past 20
years. But I was completely wrong on that last point – the idea that those in charge
would one day wake up to the folly of their policies. These have been two decades of total
failure, not only for me but also for everyone else who has been arguing the
counter-interventionist case. It is not just that our governments continue to invest vast
amounts of money into pointless military endeavours. More broadly, there has been absolutely no
accountability for the multiple failures which have accompanied those endeavours. The op-ed
pages of major media outlets, for instance, remain dominated by the same rhetoric, and in many
cases even the same people, as brought us the war in Iraq, the quagmire in Afghanistan, and the
chaos of contemporary Libya. The belief that Western powers represent 'good' in the world, and
have a moral right, even a duty, to use military power against those who represent 'evil',
seems to be as entrenched as ever. The post-Cold War alliance forged between hard-line hawks on
the right and liberal human rights interventionists on the left has a seemingly iron grip on
public policy.
How has this come about? How is that even the catastrophic mess which the United States and
its allies (most notably the Brits) have made of Iraq hasn't allowed us to make even a dent in
public policy, to such an extent that we have found ourselves this week seriously contemplating
the prospect of a war between the USA and Iran? Twenty years of thinking about the causes of
war provide me with the following possible explanations, in no particular order:
Avoidance of cognitive dissonance: admitting that the prevailing paradigm of the past 20
years has been wrong would induce a massive headache of cognitive dissonance in leading
Western states. We'd have to admit that we had committed terrible crimes; that we had made
enormous mistakes; and that we had acted in distinctly immoral and illegal ways. Admitting
that would be a devastating blow to the legitimacy of the West as a whole on the
international stage as well as to the legitimacy of the ruling elites within individual
states. It is much easier to pretend that none of this is the case, and that what has gone
wrong has not been our basic approach, but simply how it has been implemented. The solution
then becomes not changing direction but doing the same thing over again, but better.
The influence of the military industrial complex (MIC): in a strict sense, there is no
such thing as the MIC; there's no formal organization that people join. But in an informal
way, the MIC very definitely exists. Its members have an outsize influence on public decision
making, which they influence in a way which benefits their institutional interests. The
result is threat inflation, excessive military spending, and a preference for military
solutions to problems which are better dealt with in other ways.
Military hegemony: simply put, we use military power because we can. Western military
hegemony is such that we can bomb and invade just about anybody without suffering too much as
a result. This creates an enormous temptation to do so, especially since otherwise our
military power is just sitting around doing nothing. Madeleine Albright's complaint to Colin
Powell – 'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about
if we can't use it?' – demonstrates the point very clearly.
Democracy and its lack: democracy – or more accurately, the need to face regular
re-election – creates some very undesirable incentives among politicians. In
particular, it leads to an obsession with looking 'strong'. Weakness is seen (rightly or
wrongly) as electorally fatal. Associated with this is a perceived need to 'do something'.
The brevity of the electoral cycle creates a preference for action over inaction. At the same
time, though, this preference is also connected to severe deficiencies in our political
system, above all the fact that they're not nearly as democratic as they appear to be.
Opinion polls in America, for instance, show that the general public would like the USA to
extract itself from the Middle East, but yet government after government plunges deeper in.
The influence of the MIC, the 'deep state', the lack of accountability mentioned above, the
dominance of pro-war voices in the media, and so on, all play into this dynamic. So too do
the activities of certain (sometimes ethnically-based, or diaspora) lobby groups.
Arrogance: the West's 'victory' in the Cold War demonstrated to many that 'History' had
proved Western liberalism to be right. This rightness, allied with the power mentioned above,
led to a belief that there was nothing we could not do if only we had the will.
Ignorance: almost as great as our arrogance is our ignorance of the realities of the
countries in which we become military involved. The arrogance and the ignorance are connected
– it is the former which prevents us from realizing the prevalence of the latter.
Ideology: Western states are in the grip of universalist ideology which moralizes
international relations, dividing the world into the 'good' (liberal, pro-Western) and the
'bad' (illiberal, anti-Western). This ideology brooks no dissent. Utilitarian arguments as to
whether military action brings more benefit or more harm are dismissed in favour of moral
ones – Qasem Soleimani had to die because he was a 'monster'; Gaddhafi was 'evil';
Saddam was a 'bad guy', and so on.
Misperception: there's a whole literature on the role of misperception in international
politics, most notably the work of Robert Jervis. It's all relevant. States regularly
misperceive actions taken by other states for their own defence as potentially hostile, fail
to appreciate changes in others' postures over time ('change blindness' in psychological
jargon), and so on.
Groupthink: the West's various multilateral structures, including the NATO alliance,
don't help in this regard. Western leaders – political and military – are all
members of the same club. They want to get on with one another, and don't like to be the odd
one out. So they follow along. Dissenting views are suppressed. This is, of course, a bit of
an over-generalization, but there's some truth to it – how much condemnation did the
invasion of Iraq generate among NATO members? how many states have broken ranks with the USA
over its policy on Iran? etc. Not very many.
It's a heady mixture, and it leads me to something of a revolutionary conclusion. For 20
years, I've taken the view that we can argue our way out of the mania for military
intervention; that we can logically persuade our leaders to change course. In the midst of this
week's war scare, I'm no longer so sure. The problem goes much deeper than political reason.
The multiple wars of the last two decades are rooted in structural deficits in our domestic
political systems, in the dominant political ideology, in the system of media ownership and
control, and in the broader international system. If we really want to bring these wars to an
end, we need to move beyond pointing out how futile and counterproductive they are, and begin
to address these wider structural issues. It will not be an easy task.
"... We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. ..."
"... As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable, i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written. ..."
"... 603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and company – yet they were not assassinated. ..."
"... NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any. ..."
"... I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down. ..."
"... One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to occupy the country to this day. ..."
"... Pretty clear who the terrorists are on this case. ..."
"... Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent." Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly. ..."
"... War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or citizenship. ..."
"... Lest we forget: "War is a racket." ..."
"... How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action. ..."
"... If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder. ..."
"... "I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense." ..."
"... The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated. ..."
"... For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law! We are the terrorists not them. ..."
Can The US Assassination Of Qassem Soleimani Be Justified? Posted on
January 10, 2020 by Yves Smith Yves here. Even though the
angst over "what next" with the US/Iran confrontation has fallen a bit, there is still a
depressingly significant amount of mis- and dis-information about the Soleimani assassination.
This post is a nice high level treatment that might be a good candidate for circulating among
friends and colleagues who've gotten a hefty dose of MSM oversimplifications and social media
sloganeering.
Update 6:50 AM: Due to the hour, I neglected to add a quibble, and readers jumped on the
issue in comments. First, it has not been established who launched the attack that killed a the
US contractor. The US quickly asserted it was Kat'ib Hezbollah, but there were plenty of groups
in the area that had arguably better motives, plus Kat'ib Hezbollah has denied it made the
strike. Second, Kat'ib Hezbollah is an Iraqi military unit.
By Barkley Rosser, Professor of Economics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg,
Virginia. Originally published at EconoSpeak
We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce
any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have
made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. The public statements by
administration figures have cited such things as the 1979 hostage crisis, the already dead
contractor, and, oh, the need to "reestablish deterrence" after Trump did not follow through on
previous threats he made. None of this looks remotely like "imminent plans," not to mention
that the Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani was on the way to see him with a
reply to a Saudi peace proposal. What a threatening imminent plan!
As it is, despite the apparent lack of "imminent plans" to kill Americans, much of the
supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters (with bragging about
it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding website) involves charges that
Soleimani was "the world's Number One terrorist" and was personally responsible for killing 603
Americans in Iraq. Even as many commentators have noted the lack of any "imminent plans,"
pretty much all American ones have prefaced these questions with assertions that Soleimani was
unquestionable "evil" and "bad" and a generally no good guy who deserved to be offed, if not
right at this time and in this way. He was the central mastermind and boss of a massive
international terror network that obeyed his orders and key to Iran's reputed position as "the
Number One state supporter of terrorism," with Soleimani the key to all of that.
Of course, in Iran it turns out that Soleimani was highly respected, even as many oppose the
hawkish policies he was part of. He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh
in Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr.
It appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for
Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his
hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's
Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was
responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out
there.
A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that
supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were
(and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a
position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the
various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.
Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead
in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really
was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths
cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military
personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of
whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff
happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported
by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be
the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are
not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the
IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.
It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against
ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most
recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor
caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi
group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with
the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military.
Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump
threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.
As it is, the US datinrg back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia
with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians.
Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.
I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US
as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations
against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially
were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the
JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been
replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also
have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.
In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to
some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However,
when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It
really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.
I guess I should note for the record that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, much less
the IGRC and its former and new commander. It is theocratic and repressive, with many political
prisoners and a record of killing protestors. However, frankly, it is not clearly all that much
worse than quite a few of its neighboring regimes. While Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei was not
popularly elected, its president, Rouhani, was, who obeyed popular opinion in negotiating the
JCPOA that led to the relaxation of economic sanctions, with his power reduced when Trump
withdrew from the agreement. Its rival Saudi Arabia has no democracy at all, and is also a
religiously reactionary and repressive regime that uses bone saws on opponents and is
slaughtering civilians in a neighboring nation.
with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base
where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it appears to be presented here as a fact.
Kat'b Hezbollah have denied responsibility for that rocket attack. To the best of my
knowledge, no proof whatsoever has been presented that it was not an attack by jihadis in the
area, whom Khat'b Hezbollah were fighting, or by others with an interest in stirring the
pot.
They are having a hard time coming up with public evidence to support any justification,
aren't they?
The latest was Pence's "keeping it secret to protect sources and methods" meme. Purely
speculating here, but I immediately thought, "Oh, Israeli intelligence." Gotta protect allies
in the region.
Debka, run by supposedly-former Israeli military intelligence, was enthusing about
upcoming joint operations against Iran and its allies a month or two ago. In contrast,
they've been uncharacteristically quiet, though supportive of the US, regarding recent
developments.
Secretary of State Pompeo claimed that Soleimani was responsible for hundreds of thousands
of deaths in Syria. Basically blaming Iran for all deaths in the Syrian war.
People more commonly do this with Assad. A complicated war with multiple factions fighting
each other, armed by outside sources including the US, most with horrific human rights
records, but almost every pundit and politician in the US talks as though Assad killed
everyone personally.
Once in a while you get a little bit of honesty seeping in, but it never changes the
narrative. Caitlin Johnstone said something about that, not specifically about Syria. The
idea was that you can sometimes find facts reported in the mainstream press that contradict
the narrative put out by pundits and politicians and for that matter most news stories, but
these contradictory facts never seem to change the prevailing narrative.
That sounds suspiciously like sour grapes and another possible motive for the killing
– revenge.
Soleimani led a number of militias that were successful in defeating the Saudi (and CIA)
sponsored Sunni jihadis who failed to implement the empire's "regime change" playbook in
Syria.
No doubt a lot of guys like Pompeo wanted him dead for that reason alone.
The simple answer NO, killing a sitting army general of a sovereign state on a diplomatic
mission resides in the realm of the truly absurd. Twisting the meaning of the word "imminent"
far beyond its ordinary use to justify the murder is even more absurd. And the floating
subtext to all this talk about lost American lives is that the US can invade and occupy
foreign lands, engage in the sanctimonious slaughter of locals and whoever else gets in the
way of feeding the bloodlust of Pompeo and his ilk (to say nothing of feeding the outsized
ego of a lunatic like Trump), and yet expect to suffer no combat casualties from those
defending their lands. It's the most warped form of "exceptional" thinking.
As an aside, I wonder if the msm faithfully pushing the talk about Iran downing that
Ukrainian commercial jet is designed to take the heat off a beleaguered Boeing. The
investigation hasn't even begun but already we have the smoking gun, Iran did it.
Even the question is wrong. The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms
(this from a country that dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a
colossal mistake, a strategic blunder, and plain destructive.
The more one learns about QS' activities, the more it seems that he was "disposed of"
precisely because of his unique talent and abilities to bring together the various local
factions (particularly, in Iraq), so that then – unified – they could fight
against the common enemy (guess who?). He was not guilty of killing amrikans – nor was
he planning to – his "sin" was to try and unite locals to push the us out of ME. It was
always going to be an uphill battle, but in death he may – in time – achieve his
wish.
I'm in this camp too. But with a twist. Pure speculation here – and I'm sure it
would never be exposed, but is there even any proof we did it? Was it an apache helicopter or
a drone; whom have we supplied with these things? Who is this bold? Since our military has
been dead-set-against assassinating Soleimani or any other leader it seems highly unlikely
they proposed this to Trump. Mattis flatly refused to even consider such a thing. So I keep
wondering if the usual suspect might be the right one – the Israelis. They have the
proper expertise. And the confusion that followed? If we had done it we'd have had our PSAs
ready to print. Instead we proffered an unsigned letter and other "rough drafts" of the
incident and then retracted them like idiots. As if we were frantic to step in and prevent
the Rapture. We could have taken the blame just to prevent a greater war. Really, that's what
it looks like to me.
Surely the whole point of the strike is that it was illegal: that is to say that it was a
message to the Iraqis that they are NOT allowed to help Iran evade sanctions, NOT allowed to
do oil-for-infrastructure deals with China and NOT allowed to invite senior Iranians around
for talks: i.e. Iraq is not yet sovereign and it is the US that makes the rules around there;
any disobedience will summarily be punished by the de facto rulers even if that violates
agreements and laws applicable in Iraq.
If you disagree, then what should the US do if Iraq does not toe the Western line?
" The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms (this from a country that
dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a colossal mistake, a
strategic blunder, and plain destructive "
I think the immediate impact which has long terms implications for how other countries
view USA foreign policy is simply that any high ranking individual from any other country on
earth has got to be aware that essentially no international norms now exist. It's one thing
to 'whack' a bin Laden or dispose of a Gaddafi but another whole kettle of fish to
assassinate a high ranking official going about their business who's no immediate security
threat to the USA and when no state of war exists.
For example, might a EU general now acquiesce to demands about NATO? Not saying this is
going to happen by a long shot, but still a niggling thought might linger. Surely the
individual will be resentful at the very least. I'm also reminded of a story about John
Bolton allegedly telling a negotiator (UN or European?) that Bolton knew where the
negotiator's family resided. These things add up.
As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before
President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to
wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust
on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable,
i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written.
This is where the middle term ramifications start to kick-in. We know that Russia and
China are making some tentative steps towards superficial integration in limited areas beyond
just cooperation. Will they find more common ground? Will European countries (and by
extension the EU) really start to deliver on an alternative financial clearing system? How
will India and Japan react? Does nationalism of the imperial variety re-emerge as a world
force – for good or bad?
Will regional powers such as Russia, China, India, France or Iran quietly find more common
ground also? But alliances are problematic and sometimes impose limitations that are
exploitable. So, might a different form of cooperation emerge?
Long term its all about advantage and trust. Trust is a busted flush now. (My 2 cents, and
properly priced.)
As Thuto above says, the simple answer is "No". IF S was guilty of all those things
ascribed to him, he'd have been judged and sentenced (yes, I do realise Iran would never
extradite him etc. etc. – but there would have been a process and after the process,
well, some things would be more justifiable). But we have the process because it's important
to have a process – otherwise, anyone can find themselves on a hit list for any reason
whatsoever.
If the US doesn't want to follow and process, then it can't be suprised if others won't.
Ignoring the process works for the strongest, while they are the strongest. And then it
doesn't.
603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of
Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and
company – yet they were not assassinated.
I think – just a guess – the reason Soleimani was killed can be summed up in
one word:
Netanyahu.
That, and on a broader, bird's eye view level in broad strokes – Michael Hudson's
recent article outlining U.S. policy of preserving USD hegemony at all costs, that has
existed since at least the 1950's, which depicts Soleimani's assassination as not a Trump
qwerk but a logical application of that policy.
You might say the swamp drainers came to drain the swamp and ended filling it up
instead.
The mostest terriblest guy in the history of this or any other universe, but the average
Joe never heard of until they announced they killed him. His epochal terribleness really flew
under the radar.
The swamp drainers are so busy guzzling as much as they can quaff, without drowning;
writhing each others' dead-eyed, bloated feeding frenzy; that obscene media distractions need
to escalate in sadistic, off-hand terror. But, it's so ingrained into our governance, we just
call it democracy?
Hudson's take on USD hegemony is reasonable, but I don't think we'd assassinate Soleimani
in anticipation of losing it. We have dealt with all the sects in the middle east for a long
time and we have come to terms with them, until now. In a time that requires the shutting
down of oil and gas production. I think (Carney, Keen, Murphy, etc.) oil is the basis for our
economy, for productivity, for the world, that's a no brainer. But my second thoughts go more
along the lines that oil and natural gas will be government monopolies directly – no
need to use those resources to make the dollar or other currencies monopolies. Sovereign
currency will still be a sovereign monopoly regardless of the oil industry. That also
explains why we want hands-on control of this resource. And with that in mind, it would seem
Soleimani might have been more of an asset for us.
I hate to tell you but as much as we are fans of Hudson, he's all wet on this one. The
dollar is the reserve currency because the US is willing to run sustained trade deficits,
which is tantamount to exporting jobs. Perhaps more important, my connected economists say
they know of no one who has the ear of the military-intel state who believes this either.
This may indeed have been a line of thought 50 years ago but it isn't now.
much of the supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters
(with bragging about it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding
website)
I thought I had a pretty strong stomach for this stuff, but it's been really nauseating
for me to see the displays of joy and flag waving over the assassination of someone the
overwhelming majority of people were wholly unaware of prior to his death. My guess is that
it's mostly just a sort of schadenfreude at the squirming of Democrats as they (with few
exceptions) fail to articulate any coherent response.
The response should be clear without any caveats, "Trump is a coward who would never
gamble with his life, but will happily gamble with the lives of your kids in uniform." This
should resonate with most people, I don't believe that neocons really have any grassroots
support.
NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war
propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a
gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting
that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to
assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of
course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any.
Politico Europe is
reporting that behind Europes seemingly supine response, officials and politicians are
'seething' over the attack. Its clearly seen around the world as not just illegal, but an
appalling precedent.
So far, American efforts to convince Europeans of the bright side of Soleimani's
killing have been met with dropped jaws .
The silence from other countries on this event has been deafening. And that should tell
Trump and Pompeo something, but I doubt if they are smart enough to figure it out.
I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would
happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the
world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down.
On one hand, the life of each and every victim of head-separation and droning is as
precious as that of one Soleimani.
On the other, the general's is more precious and thus, the behind the scene seething by
Europe's politicians and officials. (They and many others are all potential targets now,
versus previously droning wedding guests – time to seethe).
The more I think about it, the more it seemed like the Administration and its allies were
probing to see how far they could go. They bombed PMUs and appeared to get away with it. So
then they upped the ante when the Iraqis complained and finally got some moderate push-back.
Not taking American lives in the missile strike seems to prove they Iranians didn't want to
escalate. Still, I dont know about the Pentagon, but I was impressed with the accuracy.
Yes. From the picture at Vineyard of the Saker, they hit specific buildings. There were
comments after the drone attack on Abqaiq and Khurais oil fields in KSA that they showed
surprising accuracy, but perhaps this time surprised the intelligence agencies. Perhaps that
was why Trump declared victory instead of further escalating. This is speculation, of
course.
There is also a good article giving more detail of these attacks and underlining the fact
that not a single solitary missile was intercepted. What percentage did the Syrians/Russians
manage to intercept of the US/UK/French missiles attack back in 2018? Wasn't it about seventy
percent?
The Iranians are not done retaliating. They have a history of disproportionate
retaliation, but when the right opportunity presents itself, and that routinely takes years.
The limited strike was out of character and appears to have been the result of the amount of
upset internally over the killing.
I have more a lot more respect for the strategic acumen of the Iranian regime than I do
for that of the American regime. Now it's led by a collection of fragile male egos and
superstitious rapture ready religious fanatics. Before them the regime was led by cowardly
corporate suck ups. They all take their cues from the same military intelligence complex.
One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US
military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal
war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to
occupy the country to this day.
Aye! This!
assume a ladder on a windy day, with a hammer irresponsibly left perched on the edge of the
top rung.
if i blithely walk under that ladder just as the wind gusts and get bonked in the head by the
falling hammer whose fault is it?
we shouldn't be there in the first damned place.
and as soon as the enabling lies were exposed, we should have left, post haste .leaving all
kinds of money and apologies in our wake.
to still be hanging around, unwanted by the locals, all these years later is arrogant and
stupid.
during the Bush Darkness, i was accused to my face(even strangled, once!) of being an
american-hating traitor for being against the war, the Bush Cabal, and the very idea of
American Empire.
almost 20 years later, I'm still absolutely opposed to those things not least out of a care
for the Troops(tm) .and a fervent wish that for once in my 50 years i could be proud to be an
American.
what a gigantic misallocation of resources, in service of rapine and hegemony, while my
fellow americans suffer and wither and scratch around for crumbs.
Another of many questions that remain involve the warped interpretation of "imminent" of
the Bethlehem Doctrine. What institution will put a full stop to that doctrine of terror?
It is a global hazard to continue to let that be adopted as any kind of standard.
Under the Bethlehem Doctrine the entire political class in the USA, and possibly a few
other countries, could be assassinated. What is legal or justified for one is justified for
all.
Rosser is an economist rather than a philosopher or. jurist, and so he doesn't appear to
realize that "justification" in the abstract is meaningless. An act can only be justified or
not according to some ethical or legal principle, and you need to say what that principle is
at the beginning before you start your argument. He doesn't do that, so his argument has no
more validity than that of someone you get into a discussion with in a bar or over coffee at
work.
Legally, of course, there is no justification, because there was no state of armed conflict
between the US and Iran, so the act was an act of state murder. It doesn't matter who the
person was or what we was alleged to have done or be going to do. There's been a dangerous
tendency developing in recent years to claim some kind of right to pre-emptive attacks. There
is no such legal doctrine, and the ultimate source of the misrepresentation – Art 51 of
the UN Charter – simply recognizes that nothing in the Charter stops a state resisting
aggression until help arrives. That's it.
Oh, and of course if this act were "justified" then any similar act in a similar situation
would be justified as well, which might not work out necessarily to America's advantage.
General Jonathan Shaw, former commander of UK forces in Iraq, put it well: Iran's
objectives are political, not military. Their aim is not to destroy any American air base,
but to drive a wedge between the US and its Arab allies -- and the Soleimani assassination
has achieved more to this end than anything that could have been cooked up in Tehran. The
Sunnis are standing down and the US and Israel now once again face being without real
friends in the region. When push came to shove, all Kushner's efforts amounted to nothing.
How elated the Iranians must be, even in the midst of such a setback.
Which if true means that instead of divide and conquer Trump and Pompeo may instead be
practicing unite and be conquered when it comes to US meddling in the Middle East.
I think that I see a danger for Israel here with a very tight pucker factor. I had assumed
that if there was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that Hezbollah would let loose their
older rockets first to use up the Israeli anti-missile ordinance that they have. After that
would come their modern accurate missiles.
But part of that Iranian attack on those US bases was the use of older missiles that had been
retro-fitted with gear for accurate targeting which obviously worked out spectacularly.
Israel could assume that Iran would have given Hezbollah the same technology and the
implication here is that any first wave of older Hezbollah missiles would just be as accurate
as the following barrages of newer missiles.
I wonder if it is remotely possible that all countries, say at the UN, could design
acceptable language to make oil and natural gas a universal resource with a mandated
conservation – agreed to by all. Those countries which have had oil economies and have
become rich might agree to it because the use of oil and gas will be so restricted in future
that they will not have those profits. But it would at least provide them with some steady
income. It would prevent the oil wars we will otherwise have in our rush to monopolize the
industry for profit; it would conserve the use of oil/gas and extend it farther out into the
future so we can build a sustainable worldwide civilization and mitigate much of the damage
we have done to the planet, etc. How can we all come together and make energy, oil and natgas
access a universal human right (for the correct use)?
Actually Soleimani was guilty of the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Tens of
thousands of ISIS fighters that is. Do they count? The Saudis, Gulf States and the CIA may
shed a tear for them but nobody else will. When Soleimani arrived in Baghdad, he was
traveling in a diplomatic capacity to help try to ease off tensions between the Saudis and
the Iranians. And this was the imminent danger that Trump was talking about. Not an imminent
danger to US troops but a danger that the Saudis and Iranians might negotiate an
accommodation. Michael Hudson has said similar in a recent article.
I think that what became apparent from that attack last year on the Saudi oil
installations was that they were now a hostage. In other words, if the US attacks Iran, then
Iran will take out the entirety of Saudi oil production and perhaps the Saudi Royal family
themselves. There is no scenario in an Iran-US war where the Kingdom come out intact. So it
seems that they have been putting out feelers with the Iranians about coming to an
accommodation. This would explain why when Soleimani was murdered, there was radio silence on
behalf of the Saudis.
Maybe Trump has worked out that all of the Saudi oil facilities becoming toast would be
bad for America too but, more importantly, to himself personally. After all, what is the
point of having the Saudis only sell their oil in US dollars if there is no oil to sell? What
would such a development do to the standing of the US dollar internationally? The financial
crisis would sink his chances for a win this November and that is something that he will
never allow. And I bet that he did not Tucker Carlson to tell him that.
Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent."
Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is
not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly.
What percent of the presumed Trump base, and imperial Big Business and Banksters, not to
mention the sloshing mass of other parts of the electorate subject to "spinning" in the
Bernays Tilt-a-Whirl, would give a rat's aff about "war crimes" charges? Drone murders to
date, the whole stupid of profitable (to a few, externalities ignored) GWOT, all the sh!t the
CIA and CENTCOM and Very Special Ops have done with impunity against brown people and even
people here at home, not anything more than squeaks from a small fraction of us.
And Trump is the Decider, yes, who signed off (as far as we know) on killing Soleimani
that was lined up by the Borg, but really, how personalized to him would any repentance and
disgust or even scapegoat targeting by the Blob really be, in the kayfabe that passes for
"democracy in America?"
I always though de Tocqueville titled his oeuvre on the political economy he limned way
back when as a neat bit of Gallic irony
I don't know. Might Trump benefit from charges of war crimes, spinning them as further
proof that the United Nations, International Criminal Court, etc. are controlled by commies
and muslims out to get the USA?
As for the imminence of the hypothetical attacks, "There is no doubt that there were a
series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qassem Soleimani," Pompeo told the Fox News host.
"We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real."
Remember that imminent=possible at some time in the near or distant future, and Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if
there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction -- and
there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time -- the United States
must now act as if it were a certainty." That doctrine didn't prevent Bush's
re-election. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html
Declare victory and bring them all home. Leave behind W's Mission Accomplished banner and
pallets of newly printed $100s with Obama's picture.
Along the lines of Bismarck, not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Not my
20 year old, not anybody else's in my name, either, especially since this began before they
were born.
And to whom will they sell their oil and natural gas? Who cares – its a fungible
commodity of perhaps only of concern to our "allies" in Western Europe. Not my problem and
great plan to mitigate carbon emissions!
War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to
protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or
citizenship.
The whole episode reminds me of a Martin Scorsese plot line. A disagreement among "Made
Men". The unfortunate symbolism and 'disrespect' of the embassy protest demanded a response,
especially after all the fuss Trump made about Benghazi. Some things cannot be allowed. The
Iranians, Russians and Americans probably decided between themselves what would be sufficient
symbolism to prevent a war, and so Soleimani was sacrificed to die as a hero/martyr. A small
price to prevent things spiraling out of control. The Iranian response seems to add weight to
this hypothesis.
Forgive me for taking this a little more in the direction of theory, but can the rest of
the world justify the assassination of CIA/Pentagon/CENTCOM officials in a similar manner
given the opportunity? Are these organizations not an analog to Quds? That seems to be more
in line with the type of questions we need to be asking ourselves as US citizens in a
multi-polar world. This article, despite its best intentions, still hints at an American
exceptionalism that no longer exists in the international mind. The US could barely get away
with its BS in the 90s, it definitely can't in 2020.
The US no longer has the monopoly on the narrative ("Big Lie") rationalizing its actions,
not to say the other countries have the correct narrative, just that, there are a whole bunch
of narratives ("Lies") out there being told to the world by various powers that are not the
US, and the US is having a difficult time holding on to the mic. The sensible route would be
to figure out how to assert cultural and political values/power in this world without the
mafiosi methods. Maybe some old fashioned (if not icky, cynical) diplomacy. It is better than
spilled blood, or nuclear war.
The US military/intelligence wonks overplayed their hand with Soleimani. I think the
Neo-Cons gave Trump a death warrant for Soleimani, and Trump was too self-involved (stupid)
to know or care who he was offing. His reaction to the blow back betrays that.
Now he is f*****, along with the chicken-hawks, and they all know it. They just have to
sit back and watch Iran bomb US bases because the alternative is a potential big war,
possibly involving China and Russia, that can't be fought by our Islamist foreign legions.
It'll demand the involvement of US troops on the ground and the US electorate won't tolerate
it.
Anyone who has worked in the counter-terrorism field knows that when a credible and
imminent threat is received the first act is to devise a response to counter the threat. It
may involve raising security measures at an airline security checkpoint, it may involve
arrests, if possible, of the would-be terrorist(s). It may involve evacuating a building and
conducting a search for a bomb. It may involve changing a scheduled appearance or route of
travel of a VIP.
The point is to stop the operators behind the threat from completing their terrorist act.
What it certainly does NOT involve is assassinating someone who may have given the order but
is definitely not involved in carrying out the act. Such an assassination would not only be
ineffective in countering the threat but would likely be seen as increasing the motivation
behind the attack. Such was the assassination of Soleimani, even if one believes in the
alleged imminent threat. This was simply a revenge killing due to Soleimani's success at
organizing the opposition to US occupation.
We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real.
How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger
to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All
public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory
killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action.
If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United
Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who
have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder.
This is absolutely chilling. These "End Times/Armageddon" lunatics want to destroy the
world. Who would Jesus have murdered? They stand the lessons of his state-sanctioned murder
on their heads
My two-pennyworth? The US press and the circles surrounding Trump are already crowing that
he 'won' the exchange. If, as speculated, he went against military advice in ordering this
assassination, his 'victory' will only confirm his illusions that he is a military genius,
which makes him even more dangerous. There are some rather nasty parallels with the rise of
Hitler appearing here.
The claim that Soleimani had killed hundreds of Americans was repeated, word for word, in
many articles in the papers of record (e.g., New York Times, 1/7/20; Washington Post, 1/3/20,
1/3/20) as well as across the media (e.g., Boston Globe, 1/3/20; Fox News, 1/6/20; The Hill,
1/7/20).
These "hundreds of Americans" were US forces killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
during the Iraq War, supposedly made in Iran and planted by Iranian-backed Shia militias. As
professor Stephen Zunes pointed out in the Progressive (1/7/20), the Pentagon provided no
evidence that Iran made the IEDs, other than the far-fetched claim that they were too
sophisticated to be made in Iraq -- even though the US invasion had been justified by claims
that Iraq had an incredibly threatening WMD program. The made-in-Iran claim, in turn, was the
main basis for pinning responsibility for IED attacks on Shia militias -- which were, in any
case, sanctioned by the Iraqi government, making Baghdad more answerable for their actions
than anyone in Tehran. Last year, Gareth Porter reported in Truthout, (7/9/19) that the claim
that Iran was behind the deaths of US troops was part of Vice President Dick Cheney's plan to
build a case for yet another war.
IIRC the "sophistication claim" was made years ago. Apparently the basic technology is
applied in oilfields to pierce oil well lining tubes at the oil layer. So the Iraqis knew all
about the basic technique, only needed some more information.
About those "603 American deaths" that Soleimani is posthumously being charged with .
"I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American
servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by
Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense."
"The U.S. Government and almost all of the media continue to declare that Iran is the
biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a lie. I realize that calling this
assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist for Iran. But simply look at
the facts."
"The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and
terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little
to do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their
cooperation with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the
longterm interests of the United States or our allies in the Middle East"
The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran's elite
Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S.
officials familiar with the matter.
The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen.
Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising
questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally
stated.
"Justification"?????
You're kidding right?
"They", those who we firstly "embrace" for our own interests are "for us" until we decide we
are "against them"!
What a farce our foreign policies are!
For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law!
We are the terrorists not them.
Prediction for this stupidest of all worlds: Iraq really does boot us out, T-bone siezes
on this for its obvious popularity among his base, and uses "He Kept Us Out Of War" for
re-election.
Where is my peace dividend after fall of Berlin Wall and Soviet Union?
Poppy and MIC wouldn't have it, hence April Galaspie's "no instructions" response to
Saddam's initial inquiry over the Iraq / Kuwait surveying and mineral rights dispute on
Kuwait's drilling at the border 30 years ago.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defence Secretary Mark Esper, and General Mark Milley,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had gone to Palm Beach, Florida, to brief Trump on
airstrikes the Pentagon had just carried out in Iraq and Syria against Iranian-sponsored Shiite
militia groups.
"... Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official. ..."
As planning got underway, Pompeo worked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark
Milley and the commander of CENTCOM Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie to assess the profile of
troops in the field. Multiple sources also say that hawkish Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of
Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were kept in the loop and also pushed Trump to
respond.
Trump was not at all reluctant to target Soleimani, multiple sources said, adding that the
President's other senior advisers -- Esper, Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national
security adviser Robert O'Brien -- "were all on board."
Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that
bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely,"
said the former Republican national security official.
That said, the former official expressed concern about the lack of deep expertise in Trump's
national security team. Several analysts pointed to this as one factor in Pompeo's outsized
influence within the administration.
The government is so compromised by Trump and by all the vacancies and lack of experience,
this former official said, that "everything is being done by a handful of principles -- Pompeo,
Esper, Milley. There are a lot of things being left on the floor."
'Such a low bar'
Pompeo is arguably the most experienced of the national security Cabinet, the former
national security official said, "but it's such a low bar."
"It's such a small group and there's so much that needs to be done," the former official
said. "Everyone in this administration is a level and a half higher than they would be in a
normal administration. They have no bench," they said.
The Trump administration has been handicapped by the President's refusal to hire Republicans
who criticize him. Other Republicans won't work for the administration, for fear of being
"tainted" or summarily fired, the former official said.
As layers of experience have been peeled away at the White House, some analysts say
safeguards have been removed as well. CNN's Peter Bergen has written in his new book, "Trump
and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis told his aides not to present the
President with options for confronting Iran militarily.
Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, argues that since the departure of
Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former White House chief of
staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, there are very few voices at the White House to offer
"deeply considered advice."
"We don't have those people who have that experience and could look Trump in the eye and who
have his respect and who could say, 'Hey, hey, hey -- wait!'," Slim said.
For years, "Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him
popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative
Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals,"
the Post explains . "Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship
with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad," and "at the State
Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places
the country far above other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world."
Read more at The Washington Post . Peter Weber
Trump is betraying his voters and threatening millions of lives.
In a full-blown U.S. war
with Iran, up to a million people could die initially.
Hundreds of thousands more could die in the vacuum to follow. Millions would be made
refugees. That's the conclusion of experts surveyed
by Vox reporter Alex Ward . "The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious,"
Middle East scholar Michael Hanna warned.
With the brazen assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq,
President Trump has brought us leaps and bounds closer to that conflagration -- a decision
Trump appears to have made while
golfing at Mar-a-Lago .
Lawmakers need to move before it's too late.
The Iranians may
respond cautiously , perhaps forestalling a full-blown conflict. But there can be no doubt
the White House has been driving in that direction from day one.
In a few short years, Trump has blown up the Iran nuclear deal, put a horrific economic
stranglehold on the country, and sent a stunning
14,000 new troops to the Middle East since just last spring. Some
3,500 more are now on their way.
"Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran," John Bolton
tweeted about the assassination . Bolton may have left the White House, but clearly his
spirit lives on.
What next? Get ready to hear a lot about what a "
bad guy " Soleimani was, and how Iran is a "state sponsor" of terrorism.
No doubt, Soleimani had blood on his hands -- he was a general. Yet after two decades of
U.S. wars in the Middle East, that's the pot calling the kettle black. It was the U.S. who
invaded Iraq, started a civil war, and paved the way for a literal terrorist state, ISIS, to
occupy the country afterward (a force Soleimani himself was instrumental in dismantling).
That senseless war caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, exploded the terrorist threat,
and is destabilizing the region to this day. Yet somehow, war hawks like Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo can go on TV and -- with a straight face -- predict ordinary Iranians will
essentially thank the U.S. for murdering their general.
"People not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them
freedom,"
Pompeo said the morning after the assassination. You couldn't caricature a better callback
to Dick Cheney's infamous prediction that Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" if you
tried.
This war-mongering should be as toxic politically as
it is morally . Trump rode into office promising to end America's wars, winning him crucial
votes in swing states with large military and veteran populations. Huge bipartisan majorities,
including 58 percent of Republicans, say they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East.
Trump is betraying them spectacularly.
Yet too many Democrats are
merely objecting to Trump's failure to consult them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained the
strike "was taken without the consultation of the Congress." South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg
offered colorlessly that "there are serious questions about how this decision was made." Others
complained about the apparent lack of a "strategy."
It's illegal for a president to unilaterally launch a war -- that's important. But these
complaints make it sound like if you want to kill a million people for no reason, you just have
to go to the DMV first. As if Trump's base doesn't love it when he cuts the line in
Washington.
Senator Bernie Sanders, who warned that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to
another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more
dollars," came closer to communicating the real threat.
Millions of lives are at stake. Trump's aggression demands -- and voters will more likely
reward -- real opposition. Call him on it
before it's too late.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
Your post merely adds to the feeling something very very odd has gone on here, as the
resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny. If the Ukrainian army had come out and
admitted, in only two days, that their unit from Lviv had accidentally hit MH17 instead of
the plane Putin was allegedly travelling in over the same area, then things may have been
very different. But of course they didn't, and didn't need to, as fighter jets had done the
job for them anyway. On the other hand, had the Separatists trying to defend the population
from Kiev's air campaign from fighter jets and military transports accidentally hit MH17 they
would have been the first to admit it. Those claiming they were responsible, before Higgins
concocted his silly story, admitted that it would have been a "tragic accident" – as
Morrison has described this latest crash – but soon started blaming them. Talk of Kiev
being partly responsible for allowing MH17 to fly, off course, over an active war zone, also
went unheard.
But of course the two events are not the same, and not connected, or are they?
Did the Ukrainian plane have its transponder turned on? Was it the first plane to leave
Tehran following the Iranian missile volleys? Would a cruise missile have been launched from
Afghanistan towards the firing site in Kermanshah, passing over Tehran? What went on in the
control tower of Imam Khomeini airport?
Nothing is clear yet, except "cui bono".
Earlier today, President Rouhanie of Iran formally admitted that the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps had shot down the Ukrainian passenger jet leaving Tehran a few days ago.
Speculation has been rampant, but here are the alleged facts of the case, at this
time:
In the early hours of the 8th January, Iran launched missiles at two US-occupied bases
in Iraq. This was done in retaliation for the death of General Qassem Soleimani. Ukraine
Airlines flight PS 752 departed Tehran airport on 8th January. Three minutes later it crashed.
There were 176 passengers/crew on board. Mostly Iranians, Ukrainians and Canadians. Within
hours, Western media were quoting anonymous "Iraqi
intelligence officials" that Iran had shot the plane down "likely by accident". The US
State Dept, and their proxy NGOs, echoed this theory. A great rundown of who said what and when
can be found on
Moon of Alabama . Despite at first denying these accusations, the Iranian government
has since admitted to "accidentally" downing the plane. Their statement can be read here
(or
here in the original Farsi). Iran claim the missiles were launched by an individual who was
out of radio contact with his commander and "panicked" upon seeing the fast-moving object on
radar. Response to the admission has come from many world leaders. Justin Trudeau called for
"further investigation", Vladimir Zelensky demanded Iran take "full responsibility", whilst
Boris Johnson called it "an important first step". The US has already announced further
sanctions. Reports are already coming in of "unrest" and "protests" in the wake of this
admission.
The Guardian and Newsweek, among others, claiming young people especially are tired of
the leadership demanding "resignations and prosecutions" (we are, as yet unable to confirm
these protests took place).
So what does this mean for the region as a whole?
Will this – as Boris Johnson said – be "first step to de-escalation" in the
region? Will there be extensive protests? Will Iraq now rescind their demand the US leave their
country?
As always, discuss below.
Protect ,
Sabotage can take many shapes and forms. Remember when the Syrian army was fooled into
shooting down a Russian surveillance aircraft with 15 people onboard?
Those imposing punitive santions and continually threatening a desstructive war must
definitely be held responsible for the extreme conditions they have created.
Charlotte Russe ,
The conditional word "if" often is used to begin describing the most horrific events. If they
hadn't been driving the night the other car careened into their lane; if they didn't go into
that store shortly before the robbery; if they didn't go sailing during an awful storm; if
Trump didn't order the assassination of General Soleimani 176 innocent civilians would still
be alive; and if all imperialist wars would stop collateral murder would also end.
An Iranian Officer mistook the plane for a hostile missile and made the "bad decision" to
open fire. He said he "wished" he "was dead" when he learned about the downing of the
aircraft. There were 82 Iranians aboard the Boeing Jet.
Most on the plane were graduate students from Canada. I was not aware that Canada is home
to a large Iranian diaspora, with some 210,000 citizens of Iranian descent.
"The country is also a popular destination for Iranian graduate and postdoctoral students
to study and conduct research abroad, which is why many students were on the flight,
returning to university following the winter break.
There is also no direct flight between Canada and Iran, and the Ukraine International
Airlines flight from Tehran to Kiev and then to Toronto is popular because it is one of the
most affordable options for the journey."
Not mentioned before – and it is another reason why I still consider that the incident
is not just human error but sabotage: In 6 months embargo on weapon sales to Iran will expire
and the country will be able to buy S-400, Iskanders or fighter jets. Quite good reason to
awake sleeping agent
Philpot ,
Are the Integrity Initiative hard at work on here?
David Macilwain ,
Your post merely adds to the feeling something very very odd has gone on here, as the
resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny. If the Ukrainian army had come out and
admitted, in only two days, that their unit from Lviv had accidentally hit MH17 instead of
the plane Putin was allegedly travelling in over the same area, then things may have been
very different. But of course they didn't, and didn't need to, as fighter jets had done the
job for them anyway. On the other hand, had the Separatists trying to defend the population
from Kiev's air campaign from fighter jets and military transports accidentally hit MH17 they
would have been the first to admit it. Those claiming they were responsible, before Higgins
concocted his silly story, admitted that it would have been a "tragic accident" – as
Morrison has described this latest crash – but soon started blaming them. Talk of Kiev
being partly responsible for allowing MH17 to fly, off course, over an active war zone, also
went unheard.
But of course the two events are not the same, and not connected, or are they?
Did the Ukrainian plane have its transponder turned on? Was it the first plane to leave
Tehran following the Iranian missile volleys? Would a cruise missile have been launched from
Afghanistan towards the firing site in Kermanshah, passing over Tehran? What went on in the
control tower of Imam Khomeini airport?
Nothing is clear yet, except "cui bono".
Dimly Glimpsed ,
Matt,
Have you considered the arguments and evidence which show the BUK missile in the MH17 case
came from the Ukranian government-controlled battery?
Also, from what I can recall, the Americans and NATO countries routinely lie about
everything. Mike Pompeo, the American Secretary of State, for example, in a April, 2019
speech at Texas A&M, made the following statement about the CIA:
"I was the CIA Director – We Lied, We Cheated, We stole".
Trump lies so routinely that lying is now becoming normalized in American society.
The "Allies" appear to be lying not only about MH17, but also about the Skripal case, the
charges (backed up by lies by the U.N. agency OPCW) that Assad used sarin and/or chlorine in
Douma, that Huawei technology is insecure because there are hidden back doors (true of Cisco
with CIA back doors, but no one can prove any exist in Huawei), etc.
Perhaps you recall that the "Allies" launched a war of aggression against Iraq, based on
the false charge that Saddam had nuclear weapons, and backed up by a sloppy and juvenile
"sexed up dossier" that Tony Blair's government used as justification, and lies such as the
daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassdor claiming that Saddam's soldiers threw babies out of
incubators.
Perhaps you recall that the USA used illegal chemical weapons such as white phosphorus in
its extermination of the civilian city Fallujah during the American attack on Iraq. Perhaps
you are aware that the "Allies" hide and deny Israel's proven use of white phosphorus on the
captive Palestinian population, along with using the Palestinians as human shields and
killing unarmed Palestinian women and children targeted intentionally by snipers.
If your interest is an objective view of matters, the hopefully you'll consider the track
records of the players involved. Iran has invaded no other country in hundreds of years. The
US is the world champion of invading other countries, and Britain and France have disgraceful
histories of colonization and genocidal crimes against native peoples, as does America and
other members of the "Allies", including Australia and Canada.
I could go on, and on, and on. The "Allies" are much more guilty of killing and lies than
Iran.
As you may know, the CIA has assassinated a number of country leaders, including several
in South America, by bombing planes. Rumor is that is what the CIA had planned for Evo
Morales, which is why he fled to Mexico, knowing the USA and traitors in the Bolivian army
were planning just such an assassination.
I'm also having a bit of difficulty recalling many lies by the Iranians. On the other
hand, from mere recollection alone, I could keep typing for yours adding to a list of lies I
do recall by America and the Europeans, many of which were coverups of bloody insurrections,
assassinations and murders.
Bottom line: I don't trust anything America or the Europeans say. They are biased, have a
track record of lying, and have a history of unclean hands. The Iranians, on the other hand,
have a much better record in all those areas.
Paul ,
It was the same in Iran back in 1953 with the sudden appearance of angry and armed 'anti a
Communists' protesting the government, winding up the political time bomb. It cost the State
Department a lot of money – although not as much as spent on the Shah! Later these
mercenary protesters, often special forces types seeped in brutality upped the PR with
flowers and colours as symbols. In other places, where they faced serious opposition they
reverted to the dirtiest of tricks involving snipers creating havoc, as in Kiev in 2014.
Something similar seems to be happening in Hong King and Tehran but then did anybody expect
the Empire to roll over?!
As I wrote, it's strangely convenient for the hegemons. Now Trump even tweets in Farsi,
supporting Tehran protest.
I have no doubt that the plane was downed by Iranian missile. But was it an error? It's
not outside of realm of possibilities that it was a sabotage. Mole withing air defense unit
nearby Tehran's civil airport.
Under the current circumstances it's less damaging for Iran to take responsiblity for the
tragedy then admit that the internal security was severely breached and infiltrated by
hostile forces.
Jack_Garbo ,
As has already been stated, the Iranian attacked on two US bases was not the "revenge" for
Soleimani's assassination, but a show of 1. Iranian tactical ability (warned first, no
casualties), 2, the beginning of revenge for Soleimani and others killed by the US presence.
It has only begun.
Don't think like a (short-term) Westerner, but like a long term Easterner. The US will
eventually be driven out, the Iranians will them them good-bye.
Considering the fact how convenient the whole airliner incident is for the hegemons I still
have doubts if it was just human error.
Pompeo tweeting support for Tehran protest which follows today's announcement. British
ambassador arrested amid participation in it. It pseaks loud imo
JudyJ ,
If the footage of the missile striking the plane is genuine, I remain unclear as to why
someone would have been, it would appear, randomly pointing a phone camera at a black night
sky on the outskirts of Tehran at 6.30 in the morning and, by sheer coincidence, caught the
moment of impact. The way the camera was being aligned would suggest the person behind the
camera was anticipating a particular event and was eager to capture it on film. Maybe I'm
being unduly suspicious. Of course we don't know for sure that the footage in question was
indeed genuine.
Mike Leach ,
I don't think there's any such thing as 'unduly suspicious' in the present state of the
world.
Derek ,
Iran claim the missiles were launched by an individual who was out of radio contact with
his commander and "panicked" upon seeing the fast-moving object on radar.
More than one missile was launched so is it not possible that's why the person was
filming?
Loverat ,
One thing I think I mentioned on another thread as cynical as it is, this plane possibly
might have been shot down deliberately by Iran. If you think about it, this event has
distracted and possibly taken the 'sting' out of the main event. And of course if the West
knows the plane was shot down by Iran deliberately it could have been a message not to
retaliate for the air base attack. Iran admitting it accidentally shot down the plane might
take some of the force out of my argument/ possible theory but then again this might be an
effort to take out the 'secondary sting or risk of retaliation. Hope that makes some sense!
Let's face it, there are other states aside from US and UK might create or stage 'events'.
As for demos in Iran, can't really see why this would be a major issue for Iranians, or if so
likely to be significantly talked up by Pompeo and extremist war rags like the Guardian.
But who really knows at this stage?
Martin Usher ,
Actually, it ruined what should have been a perfect response. I honestly thought their air
defenses were more sophisticated than they were, in particular that there was a level of
coordination between individual units and a command and control center that could verify
whether a threat was real or not. We can speculate about whether this event was engineered or
not but as far as I'm concerned its a screwup of the same order as the Vincennes incident.
(The only different being that the Iranians didn't have a news crew taping 'our boys' in
action while they paniced and overreacted.)
Sad as this is I don't think it will happen again. Needless to say we in the US will make
as much political capital about it as we can but then its our job.
Another leak (ukr) from the
Ukrainian side of the investigation gives some hints on how the plane came down (machine
translation):
"We took up the restoration of fragments of the aircraft. It was necessary to determine how
these pieces of metal dumped into a huge pile should be interconnected.
The intrigue remained until late. The fact is that there were no damages on most parts of
the aircraft. There was no explosion and no fire in the engines or on the wings. It is
possible that the plane could fall almost intact. Unlike the remains of the Boeing MN-17,
there were no immediately visible signs of defeat by combat elements on the fuselage and
wings. A lot of damage to the case is the result of a fall. But after laying out all the
fragments of the aircraft, it became obvious that the bottom of the cockpit was missing.
Among the wreckage, fragments of the upper part of the cabin were identified. And then the
find finally took place - at about 22 hours. On a fragment of the cockpit, we found holes in
the damaging elements of the warhead of the rocket, which pierced the skin. We found! For the
first time, direct evidence appeared in this case, which made it possible to prove what
caused the death of the aircraft. For us it was a turning point.
So what we now understand:
Russian anti-aircraft missile "Tor" hit the liner in the lower part of the front of the
fuselage, directly under the cockpit.
A direct hit and the cabin flared up inside. Instantly turned off the transponder of the
aircraft, which gives signals about the flight. Instantly lost contact.
While there is no data, one or two missiles have caused such damage. It is possible that
the second missile also hit the fuselage from below close to the first. But all this remains
to be clarified.
We continue to lay out fragments of the aircraft until the complete collection of all
surviving parts.
We expect that today we will gain access to all objective control data.
In cooperation with Iranian colleagues, we get the impression that those who contact us
sincerely want to help themselves and figure it out, in general, there are no problems. Let's
hope that such a mood and working contacts remain with us now."
"... 5 eye propaganda is vile. Other people's propaganda is not much better. No one sane trusts their government. ..."
"... Why was Zelensky ( Pres. of the Ukraine ) being so reasonable and calm about the whole situation, telling everyone not to jump to conclusions, when his handlers ( zioamerica ) were crying shoot down almost from the beginning. ..."
"... What was the reason for the plane's hour long delay at the airport ? ..."
"... Zelensky is out of the US orbit as his sponsor Kholomojsky seems to have decided that his business interests are with Russia - but apart from that, Zelensky is a Russian speaker, with a Jewish background, and not part of the Western Ukraine Bandera proto-fascists. ..."
"... Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ? ..."
"... As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack. ..."
"... It is also wise that Iran accepts the guilt and apologizes. I am sure that they will do more. ..."
"... The IRGC must learn this: modern warfare is not fought with bravery, but with cold-blooded rationality. We're not in ancient warfare anymore: this is industrial warfare, waged with machines which kill humans (and destroy other machines) in a mass scale with maximum efficiency, operated by mathematical calculations at superhuman speeds. This is the era of the nerds, not of the macho men. ..."
"... So, before indoctrinating its soldiers with random religious texts and tales of martyrdom, the IRGC better teach them to fill a fucking log and keep their nerves in place first. And welcome to the 21st Century. ..."
"... According to reports, SIX of these people were NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS. Visiting IRAN. At the same time. on the same plane. What are the chances that it's coincidence? ..."
"... Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists ..."
"... There is only so much human error can explain. If the missile in the famous video is what caused the crash, note that it was flying EAST. The jamming incident explains a lot. Several outbound civilian flights had taken off in the late afternoon following the same flight pattern, so WHY at that time? Also, why does Trump not want to share the intel, saying people have no right to see it? ..."
"... Lots of idiots here. Be glad they accepted responsibility within a reasonable time frame. This is what happens in a WAR. Who drove the Iranians to this point? They certainly have my respect, unlike those cowboys. ..."
"... Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . . ..."
"... Staying in the domain of facts rather than speculation and having worked on the design of air defence systems, I can add a tidbit of info. TOR system can be in a configuration without a surveillance radar, with only a tracking radar. Then when not integrated into a wide area system with centralised control, the crew of such system cannot track aircraft, they can only detect aircraft. Detecting an approaching aircraft/target, tracking it from the moment of detection and not really knowing where it originated from is probably why the crew had to make a faithful decision in a very short time. ..."
"... General note to self: never fly Boeing and stay away from flights which approach any of the war zones that JUSA regularly creates. ..."
"... On the reported taking advantage by Germany to target Iran as terrorist state and ask for more sanctions, we must recall Germany's responsibility along with the US, Canada and current Ukrainian regime, for the terrorist events which gave place to the nazi coup d´etat in the Ukraine, amongst them, the Maidan Snippers event, but not only, also those enumerated by me in another comment above. ..."
"... Given Pompeo's curriculum, it was probable that the CIA had the wrong conjunctural assessment of Iran. They expected that a "silent majority" would revive the riots of some months ago, leaving the theocracy one step closer to collapse. Unless there was indeed serious consideration about using "tactical" nukes, that's the only rational explanation for Soleimani's murder. ..."
"... Right after the funeral day, Trump quickly sought contact with the Ayatollah to negotiate a scale down. Rumor says he even agreed with a "proportional" retaliation against an American target. And then the Iraqi parliament debacle happened, which put the USA in a very embarassing situation. ..."
"... It would be very optimistic to assume that JUSA would just gloat at this accident and milk it for its maximum propaganda value ..."
"... " An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors. Boeing maintains that other security barriers in the 787's network architecture would make that progression impossible." ..."
"... IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: We were at that time ready for an all-out war with US. We had reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran. It was an individual's error that caused this tragedy. ..."
"... Certainly they were on high alert and it could have been an individual error combined with a system malfunction, the aircraft straying out of its commercial lane or any confluence of events. Something may be lurking beneath the surface. The media jumped on and pushed the story hard and that always leaves me suspicious. The borg was correct and knew what happened immediately and reported it truthfully. An even stranger event. ..."
"... What an epic mistake to not close the airspace. I'm impressed that the IRGC admitted full responsibility and even gave a detailed description of the human error. Adding in the EW jamming and it is easy how this could happen. What a horrible tragedy. ..."
"... "The cyberattacks -- a contingency plan developed over weeks amid escalating tensions -- disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled its rocket and missile launchers, the officials said. Two of the officials said the attacks, which specifically targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps computer system, were provided as options after Iranian forces blew up two oil tankers earlier this month." ..."
Of course they did. But Iranians should have seen that coming. Some people still think
they can continue with this stupidity - like Jerusalem Post on the tit for
tat "Kindergarten" strategy .
What they are doing is "showing capabilities" and testing weapons systems. They had a
"game" of conventional war justified by "not killing anybody". Well they did. Both parties.
Real all out conventional war is impossible without mass casualties on all sides. And all out
unconventional/assymetric war just draws out the misery.
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 12:21 utc | 119
I was talking about the ability to be sad and apologize. I prefer not to have a religious
authority dictating my private life.
5 eye propaganda is vile. Other people's propaganda is not much better. No one sane
trusts their government.
Sadly, no facts. Perhaps if we had full bios on the passengers we could tally up how many
had done undergrad studies at George Washington University, but spooks usually have fictional
biographies so I am not sure how much help that would be.
Iran didn't cancel flights because they most likely had an agreement with the ZioAmericans
allowing them to attack the US bases, and were told there would be no retaliation..
Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ?
Why was Zelensky ( Pres. of the Ukraine ) being so reasonable and calm about the whole
situation, telling everyone not to jump to conclusions, when his handlers ( zioamerica ) were
crying shoot down almost from the beginning.
What was the reason for the plane's hour long delay at the airport ?
Posted by: Fog of War | Jan 11 2020 13:02 utc | 128
Zelensky is out of the US orbit as his sponsor Kholomojsky seems to have decided that
his business interests are with Russia - but apart from that, Zelensky is a Russian speaker,
with a Jewish background, and not part of the Western Ukraine Bandera proto-fascists.
Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ?
If your system is not compromised and can read it.
The Boeing was hit by a Tor system, related to the BUK of MH17 fame. There were a lot of
flights over Teheran airport at the time. Can anyone find out if the Ukraine Airlines flight
was the only Boeing and is the hack specific to Boeing?
It is sad that the real victims of this escalation so far has been 176 souls that have
nothing to do with this affair. As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to
attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground
flights following the attack.
I personally put the blame on USA for its disproportionate
responses in the entire affair as it created the conditions that lead to this horrible
accident, but Iran could have been more careful by considering that human factors can prove
catastrophic under tense circumstances.
It is also wise that Iran accepts the guilt and apologizes. I am sure that they will do
more.
IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: The officials, including Aviation authorities, who kept denying the
missile hit, are not guilty. They made those remarks based on what they knew . We
are to blame for everything.
Well well - there's always the human factor. As the saying goes: there's no fool-proof
plan. Days of investigative speculation undone by (probably) a small bureaucratic error which
resulted in a lack of communication.
The IRGC must learn this: modern warfare is not fought with bravery, but with cold-blooded
rationality. We're not in ancient warfare anymore: this is industrial warfare, waged with
machines which kill humans (and destroy other machines) in a mass scale with maximum
efficiency, operated by mathematical calculations at superhuman speeds. This is the era of
the nerds, not of the macho men.
So, before indoctrinating its soldiers with random religious texts and tales of martyrdom,
the IRGC better teach them to fill a fucking log and keep their nerves in place first. And
welcome to the 21st Century.
According to reports, SIX of these people were NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS. Visiting IRAN. At
the same time. on the same plane. What are the chances that it's coincidence?
There is only so much human error can explain. If the missile in the famous video is what
caused the crash, note that it was flying EAST. The jamming incident explains a lot. Several
outbound civilian flights had taken off in the late afternoon following the same flight
pattern, so WHY at that time? Also, why does Trump not want to share the intel, saying people
have no right to see it?
The other Boeing took off headed for Hong Kong only seconds before the Ukraine flight.
Looks to be the green flight path that turns back east southeast shortly after takeoff. The
Ukraine flight was the only Boeing that took the northern flight path.
Lots of idiots here. Be glad they accepted responsibility within a reasonable time frame.
This is what happens in a WAR. Who drove the Iranians to this point? They certainly have my
respect, unlike those cowboys.
"Or could Iran have been enticed to make a false admission to protect Boeing's reputation
and/or the Ukraine airline's reputation. Perhaps a carrot of lesser severity in the new
sanctions?"
This doesn't seem to comport with what we know/have been told about how the Iranian govt
and religious leadership works.
Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian
flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also
night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . .
I am so, so saddened to hear of the cause of this terrible incident, and I do blame it on
the USA, which started this provocation of Iraq-Iran.
Staying in the domain of facts rather than speculation and having worked on the design of air
defence systems, I can add a tidbit of info. TOR system can be in a configuration without a
surveillance radar, with only a tracking radar. Then when not integrated into a wide area
system with centralised control, the crew of such system cannot track aircraft, they can only
detect aircraft. Detecting an approaching aircraft/target, tracking it from the moment of
detection and not really knowing where it originated from is probably why the crew had to
make a faithful decision in a very short time.
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) looks great in theory but has many drawbacks
(relatively easy spoofing) therefore is generally not relied upon, especially not by the
second grade EW countries. I remind everybody how, during 1st Gulf War, US air defence in
Kuwait shot down (at least) one British bomber (killed pilot);returning from a mission in
Iraq. That much for IFF even within first EW grade countries of NATO.
Stand-alone air defence units (not integrated) in a very complex air space environment
(with civilian air traffic in the air, possible drones, cruise missiles, low observability
military planes, etc etc) are a definite recipe for disaster. Trying to avoid the cost of air
traffic disruption (or loss of overflight fees) despite high risk of an even bigger cost
happened in Ukraine already (MH17) and Iran did not learn from it. (It does not matter who
shot down MH17 Ukraine is responsible). Whoever did not close down the civilian air traffic
after shooting missiles at US targets is really responsible for this tragedy, slightly more
than JUSA. But governments never learn because their power protects them from the need to
learn.
General note to self: never fly Boeing and stay away from flights which approach any of
the war zones that JUSA regularly creates.
On the reported taking advantage by Germany to target Iran as terrorist state and ask for
more sanctions, we must recall Germany's responsibility along with the US, Canada and current
Ukrainian regime, for the terrorist events which gave place to the nazi coup d´etat in
the Ukraine, amongst them, the Maidan Snippers event, but not only, also those enumerated by
me in another comment above.
Also we must add Germany's responsibility in the war information which gave place to the
justification of the destruction of former Yugoslavia as a way of getting rid of an European
superpower inclined to the Est which could oppose current German hegemony in Europe, which,
being Germany an Us occupied country, only means US hegemony over Europe.
Go preparing for the "renaissance" of the IV Reich and its evolution, and not only in
hairdos....
Germany, along with UK, is responsible for all the evil has happened in Europe since the
falling of the Spanish Empire. GLADIO and many other operations come to mind.
Thus, better shut up when labelling others as terrorists...
Time to remind the pro-US/Zionist trolls here that, as war criminal GHW Bush was quoted, the
US will never admit it is wrong, let alone trying to fulfill stupid ancient texts for their
sheeple Zionist Jew and right-wing Christian voters and political funders (think Rothschild,
Adelson). The End of Days may not become reality, but a Yinon Plan/AIPAC, Greater Israel is
all too likely a prospect. All because Lord Balfour didn't have the balls to tell Lord
Rothschild to go pound salt, and the US was too stupid to avoid taking up the Zionist cause
after WW2.
The US has SO MUCH more to apologize for, like LIES about WMD's, Syria gas attacks,
Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators, South American death squads, reaching back beyond
"Remember the Maine".
So the US/ZATO needs to take the hundreds of logs out of their own eye before endlessly
demanding Iran take the sliver from their eye.
The US is run by lying, hypocritical psychopaths, from the Oval Office down through
Congress, to the bowels of the NSA/FBI/CIA/Mossad and the Pentagon.
.
. The greatest irony of it all:
-- That the US almost never compensate the families or counties hit by 'mistakes' or killed
as 'collateral damage'.
-- That the Iran authorities and judicial system make some compensation obligatory.
-- That Iran has been cut off from the means to aquire US dollars or Euro and have been cut
off from all international payment systems: Any compensation would have to be paid in Iranian
reals and used within Iran.
. Good for future tourism by airplane travel to Tehran?
Saying Soleimani was a hero for fighting ISIS is just like saying Hitler was a hero for
fighting Stalin.
The only world player that has been unselfishly good in recent memory is Cuba by sending
its doctors throughout the.world and Venezuela under Chavez sending oil to poor people
including those in the US.
Posted by: CognitiveDissonance | Jan 11 2020 5:25 utc | 15
--------
One can make any classifications of "good, but not unselfishly", "kind of good" and so on,
but this is a pernicious type of whataboutery. Basically, we should find reasons to be
obedient subjects of the Empire, yes, the Empire is not good but almost no one is much
better, so find better deals for seeds for our little garden, focus on that, convince others
not to do anything either.
To understand the Empire, one has to read stories about school bullying. A charismatic kid
accumulates a circle of friends and a victim. The victim is harassed, his/her stuff damaged,
and a creative combination of verbal humiliation, physical humiliations and outright assaults
keeps the circle amused. If anyone defends the chosen victim, the efforts redouble against
that person, so the majority is either actively sycophantic (bravo, Mr. Johnson, bravo, Mr.
Trudeau!) or sullen. But not too sullen (OK job, Madam Merkel, we will punish you only
mildly). That can raise the wrath of the dominant clique too.
It is often the case that the victim is "not perfect". And the removal of the top bully
does not have to change the school into paradise. But doing nothing is a coward option,
however "sensible". It is also stupid, nobody can deliver paradise, but avoiding hell is
totally possible, so why we should be content with hell?
@ Posted by: CognitiveDissonance | Jan 11 2020 5:25 utc | 15
Evidence available strongly indicates Soleimani was indeed extremely popular in Iran.
It is probable the USA expected brand new and stronger anti-government manifestation in
the streets of Tehran after he was murdered. Pompeo claimed right after - in cheerful tone -
that "Iran is nearer regime change after Soleimani's assassination".
Given Pompeo's curriculum, it was probable that the CIA had the wrong conjunctural
assessment of Iran. They expected that a "silent majority" would revive the riots of some
months ago, leaving the theocracy one step closer to collapse. Unless there was indeed
serious consideration about using "tactical" nukes, that's the only rational explanation for
Soleimani's murder.
His hopes of regime change were quickly dashed by the millions who showed up in the
streets of Tehran for his funeral. He was indeed very popular, the official propaganda was
true: Soleimani's reputation really preceeded him.
Right after the funeral day, Trump quickly sought contact with the Ayatollah to
negotiate a scale down. Rumor says he even agreed with a "proportional" retaliation against
an American target. And then the Iraqi parliament debacle happened, which put the USA in a
very embarassing situation.
In the greater scheme of things, this accidental downing of a commercial plane was a very
small price to pay. It's one of those once in a blue moon incidents where the imponderable
overcame what 99.99% of the then available evidence indicated. It doesn't change the morality
of the conflict: the USA still has to get out of Iraq, and Iran's cause (regardless of its
theocratic regime) is still just. Or do you expect a prosperous Iran to rise from an
hypothetic American occupation of the country?
The days of the Marshall Plan are still over. The USA can't nation build anymore - it
simply doesn't have the resources (as it had in 1946).
It would be very optimistic to assume that JUSA would just gloat at this accident and milk
it for its maximum propaganda value . Unfortunately, it is likely that the leading
shitbags of the World will not fail to use the shell shock state of the Iranian air defense
to bomb soon for the benefit of lower losses due to Iranian FUD. I can only hope that the
Iranian air defense will recover it's mental state quickly or the loss of life will be much
much bigger than one plane load. Soleimani was a nasty military character, but his style of
organisational skills is sorely needed for a quick reorganisation of the Iranian air defence
under clear and present danger.
143 "Stand-alone air defence units (not integrated) in a very complex air space environment
(with civilian air traffic in the air, possible drones, cruise missiles, low observability
military planes, etc etc) are a definite recipe for disaster."
From my understanding, all Russian and perhaps previous to that society defense systems
are made to be able to operate as stand alone units incase the network goes down. This
appears to be what happened in Iran Whoever was commanding that unit, with coms down had make
a decision with no input from the wider defense network.
US, five eyes and mossad are very good at covering their tracks at times, but modus
operandi and narrative give them away.
You can always blame the airport for not shutting down the traffic but that is usually easier
to say after the fact. Of course, you could shut down all air traffic across the globe as a
precautionary measure. It is convenient to speculate retrospectively that - after the Iranian
strike in Iraq - Tehran should have shut down its airport ( which it had except for a few
flights).
This is where the theory of Iranian misinformation boomerangs: even if the state media had
shown the Iranian strikes in Iraq on TV, what reason did anyone have to believe it?
Farsnews reported that 80 American soldiers died in those strikes but now the US says that
was not true either. So what reason had anyone to believe anything. This is not comparable to
the crash in Ukraine at all. There the plane was flying above the warzone, here the distance
between Tehran and Iraq was about 800 km. Of course, it would be convenient for the US to
command every airport in Iran to shut down....
"Now, nearly a year later, Santamarta claims that leaked code has led him to something
unprecedented: security flaws in one of the 787 Dreamliner's components, deep in the plane's
multi-tiered network. He suggests that for a hacker, exploiting those bugs could represent
one step in a multistage attack that starts in the plane's in-flight entertainment
system and extends to highly protected, safety-critical systems like flight controls and
sensors."
" An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight
entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that
control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors.
Boeing maintains that other security barriers in the 787's network architecture would make
that progression impossible." https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-787-code-leak-security-flaws/
What Boeing is saying here is admitting the plane can be taken over from the ground, or at
least many things disrupted, but their security is that good nobody can break into it. I
believe most Boeing aircraft send automated data back to Boeing (maintenance, faults and so
forth) which may mean Boeing always has an open line into the aircraft. Boeing being part of
US MIC.
Well Peter 153, you are right about the ability to operate stand-alone. But such is a
fall-back tactic, not a to begin with tactic. When comms and the operations centre are
destroyed no civilian aircraft are supposed to remain in the air. I did not read that all
Iranian comms were down. I also did not read a statement that their radars were jammed. BTW,
I have experienced radar and comms jamming by a US aircraft carrier and despite being
targeted at military frequencies, it is disruptive to all civilian comms and civilian
aircraft as well. Therefore, this plane would not have been flying under radio and radar
jamming conditions.
I can only repeat the two obvious root causes: you expect a military retaliation but do
not close down civilian air traffic and you scatter your air defense units unconnected to a
centre (which essentially leaves considerable destructive power in the hands of below average
brains connected to twitchy fingers at least somewhere in such scatter - imagine the
statistical risk level).
Never assume that this could never happen in your country. Only countries without
governments are safe. The only difference is whether the government admits or not, TWA800
anyone?
I can sit at home with my laptop and monitor almost all commercial air traffic in my area
with an antenna, ABS software, and a RTL SDR donegal. It is not that difficult and the
internet is not needed as long as the aircraft withing withing range of the antenna. They
transmit in 1.090 gigahertz. RTL-SDR Tutorial: Cheap ADS-B
Aircraft RADAR
IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: We were at that time ready for an all-out war with US. We had
reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran. It was an individual's error that caused this
tragedy.
Certainly they were on high alert and it could have been an individual error combined
with a system malfunction, the aircraft straying out of its commercial lane or any confluence
of events. Something may be lurking beneath the surface. The media jumped on and pushed the
story hard and that always leaves me suspicious. The borg was correct and knew what happened
immediately and reported it truthfully. An even stranger event.
To add....I tried hard to change my connection to Moscow, but no way, just imagine what my
mood was on travelling by Kiev connection on a flag airline of a now nazi state being myself
a real left, pro-Russian activist...
While in the long queue to check in and baggage dropp in, I dedicated myself to, out of
curiosity, observe my Ukrainian flight companions, and must say they all seemed to me, by
their face´s expression, peaceful and patient stance, innocent people totally
misdirected by a bunch of oligarchic and foreign interests, mainly residing in North
America...
One would say they mostly seemed and innocent crowd who then provided a quite peaceful
flight and connection, i must adit also quite effectiveness by the Kiev airport personel
related to timely departure and baggage organization...
On harsh contrast, I suffered a quite disturbing incident protagonized by some Iranians
coming from the US in a flight to Teheran....I had been the first to place my handbaggage in
the compartment up my sit, when some US diaspora Iranian women( clearly way over-empoverished
by the US life style even for an European like me.. ) arrived, dropped my baggage out the
compartiment so as to place theirs, leaving mine on the floor, without leaving any place left
for it in the compartment, which obly me to put it further from I was sat, something I
usually try to avoid as long as possible by sometimes standing up in the line to boarding
while others remain sat. I complained in English ( which they clearly understood...) adding
Spanish temperament, to no avail, such was their stuborness to prevail...
Then, during the flight, they kept talking to me as if nothing unpolite had happened,
including the one sat by my side....I got to the conclusion that they had been obviously
brutalized by living in the US, since the attittude of Iranians in Iran during all my travel
was astonishingly polite and hospitable....
"Russia has signed a contract to supply Iran with sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air
missiles. The contract got the go-ahead after international sanctions on Iran were lifted
earlier this year, following a deal over its nuclear programme. Israel, the US and Saudi
Arabia are all opposed to the missile contract. Russian officials say the first batch could
be delivered 18 months after Iran has specified the S-300 type that it wants. Technical talks
are continuing.
"The deal to supply the S-300 to Iran has not only been signed between the parties but it
has already come into force," said Sergei Chemezov, head of Russia's Rostec arms firm,
speaking at the Dubai Airshow-2015.
The $800m (£545m) contract, signed in 2007, was frozen by Russia in 2010 because of
the international sanctions. President Vladimir Putin unfroze it in April.
Israel and the US fear the missiles could be used to protect Iranian nuclear sites from
air strikes. The missiles can shoot down jets and other missiles hundreds of kilometres away.
The S-300 can be used against multiple targets including jets, or to shoot down other
missiles.
The S-300B4 variant - delivered to the Russian armed forces last year - can shoot down any
medium-range missile in the world today, flies at five times the speed of sound and has a
range of 400km (248 miles), Tass reports."
When the Russian deal was suspended Iran filed a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in
damages. Mr Chemezov said Saudi Arabia had asked Rostec repeatedly not to supply the S-300 to
Iran. But he insisted that it was a defensive weapon. "So if the Gulf countries are not going
to attack Iran... why should they be threatened? Because this is defence equipment," Reuters
news agency quoted him as saying."
Minister of defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) Hossein Dehgan said: "We produce
a system to ensure air safety at three levels. Available high-range deficiencies we made up
for the purchase of s-300, we do not have any need to purchase other systems", -- quotes
Agency Tasnim statement Dehgan.
The Iranian defense Minister Dehgan said that "Iran has the necessary defensive system
that is able to ensure aerospace security of the country".
In the past year, 2019, Russia indicated it would offer to sell the S-400. "We are open for
discussions on delivering S-400 Triumph air defense systems, including to Iran. Especially
given that this equipment is not subject to restrictions outlined in UN Security Council's
resolution issued on June 20, 2015," a representative of the press service of the Russian
Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation told Sputnik on Friday."
Iran's own Presstv.com reported. https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/06/28/599649/Russia-Iran-S400
Thanks b for the update and the excellent coverage.
What an epic mistake to not close the airspace. I'm impressed that the IRGC admitted
full responsibility and even gave a detailed description of the human error. Adding in the EW
jamming and it is easy how this could happen. What a horrible tragedy.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 11 2020 12:07 utc | 114
Yes, this was my first guess as well. Who was actually on that plane. Ukraine is
CIA/Mossad territory, but the Russians may have ways to find out who are on a flight to Kiev,
and they may choose to pass that information on. Then again, it might just be a mistake as
admitted.
I am very surprised by this admission. Are the Iranians just closing the door on this
Passenger jet and shifting the focus of conversation? Was there an actual mistake made by
their Air Defense?
Having apologized for an event that occurred under the Fog of War Iran will definitely get
credit from most Westerners as our governments never apologize. Why would a vicious
psychopath apologize? We are all Palestinians' to our governments in the 'Free West'?
I don't believe this admission changes the dynamic now under way: the U.S. has no defense
in the M.E. from Missile attack, if they continue to move forces to the ME to get to 100,000
(I calculate the Iranians as being able to field 100,000+ regulares and militia)it will be
viewed as an act of war as will bringing in Patriot systems.
All eyes must now be on what Washington DOES not what it says as, to most observers, it
always appears to be lying.
Bonus points for all westerners: can anyone think of a Western hero since DeGaulle or JFK?
I can't and I really wish it were otherwise.
My final comment on the topic. I blame both the war instigators and the local decision makers
for this tragedy. Yet, it is my strong impression that the person who pressed the button, the
US Cretin in Chief and Jonathan W here share about the same level of reasoning.
It is immensely comforting to know that one's life may be in the hands of such individual
at some point in life, hope NOT.
The obvious result of several generations of recruiting/hiring military and/or military
technicians for loyalty and obedience instead of intelligence. It is lucky for everyone that
they found that out now, before nuclear weapons were available.
Posted by: Mike-SMO | Jan 11 2020 14:23 utc | 154
Too late! Do you think that Pompeo got recruited/hired for intelligence? Or any believer
of the esoteric cult recently named "inter-agency consensus"? Not to mention that
brainwashing in educational programs of our finest institutions (check bio of Fiona Hill) can
dampen deleterious side-effects of intelligence (independent thinking and crap like that).
They got the nukes, and a galore of other toys to play with, as we had seen in the case of
Suleimani. And this process of creating esoteric supremacist doctrine is quite a bit longer
than the history of Iranian revolution.
I used the word esoteric to mean a doctrine with multiple levels of initiation and
knowledge, with deference to the higher levels. As Pompeo was explaining, there was a full
consensus among the people of the highest knowledge level, so Congressional blokes should
know their place. Most of them did, with a notable exception of a yokel from Utah.
kiza This is from last year. A good chance that after the Iranian missile strike, US would
have been trying to disrupt IRGC command and communication systems. IRGC manned the Tor unit
and according to Iran their coms were out at the time of the incident.
"The cyberattacks -- a contingency plan developed over weeks amid escalating tensions
-- disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled its rocket and missile launchers, the
officials said. Two of the officials said the attacks, which specifically targeted Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps computer system, were provided as options after Iranian
forces blew up two oil tankers earlier this month."
Kiza, adding this sort of crap in each comment really does give you away. "which
essentially leaves considerable destructive power in the hands of below average brains
connected to twitchy fingers"
The sheer arrogance and wilful blindness expressed in the US State Department press statement
and WaPo staffer Louisa Loveluck's tweets are astounding beyond belief. It's as if the
entire capital city of the US has become a mental asylum / Hotel California , where one
can enter but never leave spiritually and morally, though one can take many physical trips in
and out of the madhouse.
Iraq definitely does need the S-300 missile defense systems. The most pressing issue
though is whether the Iraqis will suffer the delays Syria suffered in acquiring those systems
even after paying for them.
Time now is of the essence. Iraqi operators need to be trained in those systems. Syria may
be able to supply some training but at the risk of letting down its guard in sending some of
its operators to Baghdad and exposing them to US drone attacks.
In 2016 during the election campaign of Donald Trump one of the primary factors of his
popularity among conservatives was that he was one of the first candidates since Ron Paul to
argue for bringing US troops home and ending American involvement in the various elitist
fabricated wars in the Middle East . From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Syria and Yemen and beyond,
the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs at the behest of their globalist masters had been waging war oversees
unabated for over 15 years. The time was ripe for a change and people felt certain that if
Hillary Clinton entered the White House, another 4-8 years of war were guaranteed.
There was nothing to be gained from these wars. They were only dragging the US down socially
and economically , and even the idea of "getting the oil" had turned into a farce as the
majority of Iraqi oil has been going to China, not the US. General estimates on the costs of
the wars stand at $5 trillion US tax dollars and over 4500 American dead along with around
40,000 wounded. The only people that were benefiting from the situation were globalists and
banking elites, who had been clamoring to destabilize the Middle East since the day they
launched their "Project For A New American Century" (PNAC). Truly, all wars are banker
wars.
The Obama Administration's attempts to lure Americans into supporting open war with the
Assad regime in Syria had failed. Consistent attempts by George W. Bush and Obama to increase
tensions with Iran had fizzled. Americans were showing signs of fatigue, FINALLY fed up with
the lies being constructed to trick them into being complicit in the banker wars. Trump was a
breath of fresh air...but of course, like all other puppets of the globalists, his promises
were empty.
In my article
'Clinton vs. Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement' , published before the 2016
election, I warned that Trump's rhetoric might be a grand show , and that it could be scripted
by the establishment to bring conservatives back into the Republican/Neo-Con fold. At the time,
leftist media outlet Bloomberg
openly reveled in the idea that Trump might absorb and destroy the "Tea Party" and liberty
movement and turn them into something far more manageable. The question was whether or not the
liberty movement would buy into Trump completely, or remain skeptical.
Initially, I do not think the movement held onto its objectivity at all. Far too many people
bought into Trump blindly and immediately based on misguided hopes and a desire to "win"
against the leftists. The insane cultism of the political left didn't help matters much,
either.
When Trump started saturating his cabinet with banking elites and globalists from the CFR
the moment he entered office, I knew without any doubt that he was a fraud. Close associations
with establishment swamp creatures was something he had
consistently criticized Clinton and other politicians for during the campaign, but Trump
was no better or different than Clinton; he was just an errand boy for the elites. The singular
difference was that his rhetoric was designed to appeal directly to liberty minded
conservatives.
This meant that it was only a matter of time before Trump broke most of his campaign
promises, including his assertions that he would bring US troops home. Eventually, the mask had
to come off if Trump was going to continue carrying out the agenda of his masters.
Today, the mask has indeed come off. For the past three years Trump has made announcements
of an imminent pull back of troops in the Middle East, including the recent claim that troops
would be leaving Syria. All of the announcements were followed by an INCREASE in US troop
presence in the region. Consistent attempts have been made to foment renewed strife with Iran.
The build-up to war has been obvious, but some people on the Trump train still didn't get
it.
The most common argument I heard when pointing out all the inconsistencies in Trump's claims
as well as his direct links to globalists was that "He hadn't started any wars, so how could he
be a globalist puppet...?" My response has always been "Give it a little time, and he
will."
One of my readers noted recently that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) actually goes both
ways. Leftists double down on their hatred of Trump at every opportunity, but Trump cultists
double down on their support for Trump regardless of how many promises he breaks. This has
always been my biggest concern – That conservatives in the liberty movement would
ultimately abandon their principles of limited government, the end to banking elites in the
White House and ending illegal wars because they had invested themselves so completely in the
Trump farce that they would be too embarrassed to admit they had been conned.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people who
are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded
conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they
really are. A distinction has to be made between Bush era Neo-Con control freaks and
constitutional conservatives; there are few if any similarities between the two groups, but the
establishment hopes that the former will devour the latter.
I've noticed that the War Pigs are out in force this past week, beating their chests a
calling for more blood. The US government has assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem
Soleimani, retaliations against US targets have begun, and now the Iraqi government has
demanded that US troops be removed from the region, to which Trump has said "no" and demanded
payment instead. A new troop surge has been initiated and this WILL end in all out war. The
tit-for-tat has just begun.
How do Trump cultists respond? "Kill those terrorists!"
Yes, many of the same people that applauded Trump's supposed opposition to the wars three
years ago are now fanatically cheering for the beginning of perhaps the most destructive war of
all. The rationalizations for this abound. Soleimani was planning attacks on US targets in
Iraq, they say. And, this might be true, though no hard proof has yet been presented.
I'm reminded of the Bush era claims of Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction", the weapons that
were never found and no proof was found that they ever existed. The only weapons Iraq had were
the weapons the US sold to them decades ago. Any government can fabricate an excuse for
assassination or war for public consumption; the Trump Administration is no different.
That said, I think the most important factor in this debate has fallen by the wayside. The
bottom line is, US troops and US bases should NOT be in Iraq in the first place. Trump himself
stated
this time and time again . Even if Soleimani was behind the attacks and riots in Iraq, US
assets cannot be attacked in the region if they are REMOVED from the region as Trump said he
would do.
There is only one reason to keep US assets in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria at this time, and
that is to create ongoing tensions in the area which can be used by the establishment to
trigger a new war, specifically with Iran.
The War Pigs always have reasons and rationales, though.
They say the Muslim world is a threat to our way of life, and I agree that their ideology is
completely incompatible with Western values. That said, the solution is not sending young
Americans to die overseas in wars based on lies. Again, these wars only benefit the bankers and
globalists; they do not make us safer as a people. The only moral solution is to make sure the
fascist elements of Muslim extremism are not imported to our shores.
The War Pigs say that we deserve payment for our "services rendered" in the region before we
leave, echoing the sentiments of Donald Trump. I ask, what services? Payment for what? The
invasion the Iraqi's didn't want, based on fallacies that have been publicly exposed? The US
bases that should not be there in the first place? The hundreds of thousands dead from a war
that had no purpose except to deliberately destabilize the region?
We will never get "payment" from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and the
War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach their
egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win, and they
want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens get killed.
They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war unilaterally
without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and technically they
are right. It is "legal" because the checks and balances of war were removed under the Bush and
Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization For Use Of Military Force) in
2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate war on a whim without oversight.
Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is constitutional, or right.
In the end, the Trump bandwagon is meant to accomplish many things for the globalists; the
main goal though is that it is designed to change liberty conservatives into rabid statists. It
is designed to make anti-war pro-constitution activists into war mongers and supporters of big
government, as long as it is big government under "our control". But it's not under our
control. Trump is NOT our guy. He is an
agent of the establishment and always has been.
For now, the saber rattling is aggressive but the actions have been limited, but this will
not be the case for long. Some may ask why the establishment has not simply launched all out
war now? Why start out small? Firstly, they need conservatives psychologically invested in the
idea. This may require a false flag event or attack on American civilians. Secondly, they need
to execute an extensive troop build-up, which could take a few months. Declarations of a "need
for peace" are always used to stall for time while the elites position for war.
War with Iran is pointless, and frankly, unwinnable, and the elites know this. It's not just
a war with Iran, it is a war with Iran, their allies, and every other nation that reacts
negatively to our actions. And, these nations do not have to react militarily, they can react
economically by dumping US treasuries and the dollar as world reserve.
The establishment wants the US embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. until we are so
hollowed out from conflict that we collapse.
They also need a considerable distraction to hide their responsibility for the implosion of
the Everything Bubble and the economic pain that will come with it. The end game for the
establishment is for America to self destruct, so that it can be rebuilt into something
unrecognizable and eternally monstrous. They want every vestige of our original principles to
be erased, and to do that, they need us to be complicit in our own destruction.
They need us to participate. Don't participate, and refuse to support new banker wars. Don't
be a War Pig.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on
advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The
Wild Bunch Dispatch . Learn more about it
HERE .
The main problem of the United States in the existing political and economic system, which
began to be intensively created by the American banking layer since 1885 and was fixed in
1913. This became possible only thanks to the Civil War of 1861-1865. I will explain. Before
the Civil War, each state had its own banking structure, its own banknotes (there were not so
many states, there were still territories that did not become states yet). Before the
American Civil War, there was no single banking system. Abraham Linkol was a protege of the
banking houses of the cities of New York and Chicago, they rigged the election (bought the
election). It may sound rude to the Americans, but Lincoln was a rogue in the eyes of some US
citizens of that time. And this became the main reason for the desire of some states (not
only southern, and some northern) to withdraw from the United States. Another good reason for
the exit was the persistent attempts of bankers in New York and Chicago to take control of
the banking system of the South. These are two main reasons, as old as the World, the
struggle for control and money. The war (unfortunately) began the South. Under a federal
treaty, South and North were supposed to jointly contain US forts for protection. The
fighting began on April 12, 1861 with an attack by southerners on such a fort Sumter in
Charleston Bay. These are the beginnings of war.
This is important - I advise everyone to read the memoirs of generals, and especially the
memoirs of Ulysses Grant, the future president of the United States. The war was with varying
success, but the emissaries of the banks of New York and Chicago always followed the army of
the North, who, taking advantage of the disastrous situation in the battlefields, bought up
real estate, land and other assets. They were called the "Carpetbagger". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger
They were engaged in the purchase throughout the war and up to 1885.
To make it clear to you, in the history of the USA, the period from 1865 to 1885 is called
the "Great American Depression" (this is the very first great depression and lasted 20
years). During this time, the bankers of New York and Chicago completely subjugated the US
banking system to themselves and their interests, trampled the South (robbed), after which
the submission of the US as a state directly to the banking mafia began. At present (since
1913) in the USA there is not capitalism, but an evil parody of capitalism.
I can call it this: American clan-corporate oligarchic "capitalism" (with the suppression
of free markets, with unfair competition and the creation of barriers to the dissemination of
reliable information). Since such "capitalism" cannot work (like socialism or utopian
communism), constant wars are needed that bring profit to the bankers, owners of the
military-industrial complex, political "service staff", make oligarchs richer, and ordinary
Americans poorer. We are now observing this, since this system has come to its end and
everything has become obvious.
For example, in the early 80s, the middle class of the United States was approximately 70%
of the population employed in production and trade, now it is no more than 15%.
The gap between the oligarchs and ordinary Americans widened. My essay is how I see what
is happening in the USA and why I do not like it. It's my personal opinion. In the end, my
favorite phrase is that Americans are suckers and boobies (but we still love them). Good luck
everyone.
Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people
who are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded
conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they
really are.
What does Frank the Skank (ostensibly an American taxpayer, but more likely an Israeli
dual "loyalty" traitor) have to say about this?
We will never get "payment" from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and
the War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach
their egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win,
and they want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens
get killed. They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.
The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war
unilaterally without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and
technically they are right. It is "legal" because the checks and balances of war were
removed under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization
For Use Of Military Force) in 2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate
war on a whim without oversight. Just because it is "legal" does not mean it is
constitutional, or right.
The Syrian civil war, which has been raging since 2011, is one of the worst tragedies of the early twenty-first
century. Approximately half a million people have died, about six million people have fled the country, and
another six million people remain internally displaced. Much of the country lies in ruins, perhaps never again to
recover.
The war is also far from over. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been gaining momentum, but his
regime has
failed
to recapture many parts of the country. Multiple foreign powers remain active in Syria, including Iran,
Russia, Turkey, Israel, and the United States. In the northwest, Idlib Province is dominated by tens of thousands
of Islamist militants, many of whom are active in al-Qaeda-style terrorist organizations.
"It's a kind of conflict where the kindling is sufficient for it to burn for decade after decade and continue
to be an engine of jihadism and instability for the entire region and beyond," a senior State Department official
said
early last year.
The leaders of the United States have called for a political settlement, but they have played a central role in
fueling the conflict. As they have tried to oust Assad, they have settled on a strategy of
stalemate
, keeping the war going as
a means of pressuring the Syrian leader into relinquishing power.
The Obama administration, which
designed
the strategy, spent years providing Islamist militants with just enough support to keep them fighting
the Assad regime but not enough support for them to overthrow the government.
"What we're trying to do is to make sure the moderate opposition continues to stay strong, puts the pressure on
the regime," CIA Director John Brennan
explained
during the administration's final year in office. "We don't want the Syrian government to collapse.
That's the last thing we want to do."
Administration officials feared that if the rebels overthrew the government, the country would implode, making
it into a center of Islamist extremism and terrorism. They wanted Assad gone, but they did not want the country to
become
another
Libya
, which had devolved into a bitter civil war after the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011.
"We have huge interests because of the stability of the region, because of the need to fight against extremism,
the need to prevent the country from breaking up and having a negative impact on all of the neighborhood,"
then-Secretary of State John Kerry
said
.
Sharing these concerns, the Trump administration
ended
support
to the rebels but turned to other forms of leverage. For the most part, the Trump administration has
been exploiting the areas outside of the Assad regime's control, trying to prevent the regime from reclaiming
those areas and reestablishing its authority.
"Bashar al-Assad can think he's won the war, but right now he holds on to approximately half the territory of
Syria," James Jeffrey, the administration's special envoy for Syria,
remarked
in 2018. "He's sitting on a cadaver state."
This "cadaver state," as Jeffrey described it, provides the guiding vision for the Trump administration's
strategy in Syria. To keep pressure on Assad, the Trump administration is trying to preserve the cadaver state,
keeping Syria dead and dismembered until Assad steps down from power. Implementing its own version of the
stalemate strategy, the Trump administration wants to achieve something morticians might call the embalming of
Syria.
Keeping Syria Dismembered
The civil war has divided Syria into several
areas of
control
. Although the Assad regime controls much of central Syria and the capital in Damascus, other groups
control
large areas
in the northwest, northeast, and south.
In the northwest, the opposition controls Idlib Province, its last and largest stronghold. Since 2015, an
al-Qaeda offshoot called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has dominated the area, using it to organize resistance to the
Assad government. Early last year, HTS took
administrative
control
of the region.
Some U.S. officials say the province is now home to one of the
largest
concentrations of terrorists in the world. They are particularly concerned about an al-Qaeda branch
called
Hurras al-Din
, which could be plotting attacks against the West. Perhaps the strongest symbol of what has
happened to the area is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, was found
hiding
there during the U.S. raid that resulted in his death last year.
"There is no dispute that Idlib has become a hornet's nest of multiple terrorist organizations," Defense
Department official Robert Karem
told
Congress in 2018.
Although the Assad regime has been working with Russia in an ongoing
military campaign
to retake control of the terrorist stronghold, the Trump administration has been trying to
slow the attack. Administration officials argue that a major offensive will create a
humanitarian catastrophe
. More than three million people live in the province, and many of them are refugees
from other parts of Syria.
The bigger fear in Washington is that Assad's military campaign will succeed in destroying the terrorist
groups. Although U.S. forces have taken several actions of their own against them, U.S. officials want the
militants to keep pressure on Assad. When the Syrian government attempted to retake control of the area in 2018,
Jeffrey
warned
that a Syrian victory "would have meant essentially the end of the armed resistance to the Syrian
Government."
As the Trump administration has sought to prevent the Syrian government from retaking Idlib, it has been
pursuing a similar objective in Rojava, the Kurdish-led area in the northeast. Since the war began, Kurdish
militias have controlled the northeastern part of the country, benefiting from Assad's decision early in the war
to withdraw forces and send them elsewhere.
After Assad's forces left, the Kurds faced a major challenge from the Islamic State, which began conquering
large parts of central Syria. Once the Islamic State began moving into Kurdish areas, the Kurds put up effective
resistance, notably in
Kobani
from late 2014 to early 2015.
Impressed by the Kurdish resistance, the Obama administration began
partnering
with the Kurds, helping them fight the Islamic State. With U.S. support, the Kurds defeated the
Islamic State and secured control of the northeast. Leading a major
social
revolution
, they started creating an autonomous confederation of cantons outside of the control of the Syrian
government.
Officials in Washington, who repeatedly
praised
the Kurds for their bravery against the Islamic State, came to value them even more for their control
over northeastern Syria. In their view, the Kurds had acquired significant
leverage
over Assad.
"This area accounts for roughly one-third of the country east of the Euphrates River and is the United States'
greatest single point of leverage in Syria," a 2019
report
by the congressionally mandated Syria Study Group (SSG) stated.
Although Trump seemingly abandoned this leverage when he began
withdrawing
U.S. forces from the area in October, administration officials persuaded him to keep nearly a
thousand
U.S. troops inside the country. The soldiers may not be able to regain control of the bases they lost
to Turkish, Russian, and Syrian forces, but they continue to control strategically important oil fields.
U.S. control provides "
a
good negotiating leverage point
," according to Gen. Joseph Votel, a former commander of U.S. Central Command.
In the meantime, the Trump administration has been maintaining another significant leverage point in the
southern part of Syria, where it keeps about a hundred U.S. soldiers stationed at the al-Tanf military base. "I
think U.S. officials and other officials around the region consider the U.S. presence at Al-Tanf to be of
strategic importance," SSG co-chair Michael Singh
told
Congress last year. It is useful "for maintaining a kind of presence in that kind of swath of Syria."
Keeping Syria Dead
As the Trump administration has kept Syria divided and broken, it has made a major effort to prevent the Assad
regime from reviving the areas it does control. Using a mix of economic and military power, the Trump
administration has made it impossible for the country to recover under Assad's leadership.
For years, U.S.
sanctions
have kept Syria weakened and isolated. By maintaining the comprehensive set of sanctions that
previous administrations had already imposed on Syria, the Trump administration has kept the country under what is
essentially a full economic embargo.
According to the Treasury Department, the U.S. sanctions regime is "
one
of the most comprehensive sanctions programs
" administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which
implements and enforces U.S. sanctions.
Adding to the economic pressure, the Trump administration has also been blocking reconstruction aid to Syria.
Despite the fact that the war has left countless people homeless, administration officials actively discourage the
international community from directing any kind of reconstruction assistance to areas under Assad's control.
The withholding of funds is one of the Trump administration's "potent levers" over Assad, State Department
official David Satterfield
told
Congress in 2018.
Administration officials even acknowledge that they are trying to prevent the country from recovering.
Destroyed parts of the country are "going to stay part of rubble in a graveyard until the international community
sees some kind of movement towards our list of issues and answers and policies," a senior State Department
official
said
in November.
Taking more direct action, the United States and its allies have also been carrying out airstrikes against
Syrian infrastructure. Once in
April 2017
and again in
April 2018
, the Trump administration launched missile attacks against Syria, insisting that they were a
necessary response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
At one point, Trump even considered assassinating Assad, saying "
Let's
fucking kill him!
" Then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the president that he would look into it, but
Trump's national security team decided against it, arguing for airstrikes instead.
Also favoring airstrikes, the Israeli government has carried out
hundreds
of attacks inside Syria. Its targets have included weapons convoys, Syrian infrastructure, Iranian
forces, and Iranian infrastructure. Both Assad and the Iranians "have Israel to contend with in basically a silent
war in the skies and on the ground in Syria," Jeffrey
told
Congress last year.
The Future of a Failed Strategy
From one perspective, the Trump administration appears to be achieving its goals in Syria. By keeping the
country permanently weakened, it has prevented Assad from winning the war.
From another perspective, however, the Trump administration has failed. Not only has it been unable to pressure
Assad into leaving office, but it has made no progress in convincing Assad to hold meaningful negotiations with
the rebels. The only thing the Trump administration has done is prolonged the war, causing more death,
destruction, and misery.
"We failed, and the failure continues," former U.S. official Anthony Blinken
said
in 2018.
During a
congressional
hearing
last September, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that "it's time for us to admit that our policy in
Syria, over the course of two administrations, has been a failure."
Regardless, the Trump administration has continued implementing its own version of the stalemate strategy. When
it was facing widespread criticism last year over its decision to
betray
the Kurds, Jeffrey
reassured
Congress that the United States maintains significant leverage over Assad.
"We had the leverage of a totally broken state, which is what we still have today," Jeffrey said. The war is
"stalemated" and the country remains "basically a pile of rubble," he added. "I think that it's open to question
whether Assad personally is going to lead that country indefinitely."
Indeed, the morticians in the Trump administration remain convinced that they can oust Assad. All they need to
do, they believe, is keep the war stalemated, keep the country a pile of rubble, and keep Syria dead and
dismembered, no matter the costs to the Syrian people.
Share this:
The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising
success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among
feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.
The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever
the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.
Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings,
corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much
money as they want on political candidates.
The 2012
elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even
more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into
the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by
super PACs.
Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It
also drives war.
After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are
being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war
machine.
During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations
made billions on federal contracts.
Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick
Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly,
unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.
Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given
over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which
went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.
These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and
Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And
cleverly, they've planted
factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen
constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the
five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014,
the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.
Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since
2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected
officials spend several times
more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.
Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of
funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill
calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in
the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that
can't even fire its own gun yet.
Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?
Some folks will say it's to make
us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed
governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.
Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the
jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three
times more jobs than military spending.
We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business
opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in
the death grip of the war machine.
And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today.
Share this:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran.
This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last
week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of
their executives' stock-based pay.
I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most
recent SEC information on their stock holdings.
Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that
killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the
following day.
Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held
251,947 shares
of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies
must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still
sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.
New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the
92,894 shares
she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of
post-assassination trading.
Lockheed Martin, whose
Hellfire missiles
were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in
price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for
selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time
Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her
remaining stash
had increased in value by about $646,000.
What about the manufacturer of the
MQ-9 Reaper
that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in
$2.8
billion
in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive
compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.
We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated
$4.1 billion
-- and he's a
major
investor
in oil production, a sector that
also stands to profit
from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.
*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on
as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop
Grumman COO.
Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon
maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her
stock holdings
increase by more than $1.2 million.
Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the
missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday.
But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to
benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.
As of his final
Form 4
report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit
package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran
will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a
sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.
We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top
executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed
capping CEO pay
at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S.
president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has
a plan
to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker
makes.
As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit
motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist.
Share this:
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS
publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.
The main problem of the United States in the existing political and economic system, which
began to be intensively created by the American banking layer since 1885 and was fixed in
1913. This became possible only thanks to the Civil War of 1861-1865. I will explain. Before
the Civil War, each state had its own banking structure, its own banknotes (there were not so
many states, there were still territories that did not become states yet). Before the
American Civil War, there was no single banking system. Abraham Linkol was a protege of the
banking houses of the cities of New York and Chicago, they rigged the election (bought the
election). It may sound rude to the Americans, but Lincoln was a rogue in the eyes of some US
citizens of that time. And this became the main reason for the desire of some states (not
only southern, and some northern) to withdraw from the United States. Another good reason for
the exit was the persistent attempts of bankers in New York and Chicago to take control of
the banking system of the South. These are two main reasons, as old as the World, the
struggle for control and money. The war (unfortunately) began the South. Under a federal
treaty, South and North were supposed to jointly contain US forts for protection. The
fighting began on April 12, 1861 with an attack by southerners on such a fort Sumter in
Charleston Bay. These are the beginnings of war.
This is important - I advise everyone to read the memoirs of generals, and especially the
memoirs of Ulysses Grant, the future president of the United States. The war was with varying
success, but the emissaries of the banks of New York and Chicago always followed the army of
the North, who, taking advantage of the disastrous situation in the battlefields, bought up
real estate, land and other assets. They were called the "Carpetbagger". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger
They were engaged in the purchase throughout the war and up to 1885.
To make it clear to you, in the history of the USA, the period from 1865 to 1885 is called
the "Great American Depression" (this is the very first great depression and lasted 20
years). During this time, the bankers of New York and Chicago completely subjugated the US
banking system to themselves and their interests, trampled the South (robbed), after which
the submission of the US as a state directly to the banking mafia began. At present (since
1913) in the USA there is not capitalism, but an evil parody of capitalism.
I can call it this: American clan-corporate oligarchic "capitalism" (with the suppression
of free markets, with unfair competition and the creation of barriers to the dissemination of
reliable information). Since such "capitalism" cannot work (like socialism or utopian
communism), constant wars are needed that bring profit to the bankers, owners of the
military-industrial complex, political "service staff", make oligarchs richer, and ordinary
Americans poorer. We are now observing this, since this system has come to its end and
everything has become obvious.
For example, in the early 80s, the middle class of the United States was approximately 70%
of the population employed in production and trade, now it is no more than 15%.
The gap between the oligarchs and ordinary Americans widened. My essay is how I see what
is happening in the USA and why I do not like it. It's my personal opinion. In the end, my
favorite phrase is that Americans are suckers and boobies (but we still love them). Good luck
everyone.
The new year opened with the United States committing an extrajudicial assassination in a
foreign country by drone.
I'm not talking about the January 3, 2020 rocket attack that killed Iranian general Qasem
Soleimani. I'm talking about the January 1, 2019 drone strike that killed Jamal Al Badawi, an
alleged Al Qaeda plotter, in Yemen.
The U.S. carrying out assassinations from above -- without trial, without warning -- is
nothing new. What was different about the killing of Al Badawi was that the U.S. military was
public about it, announcing the killing via Twitter
on January 6.
For years, activists, journalists, scholars, and others have been calling for transparency
regarding the notoriously clandestine Defense Department and CIA-run drone programs. How one
ends up on the lists of people targeted, to whom one appeals to get off of such a list, where
the drones are based, and even when they strike are matters that were shrouded in secrecy
during the Bush and Obama administrations.
That's largely remained true under Trump -- in fact, it's
even more difficult to get information about civilian casualties now. But here was an
example of an assassination by drone being done in the open.
Presumably, the reason to have more information about the drone war is so the people running
it can be held accountable for their actions. And yet, given the opportunity to ask questions
about the New Year's Day attack, precious few were asked by Congress or the mainstream
media.
Today, as we spiral perilously toward direct military confrontation between the U.S. and
Iran, it is worth reflecting on the failures to rein in Trump's aggression along the way. Given
the obvious signs that Trump has been keen to escalate the United States' many wars -- and
begin new ones -- the complicity of other institutions in Trump's belligerence, particularly
Congress, is stunning.
Crickets from Congress
Trump's unilateral withdrawal from -- and efforts to destroy -- the nuclear deal sparked a
predictable trajectory of escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Many have pointed that
out, most recently former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice . What we need to examine more deeply are the decisions between then and now
that enabled Trump to pursue such a path.
At several key junctures, lawmakers simply failed to challenge acts of U.S. aggression
carried out without even a pretense of accountability, as when Amnesty International documented
the fact that the U.S. killed civilians in its escalating air war in Somalia, in a report that
received too little attention. Or when journalists
reported that the U.S.-led siege against ISIS in the Syrian city of Raqqa was devastating
for civilians of that city -- whom the U.S. then
abandoned , after saying it would help rebuild.
Other times, lawmakers and other officials did raise their voices in opposition to Trump's
foreign policy moves -- by saying that he wasn't committed enough to pursuing U.S. wars.
Such was the response when Trump announced that he was withdrawing troops from the Turkish
border with Syria. Critics advocated
maintaining the open-ended military presence throughout Syria.
But we don't even have to look back that far.
On December 9 -- barely a month ago -- the Washington Post began publishing a series
of articles known as
the Afghanistan Papers , which documented years of lies by U.S. officials and catastrophes
caused by U.S. actions in its 18-year occupation of that country. Two weeks later, the New
York Times released documents and video, principally testimony from U.S. Navy SEALs, that
confirmed the unmistakable
war crimes committed by Navy SEAL chief Eddie Gallagher, who had been recently acquitted of
the most serious charges -- and pardoned by the president.
Here were the major newspapers of record running front-page coverage of serious abuses
people should be called to account for. Yet where were the congressional hearings?
Instead of taking steps toward that accountability, Congress did the opposite: It passed a
new $738 billion military spending bill, effectively approving and fueling the wars. Despite
vocal condemnation of the bill from California Democrats Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee, just 41
House Democrats voted against it, compared to 188 who joined Republicans in
passing it.
Antigovernment protests in Baghdad, November 2019 (Shutterstock)
In a national address today, Trump threatened even more sanctions against Iran. As his
rhetoric becomes more belligerent -- and as he deploys
even more troops to the Middle East to set the stage for attacks on Iran -- members of
Congress' calls to bring the president
into compliance with the War Powers Act are certainly welcome. But the questions that lawmakers
are raising now, after the U.S. has already committed an act of war in assassinating Soleimani
in Iraq, run contrary to their actions up to this point.
Going into the new year, Congress had already sent the message that Trump and the Pentagon
could do whatever they please. And whatever misgivings members of Congress have about military
attacks on Iran, the body has supported
the sanctions imposed on that country by the United States -- which have been
disastrous for the Iranian population , and which act as precursors to war.
The so-called War on Terror is completely out of control. What is needed is for the
widespread opposition in the U.S. to the wars waged in our names --
including attacking Iran -- to be turned into a fighting resistance.
We have seen mass protest under Trump -- even in its brief moments -- have significant
impacts. The Women's Marches may not have ended sexual violence, but they, along with the
#MeToo and #TimesUp campaigns, opened the most wide reaching and serious conversations about
gender-based abuse in recent memory, and some high profile abusers have been made to account
for their actions. (Even a UN convention was passed , though
the U.S. hasn't ratified it.) The spontaneous, mass mobilizations to airports against Trump's
Muslim Ban set back those plans for a time as well.
We need to extend that resistance to a U.S. military machine that's moving like a runaway
train, undeterred by the human costs of its destruction, or even the apparent lack of a
strategy from a military perspective.
Popular power matters. There was, in fact, a moment where there was a conversation in
Congress about ending U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's cataclysmic war in Yemen -- a war that
has only been made possible with U.S. weapons, intelligence, and other forms of support.
Despite votes in both houses to stop that assistance, Trump was able to veto the
legislation , and the moment passed.
What if there had been mass actions in the streets? Could that effort have been pushed over
the line?
We need to ask these questions, and imagine the answers. In doing so, we will be joining in
solidarity with various efforts in the Middle East to challenge governments and the foreign
powers -- particularly the United States -- backing them.
After all, the news that dominated headlines out of Iraq for the months prior to the U.S.
assassination of Soleimani was that Iraqis were mobilizing en masse
against a government whose origins lie in the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation, and
whose forces are armed and trained by billions of dollars in U.S. aid. (There were Iraqi
protests that
also targeted Iranian influence in the country.)
In fact, focusing on the movements of people throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Central
Asia who find themselves in the crosshairs of the War on Terror must be essential to a movement
here that challenges U.S. wars. Imagine the power, for example, of massive U.S. rallies
coinciding with the movement inside Iraq to remove U.S. troops from the country. Imagine if
more members of the U.S. Congress were compelled to follow Iraq's parliament in calling for
those soldiers to come home.
Behind every Baghdadi
For the few conversations that do take place about our wars, it's distressingly typical for
the people having them forget about the people bearing the brunt of those wars.
After the October 26 killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, for example, Defense
Department officials held a press conference at the Pentagon. You can read the
transcript . Journalists in the room asked two questions about the storied dog who assisted
in the killing operation, and several more about the prospect of U.S. personnel securing Syrian
oil fields.
The reporters in the room didn't ask a single question about whether others besides Al
Baghdadi, including civilians, were wounded or killed in the mission.
Thankfully, other journalists
did ask. NPR reporters learned that in the same raid where Baghdadi was killed, the Syrian
farmer Barakat Ahmad Barakat saw his two friends killed by U.S. rockets -- and his own hand
severed from his body -- as they were caught up in the attack while driving in van.
The three farmers were unarmed. Aside from the trauma of being maimed and seeing his friends
killed, Barakat's work is impossible without his hand. His life as he knew it ended.
Behind every "bad guy" like Baghdadi are masses of ordinary people suffering the endless
grind of war -- a grind that this country has made ever more brutal, with ever fewer
constraints or accountability from the U.S. political system.
It is crucial that we are all talking about Iran now, as we stand on the verge of a new
chapter of catastrophes -- and work to prevent it. But the killing and destruction of the War
on Terror is happening around the world, every day. The lack of attention to it is part of what
keeps it going, and sets the stage for the current situation involving Iran, Iraq, and the
United States.
The truth is, these wars are criminal, and any conversation about them that doesn't center
the people most impacted is unacceptable. That conversation won't start in the U.S. government.
Instead, it must be raised by those of us outraged by wars that have devastated generations,
and who believe that people from Somalia to Afghanistan, and now to Iran -- indeed, all of us
-- deserve a better world.
Khury Petersen-Smith is the Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for
Policy Studies.
By killing Soleimani the USA formally declared war of Iran. So sactions is jus secondary
effect of this decition.
Notable quotes:
"... Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response. ..."
The latest move included sanctions on metal manufacturing and other sectors of the Iranian
economy, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin told reporters at a White House press
briefing, noting that the sanctions are both primary and secondary.
Mnuchin also said the Treasury had designated eight senior Iranian officials, including Ali
Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Reza Ashtiani,
deputy chief of staff of Iranian armed force, and others.
"The United States is targeting senior Iranian officials for their involvement and
complicity in Tuesday's ballistic missile strikes," Mnuchin claimed in a statement issued by
the Treasury.
Also on Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump said in a White House statement that the
punishing measures aimed at denying Iran's revenue that "may be used to fund and support its
nuclear program, missile development, terrorism and terrorist proxy networks, and malign
regional influence."
The Pentagon confirmed that Iran had launched 16 ballistic missiles against two military
bases housing U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq earlier this week.
Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had claimed responsibility for the missile
attacks, saying that they were meant to retaliate the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani, former
commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC.
Trump said Wednesday in an address to the nation that "the United States will immediately
impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions
will remain until Iran changes its behavior."
Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been
mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance
and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response.
Looks like Iran is Catch22 for the USA: it can destroy it, but only at the cost of losing empire and dollar hegemony...
Notable quotes:
"... The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings 12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own economies? It's an age-old problem. ..."
"... The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight. ..."
"... Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel]. This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it is about the BRI. ..."
"... The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with China shortly before it slid into this current mess. ..."
"... This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time to speed up this development. ..."
"... "Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal agreed between the two countries." ..."
"... "For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas, China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines' process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq." ..."
"... Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous. ..."
"... I'd never thought of that "stationary aircraft carrier" comparison between Israel and the British, very apt. ..."
"... Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at all costs". ..."
"... This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to the Iraqi parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US admitted to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers. ..."
"... This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11. https://www.voltairenet.org/article ..."
"... "The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire." ..."
"... The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US Financial/Political/Military power. ..."
"... In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world. Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the world. ..."
"... the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few entities. ..."
Introduction: After posting Michael Hudson's article "America
Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East" on the blog, I decided to ask
Michael to reply to a few follow-up questions. Michael very kindly agreed. Please see our
exchange below.
The Saker
-- -- -
The Saker: Trump has been accused of not thinking forward, of not having a long-term
strategy regarding the consequences of assassinating General Suleimani. Does the United States
in fact have a strategy in the Near East, or is it only ad hoc?
Michael Hudson: Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not
reflect a deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and
exploitative that it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if
they came right out and said it.
President Trump is just the taxicab driver, taking the passengers he has accepted –
Pompeo, Bolton and the Iran-derangement syndrome neocons – wherever they tell him they
want to be driven. They want to pull a heist, and he's being used as the getaway driver (fully
accepting his role). Their plan is to hold onto the main source of their international revenue:
Saudi Arabia and the surrounding Near Eastern oil-export surpluses and money. They see the US
losing its ability to exploit Russia and China, and look to keep Europe under its control by
monopolizing key sectors so that it has the power to use sanctions to squeeze countries that
resist turning over control of their economies and natural rentier monopolies to US buyers. In
short, US strategists would like to do to Europe and the Near East just what they did to Russia
under Yeltsin: turn over public infrastructure, natural resources and the banking system to
U.S. owners, relying on US dollar credit to fund their domestic government spending and private
investment.
This is basically a resource grab. Suleimani was in the same position as Chile's Allende,
Libya's Qaddafi, Iraq's Saddam. The motto is that of Stalin: "No person, no problem."
The Saker: Your answer raises a question about Israel: In your recent article you only
mention Israel twice, and these are only passing comments. Furthermore, you also clearly say
the US Oil lobby as much more crucial than the Israel Lobby, so here is my follow-up question
to you: On what basis have you come to this conclusion and how powerful do you believe the
Israel Lobby to be compared to, say, the Oil lobby or the US Military-Industrial Complex? To
what degree do their interests coincide and to what degree to they differ?
Michael Hudson: I wrote my article to explain the most basic concerns of U.S. international
diplomacy: the balance of payments (dollarizing the global economy, basing foreign central bank
savings on loans to the U.S. Treasury to finance the military spending mainly responsible for
the international and domestic budget deficit), oil (and the enormous revenue produced by the
international oil trade), and recruitment of foreign fighters (given the impossibility of
drafting domestic U.S. soldiers in sufficient numbers). From the time these concerns became
critical to today, Israel was viewed as a U.S. military base and supporter, but the U.S. policy
was formulated independently of Israel.
I remember one day in 1973 or '74 I was traveling with my Hudson Institute colleague Uzi
Arad (later a head of Mossad and advisor to Netanyahu) to Asia, stopping off in San Francisco.
At a quasi-party, a U.S. general came up to Uzi and clapped him on the shoulder and said,
"You're our landed aircraft carrier in the Near East," and expressed his friendship.
Uzi was rather embarrassed. But that's how the U.S. military thought of Israel back then. By
that time the three planks of U.S. foreign policy strategy that I outlined were already firmly
in place.
Of course Netanyahu has applauded U.S. moves to break up Syria, and Trump's assassination
choice. But the move is a U.S. move, and it's the U.S. that is acting on behalf of the dollar
standard, oil power and mobilizing Saudi Arabia's Wahabi army.
Israel fits into the U.S.-structured global diplomacy much like Turkey does. They and other
countries act opportunistically within the context set by U.S. diplomacy to pursue their own
policies. Obviously Israel wants to secure the Golan Heights; hence its opposition to Syria,
and also its fight with Lebanon; hence, its opposition to Iran as the backer of Assad and
Hezbollah. This dovetails with US policy.
But when it comes to the global and U.S. domestic response, it's the United States that is
the determining active force. And its concern rests above all with protecting its cash cow of
Saudi Arabia, as well as working with the Saudi jihadis to destabilize governments whose
foreign policy is independent of U.S. direction – from Syria to Russia (Wahabis in
Chechnya) to China (Wahabis in the western Uighur region). The Saudis provide the underpinning
for U.S. dollarization (by recycling their oil revenues into U.S. financial investments and
arms purchases), and also by providing and organizing the ISIS terrorists and coordinating
their destruction with U.S. objectives. Both the Oil lobby and the Military-Industrial Complex
obtain huge economic benefits from the Saudis.
Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about.
The Saker: In your recent article you wrote: " The assassination was intended to escalate
America's presence in Iraq to keep control the region's oil reserves ." Others believe that
the goal was precisely the opposite, to get a pretext to remove the US forces from both Iraq
and Syria. What are your grounds to believe that your hypothesis is the most likely one?
Michael Hudson: Why would killing Suleimani help remove the U.S. presence? He was the
leader of the fight against ISIS, especially in Syria. US policy was to continue using ISIS to
permanently destabilize Syria and Iraq so as to prevent a Shi'ite crescent reaching from Iran
to Lebanon – which incidentally would serve as part of China's Belt and Road initiative.
So it killed Suleimani to prevent the peace negotiation. He was killed because he had been
invited by Iraq's government to help mediate a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That was what the United States feared most of all, because it effectively would prevent its
control of the region and Trump's drive to seize Iraqi and Syrian oil.
So using the usual Orwellian doublethink, Suleimani was accused of being a terrorist, and
assassinated under the U.S. 2002 military Authorization Bill giving the President to move
without Congressional approval against Al Qaeda. Trump used it to protect Al Qaeda's
terrorist ISIS offshoots.
Given my three planks of U.S. diplomacy described above, the United States must remain in
the Near East to hold onto Saudi Arabia and try to make Iraq and Syria client states equally
subservient to U.S. balance-of-payments and oil policy.
Certainly the Saudis must realize that as the buttress of U.S. aggression and terrorism in
the Near East, their country (and oil reserves) are the most obvious target to speed the
parting guest. I suspect that this is why they are seeking a rapprochement with Iran. And I
think it is destined to come about, at least to provide breathing room and remove the threat.
The Iranian missiles to Iraq were a demonstration of how easy it would be to aim them at Saudi
oil fields. What then would be Aramco's stock market valuation?
The Saker: In your article you wrote: " The major deficit in the U.S. balance of payments
has long been military spending abroad. The entire payments deficit, beginning with the Korean
War in 1950-51 and extending through the Vietnam War of the 1960s, was responsible for forcing
the dollar off gold in 1971. The problem facing America's military strategists was how to
continue supporting the 800 U.S. military bases around the world and allied troop support
without losing America's financial leverage. " I want to ask a basic, really primitive
question in this regard: how cares about the balance of payments as long as 1) the US continues
to print money 2) most of the world will still want dollars. Does that not give the US an
essentially "infinite" budget? What is the flaw in this logic?
Michael Hudson: The U.S. Treasury can create dollars to spend at home, and the Fed can
increase the banking system's ability to create dollar credit and pay debts denominated in US
dollars. But they cannot create foreign currency to pay other countries, unless they willingly
accept dollars ad infinitum – and that entails bearing the costs of financing the U.S.
balance-of-payments deficit, getting only IOUs in exchange for real resources that they sell to
U.S. buyers.
This is the situation that arose half a century ago. The United States could print dollars
in 1971, but it could not print gold.
In the 1920s, Germany's Reichsbank could print deutsche marks – trillions of them.
When it came to pay Germany's foreign reparations debt, all it could do was to throw these
D-marks onto the foreign exchange market. That crashed the currency's exchange rate, forcing up
the price of imports proportionally and causing the German hyperinflation.
The question is, how many surplus dollars do foreign governments want to hold. Supporting
the dollar standard ends up supporting U.S. foreign diplomacy and military policy. For the
first time since World War II, the most rapidly growing parts of the world are seeking to
de-dollarize their economies by reducing reliance on U.S. exports, U.S. investment, and U.S.
bank loans. This move is creating an alternative to the dollar, likely to replace it with
groups of other currencies and assets in national financial reserves.
The Saker: In the same article you also write: " So maintaining the dollar as the world's
reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. " We often hear people say
that the dollar is about to tank and that as soon as that happens, then the US economy (and,
according to some, the EU economy too) will collapse. In the intelligence community there is
something called tracking the "indicators and warnings". My question to you is: what are the
economic "indicators and warnings" of a possible (probable?) collapse of the US dollar followed
by a collapse of the financial markets most tied to the Dollar? What shall people like myself
(I am an economic ignoramus) keep an eye on and look for?
Michael Hudson: What is most likely is a slow decline, largely from debt deflation
and cutbacks in social spending, in the Eurozone and US economies. Of course, the decline will
force the more highly debt-leveraged companies to miss their bond payments and drive them into
insolvency. That is the fate of Thatcherized economies. But it will be long and painfully drawn
out, largely because there is little left-wing socialist alternative to neoliberalism at
present.
Trump's protectionist policies and sanctions are forcing other countries to become
self-reliant and independent of US suppliers, from farm crops to airplanes and military arms,
against the US threat of a cutoff or sanctions against repairs, spare parts and servicing.
Sanctioning Russian agriculture has helped it become a major crop exporter, and to become much
more independent in vegetables, dairy and cheese products. The US has little to offer
industrially, especially given the fact that its IT communications are stuffed with US
spyware.
Europe therefore is facing increasing pressure from its business sector to choose the non-US
economic alliance that is growing more rapidly and offers a more profitable investment market
and more secure trade supplier. Countries will turn as much as possible (diplomatically as well
as financially and economically) to non-US suppliers because the United States is not reliable,
and because it is being shrunk by the neoliberal policies supported by Trump and the Democrats
alike. A byproduct probably will be a continued move toward gold as an alternative do the
dollar in settling balance-of-payments deficits.
The Saker: Finally, my last question: which country out there do you see as the most capable
foe of the current US-imposed international political and economic world order? whom do you
believe that US Deep State and the Neocons fear most? China? Russia? Iran? some other country?
How would you compare them and on the basis of what criteria?
Michael Hudson: The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States
itself. That is Trump's major contribution. He is uniting the world in a move toward
multi-centrism much more than any ostensibly anti-American could have done. And he is doing it
all in the name of American patriotism and nationalism – the ultimate Orwellian
rhetorical wrapping!
Trump has driven Russia and China together with the other members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), including Iran as observer. His demand that NATO join in US oil
grabs and its supportive terrorism in the Near East and military confrontation with Russia in
Ukraine and elsewhere probably will lead to European "Ami go home" demonstrations against NATO
and America's threat of World War III.
No single country can counter the U.S. unipolar world order. It takes a critical mass of
countries. This already is taking place among the countries that you list above. They are
simply acting in their own common interest, using their own mutual currencies for trade and
investment. The effect is an alternative multilateral currency and trading area.
The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that other countries sacrifice
their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire. In effect, foreign countries are
beginning to respond to the United States what the ten tribes of Israel said when they withdrew
from the southern kingdom of Judah, whose king Rehoboam refused to lighten his demands (1 Kings
12). They echoed the cry of Sheba son of Bikri a generation earlier: "Look after your own
house, O David!" The message is: What do other countries have to gain by remaining in the US
unipolar neoliberalized world, as compared to using their own wealth to build up their own
economies? It's an age-old problem.
The dollar will still play a role in US trade and investment, but it will be as just another
currency, held at arms length until it finally gives up its domineering attempt to strip other
countries' wealth for itself. However, its demise may not be a pretty sight.
The Saker: I thank you very much for your time and answers!
Another one that absolutely stands for me out is the below link to a recent interview of
Hussein Askary.
As I wrote a few days ago IMO this too is a wonderful insight into the utterly complicated
dynamics of the tinderbox that the situation in Iran and Iraq has become.
Conflict in the ME has traditionally almost always been about oil [and of course Israel].
This situation is different. It is only partially about oil and Israel, but OVERWHHEMINGLY it
is about the BRI.
The salient factor as I see it is the Oil for Technology initiative that Iraq signed with
China shortly before it slid into this current mess.
This was a mechanism whereby China would buy Iraq oil and these funds would be used
directly to fund infrastructure and self-sufficiency initiatives and technologies that would
help to drag Iraq out of the complete disaster that the US war had created in this country. A
key part of this would be that China would also make extra loans available at the same time
to speed up this development.
In essence, this would enable the direct and efficient linking of Iraq into the BRI
project. Going forward the economic gains and the political stability that could come out of
this would be a completely new paradigm in the recovery of Iraq both economically and
politically. Iraq is essential for a major part of the dynamics of the BRI because of its
strategic location and the fact that it could form a major hub in the overall network.
It absolutely goes without saying that the AAA would do everything the could to wreck this
plan. This is their playbook and is exactly what they have done. The moronic and
extraordinarily impulsive Trump subsequently was easily duped into being a willing and
idiotic accomplice in this plan.
The positive in all of this is that this whole scheme will backfire spectacularly for the
perpetrators and will more than likely now speed up the whole process in getting Iraq back on
track and working towards stability and prosperity.
Please don't anyone try to claim that Trump is part of any grand plan nothing could be
further from the truth he is nothing more than a bludgeoning imbecile foundering around,
lashing out impulsively indiscriminately. He is completely oblivious and ignorant as to the
real picture.
I urge everyone involved in this Saker site to put aside an hour and to listen very
carefully to Askary's insights. This is extremely important and could bring more clarity to
understanding the situation than just about everything else you have read put together. There
is hope, and Askary highlights the huge stakes that both Russia and China have in the
region.
This is a no brainer. This is the time for both Russia and China to act and to decisively.
They must cooperate in assisting both Iraq and Iran to extract themselves from the current
quagmire the one that the vicious Hegemon so cruelly and thoughtlessly tossed them into.
Also interesting is what Simon Watkins reports in his recent article entitled "Is Iraq About
To Become A Chinese Client State?"
To quote from the article:
"Iraq's Finance Ministry that the country had started exporting 100,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil to China in October as part of the 20-year oil-for-infrastructure deal
agreed between the two countries."
and
"For Iraq and Iran, China's plans are particularly far-reaching, OilPrice.com has been
told by a senior oil industry figure who works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry and
Iraq's Oil Ministry. China will begin with the oil and gas sector and work outwards from that
central point. In addition to being granted huge reductions on buying Iranian oil and gas,
China is to be given the opportunity to build factories in both Iran and Iraq – and
build-out infrastructure, such as railways – overseen by its own management staff from
Chinese companies. These are to have the same operational structure and assembly lines as
those in China, so that they fit seamlessly into various Chinese companies' assembly lines'
process for whatever product a particular company is manufacturing, whilst also being able to
use the still-cheap labour available in both Iraq and Iraq."
and
"The second key announcement in this vein made last week from Iraq was that the Oil
Ministry has completed the pre-qualifying process for companies interested in participating
in the Iraqi-Jordanian oil pipeline project. The U$5 billion pipeline is aimed at carrying
oil produced from the Rumaila oilfield in Iraq's Basra Governorate to the Jordanian port of
Aqaba, with the first phase of the project comprising the installation of a
700-kilometre-long pipeline with a capacity of 2.25 million bpd within the Iraqi territories
(Rumaila-Haditha). The second phase includes installing a 900-kilometre pipeline in Jordan
between Haditha and Aqaba with a capacity of 1 million bpd. Iraq's Oil Minister – for
the time being, at least – Thamir Ghadhban added that the Ministry has formed a team to
prepare legal contracts, address financial issues and oversee technical standards for
implementing the project, and that May will be the final month in which offers for the
project from the qualified companies will be accepted and that the winners will be announced
before the end of this year. Around 150,000 barrels of the oil from Iraq would be used for
Jordan's domestic needs, whilst the remainder would be exported through Aqaba to various
destinations, generating about US$3 billion a year in revenues to Jordan, with the rest going
to Iraq. Given that the contractors will be expected to front-load all of the financing for
the projects associated with this pipeline, Baghdad expects that such tender offers will be
dominated by Chinese and Russian companies, according to the Iran and Iraq source."
Hudson is so good. He's massively superior to most so called military analysts and
alternative bloggers on the net. He can clearly see the over arching picture and how the
military is used to protect and project it. The idea that the US is going to leave the middle
east until they are forced to is so blind as to be ridiculous.
They will not sacrifice the
(free) oil until booted out by a coalition of Arab countries threatening to over run them and
that is why the dollar hegemonys death will be slow, long and drawn out and they will do
anything, any dirty trick in the book, to prevent Arab/Persian unity. Unlike many peoples
obsession with Israel and how important they feel themselves to be I think Hudson is correct
again. They are the middle eastern version of the British – a stationary aircraft
carrier who will allow themselves to be used and abused whilst living under the illusion they
are major players. They aren't. They're bit part players in decline, subservient to the great
dollar and oil pyramid scheme that keeps America afloat. If you want to beat America you have
to understand the big scheme, that and the utter insanity that backs it up. It is that
insanity of the leites, the inability to allow themselves to be 'beaten' that will keep
nuclear exchange as a real possibility over the next 10 to 15 years. Unification is the only
thing that can stop it and trying to unite so many disparate countries (as the Russians are
trying to do despite multiple provocations) is where the future lies and why it will take so
long. It is truly breath taking in such a horrific way, as Hudson mentions, that to allow the
world to see its 'masters of the universe' pogram to be revealed:
"Of course American strategists will deny that the recent actions do not reflect a
deliberate strategy, because their long-term strategy is so aggressive and exploitative that
it would even strike the American public as being immoral and offensive if they came right
out and said it."
Would be to allow it to be undermined at home and abroad. God help us all.
Clever would be a better word. Looking at my world globe, I see Italy, Greece, and Turkey on
that end of the Mediterranean. Turkey has been in NATO since 1952. Crete and Cyprus are also
right there. Doesn't Hudson own a globe or regional map?
That a US Admiral would be gushing about the Apartheid state 7 years after the attempted
destruction of the USS Liberty is painful to consider. I'd like to disbelieve the story, but
it's quite likely there were a number of high-ranking ***holes in a Naval Uniform.
The world situation reminds us of the timeless fable by Aesop of The North Wind and the Sun.
Trump et al assassinated someone who was on a diplomatic mission. This action was so far
removed from acceptable behavior that it must have been considered to be "by any means and at
all costs".
Perhaps the most potent weapon Iran or anyone else has at this critical juncture, is not
missiles, but diplomacy.
"Therefore, to focus one-sidedly on Israel is a distraction away from what the US-centered
international order really is all about."
Thank you for saying this sir. In the US and around the world many people become
obsessively fixated in seeing a "jew" or zionist behind every bush. Now the Zionists are
certinly an evil, blood thirsty bunch, and certainly deserve the scorn of the world, but i
feel its a cop out sometimes. A person from the US has a hard time stomaching the actions of
their country, so they just hoist all the unpleasentries on to the zionists. They put it all
on zionisim, and completly fail to mention imperialism. I always switced back and forth on
the topic my self. But i cant see how a beachead like the zionist state, a stationary
carrier, can be bigger than the empire itself. Just look at the major leaders in the
resistance groups, the US was always seen as the ultimate obstruction, while israel was seen
as a regional obstruction. Like sayyed hassan nasrallah said in his recent speech about the
martyrs, that if the US is kicked out, the Israelis might just run away with out even
fighting. I hate it when people say "we are in the middle east for israel" when it can easily
be said that "israel is still in the mid east because of the US." If the US seized to exist
today, israel would fall rather quickly. If israel fell today the US would still continue
being an imperalist, bloodthirsty entity.
The Deeper Story behind the Assassination of Soleimani
This article, published by Strategic Culture, features a translation of Mahdi's speech to
the Iraqi
parliament in which he states that Trump threatened him with assassination and the US
admitted
to killing hundreds of demonstrators using Navy SEAL snipers.
This description provided by Mr Hudson is no Moore than the financial basis behind the
Cebrowski doctrine instituted on 9/11.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article
I wish the Saker had asked Mr Hudson about some crucial recent events to get his opinion
with regards to US foreign policy. Specifically, how does the emergence of cryptocurrency
relate to dollar finance and the US grand strategy? A helpful tool for the hegemon or the
emergence of a new currency that prevents unlimited currency printing? Finally, what is
global warming and the associated carbon credit system? The next planned model of continuing
global domination and balance of payments? Or true organic attempt at fair energy production
and management?
With all due respect, these are huge questions in themselves and perhaps could to be
addressed in separate interviews.
IMO it doesn't always work that well to try to cover too much ground in just one giant
leap.
I have never understood the Cebrowski doctrine. How does the destruction of Middle Eastern state structures allow the US to control Middle
East Oil? The level of chaos generated by such an act would seem to prevent anyone from controlled
the oil.
Dr. Hudson often appears on RT's "Keiser Report" where he covers many contemporary topics
with its host Max Keiser. Many of the shows transcripts are available at Hudson's website . Indeed, after the two Saker items,
you'll find three programs on the first page. Using the search function at his site, you'll
find the two articles he's written that deal with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, although I
think he's been more specific in the TV interviews.
As for this Q&A, its an A+. Hudson's 100% correct to playdown the Zionist influence
given the longstanding nature of the Outlaw US Empire's methods that began well before the
rise of the Zionist Lobby, which in reality is a recycling of aid dollars back to Congress in
the form of bribes.
Nils: Good Article. The spirit of Nihilism.
Quote from Neocon Michael Ladeen.
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear
down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and
cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and
creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their
inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do
not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very
existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack
us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
@NILS As far as crypto currency goes it is a brilliant idea in concept. But since during the
Bush years we have been shown multiple times, who actually owns [and therefore controls] the
internet. Many times now we have also been informed that through the monitoring capability's
of our defense agency's, they are recording every key stroke. IMO, with the flip of a switch,
we can shut down the internet. At the very least, that would stop us from being able to trade
in crypto, but they have e-files on each of us. They know our passwords, or can easily access
them. That does not give me confidence in e=currency during a teotwawki situation.
One thing that troubles me about the petrodollar thesis is that ANNUAL trade in oil is about
2 trillion DAILY trade in $US is 4 trillion. I can well believe the US thinks oil is the
bedrock if dollar hegemony but is it? I see no alternative to US dollar hegemony.
The lines that really got my attention were these:
"The leading country breaking up US hegemony obviously is the United States itself. That
is Trump's major contribution The United States is now turning on the screws demanding that
other countries sacrifice their growth in order to finance the U.S. unipolar empire."
That is so completely true. I have wondered why – to date – there had not been
more movement by Europe away from the United States. But while reading the article the
following occurred to me. Maybe Europe is awaiting the next U.S. election. Maybe they hope
that a new president (someone like Biden) might allow Europe to keep more of the
"spoils."
If that is true, then a re-election of Trump will probably send Europe fleeing for the
exits. The Europeans will be cutting deals with Russia and China like the store is on
fire.
The critical player in forming the EU WAS/IS the US financial Elites. Yes, they had many
ultra powerful Europeans, especially Germany, but it was the US who initiated the EU.
Purpose? For the US Financial Powerhouses & US politicians to "take Europe captive."
Notice the similarities: the EU has its Central Bank who communicates with the private
Banksters of the FED. Much austerity has ensued, especially in Southern nations: Greece,
Italy, etc. Purpose: to smash unions, worker's pay, eliminate unions, and basically allowing
US/EU Financial capital to buy out Italy, most of Greece, and a goodly section of Spain and
Portugal.
The US govt. have long since paid off most every European politician. Thusly, Europe, as
separate nations that should be remain still under the yolk of the US
Financial/Political/Military power.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around this but it sounds like he is saying that the U.S.
has a payment deficit problem which is solved by stealing the world's oil supplies. To do
this they must have a powerful, expensive military. But it is primarily this military which
is the main cause of the balance deficit. So it is an eternally fuelled problem and solution.
If I understand this, what it actually means is that we all live on a plantation as slaves
and everything that is happening is for the benefit of the few wealthy billionaires. And they
intend to turn the entire world into their plantation of slaves. They may even let you live
for a while longer.
I didn't know this until I read a history of World War I.
As you know, World War One was irresolvable, murderous, bloody trench warfare. People
would charge out of the trenches trying to overrun enemy positions only to be cutdown by the
super weapon of the day – the machine gun. It was an unending bloody stalemate until
the development of the tank. Tanks were immune to machine gun fire coming from the trenches
and could overrun enemy positions. In the aftermath of that war, it became apparently that
mechanization had become crucial to military supremacy. In turn, fuel was crucial to
mechanization. Accordingly, in the Sykes Picot agreement France and Britain divided a large
amount of Middle Eastern oil between themselves in order to assure military dominance. (The
United States had plenty of their own oil at that time.)
In any event, it is the same today. Energy underlies, not only the military but, all of
world civilization. Oil and gas are overwhelmingly the source of energy for the modern world.
Without it, civilization collapses. Thus, he who controls oil (and gas) controls the
world.
That is one third of the story. The second third is this.
Up till 1971, the United States dollar was the most trusted currency in the world. The
dollar was backed by gold and lots and lots of it. Dollars were in fact redeemable in gold.
However, due to Vietnam War, the United States started running huge balance of payments
deficits. Other countries – most notably France under De Gaulle – started cashing
in dollars in exchange for that gold. Gold started flooding out of the United States. At that
point Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard. Basically stating that the
dollar was no longer backed by gold and dollars could not be redeemed for gold. That caused
an international payments problem. People would no longer accept dollars as payment since the
dollar was not backed up by anything. The American economy was in big trouble since they were
running deficits and people would no longer take dollars on faith.
To fix the problem, Henry Kissinger convinced the Saudis to agree to only accept dollars
in payment for oil – no matter who was the buyer. That meant that nations throughout
the world now needed dollars in order to pay for their energy needs. Due to this, the dollars
was once again the most important currency in the world since – as noted above –
energy underlies everything in modern industrial cultures. Additionally, since dollars were
now needed throughout the world, it became common to make all trades for any product in
highly valued dollars. Everyone needed dollars for every thing, oil or not.
At that point, the United States could go on printing dollars and spending them since a
growing world economy needed more and more dollars to buy oil as well as to trade everything
else.
That leads to the third part of the story. In order to convince the Saudis to accept only
dollars in payments for oil (and to have the Saudis strong arm other oil producers to do the
same) Kissinger promised to protect the brutal Saudi regime's hold on power against a restive
citizenry and also to protect the Saudi's against other nations. Additionally, Kissinger made
an implicit threat that if the Saudi's did not agree, the US would come in and just take
their oil. The Saudis agreed.
Thus, the three keys to dominance in the modern world are thus: oil, dollars and the
military.
Thus, Hudson ties in the three threads in his interview above. Oil, Dollars, Military.
That is what holds the empire together.
Thank you for thinking through this. Yes, the link between the US $$$ and Saudi Oil, is the
absolute means of the American Dollar to reign complete. This payment system FEEDS both the
US Military, but WALL STREET, hedge funds, the US/EU oligarchs – to name just a few
entities.
I should make one note only to this. That "no man, no problem" was Stalin's motto is a myth.
He never said that. It was invented by a writer Alexei Rybnikov and inserted in his book "The
Children of Arbat".
Wow! Absolutely beautiful summation of the ultimate causes that got us where we are and, if
left intact, will get us to where we're going!
So, the dreamer says: If only we could throw-off our us-vs-them BS political-economic
ideology & religious doctrine-faith issues, put them into live-and-let-live mode, and see
that we are all just humans fighting over this oil resource to which our modern economy (way
of life) is addicted, then we might be able to hammer out some new rules for interacting, for
running an earth-resource sustainable and fair global economy We do at least have the
technology to leave behind our oil addiction, but the political-economic will still is
lacking. How much more of the current insanity must we have before we get that will? Will we
get it before it's too late?
Only if we, a sufficient majority from the lowest economic classes to the top elites and
throughout all nations, are able to psychologically-spiritually internalize the two
principles of Common Humanity and Spaceship Earth soon enough, will we stop our current slide
off the cliff into modern economic collapse and avert all the pain and suffering that's
already now with us and that will intensify.
The realist says we're not going to stop that slide and it's the only way we're going to
learn, if we are indeed ever going to learn.
Thank you for this excellent interview. You ask the kind of questions that we would all like
to ask. It's regrettable that Chalmers Johnson isn't still alive. I believe that you and he
would have a lot in common.
Naxos has produced an incredible, unabridged cd audiobook of
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. One of Gibbon's observations really resonates
today: "Assassination is the last resource of cowards". Thanks again.
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration. ..."
"... The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one. ..."
"... Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied. ..."
"... "He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet". ..."
"... While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion. ..."
Mike Pompeo has reportedly long cherished plans to take the Iranian general off the Middle
East battlefield, as he is said to have for quite a while seen late Commander Soleimani as the
one behind the spiralling tensions with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been
revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian
commander, CNN
reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating
Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration.
According to several sources, taking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – the leader of
the elite Quds Force, a powerful military group with vast leverage in the region - "off the
battlefield" has been Pompeo's goal for a decade.
Pompeo "was the one who made the case to take out Soleimani, it was him absolutely", a source
said, adding he apparently floated the idea when debating the US Embassy raid over New Year
with Trump.
According to a number of sources close to Pompeo, the secretary of state has at all times
believed that Iran is the root cause of the woes in the Middle East, and Soleimani in
particular - the mastermind of terrorism raging across the region. This point of view is
notably in tune with how Pompeo commented on the commander's assassination:
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield", Pompeo told CNN on 5 January. "We made the right
decision". The same day, Pompeo told ABC that killing Soleimani was important "because this
was a fella who was the glue, who was conducting active plotting against the United States of
America, putting American lives at risk".
The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought
to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role
of CIA director and then his current one.
Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS,
Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any
military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied.
"He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing
the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in
helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the
Cabinet".
Regardless of who inspired the drone attack that killed Soleimani, the two countries are
indeed going through a stint of severe tensions, but no direct military confrontation. After
Tehran's retaliatory attack, Trump announced a slew of more stringent economic limitations to
be slapped on Iran.
While bragging
about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his
tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising
that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get
more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc
reacting favorably to the suggestion.
A shadowy Silicon Valley group that, largely unnoticed, bankrolled Democrat candidates up and
down the country in the 2018 midterms, will spend up to $140 million to topple President Trump in 2020, according to
Recode.
The group, called "Mind the Gap," is led by Stanford law school professor Barbara Field, former Obama staffer
Graham Gottlieb, and former Hewlett Foundation president Paul Brest.
The group uses a data-driven approach to target funding to seats where donors' dollars will have the maximum
impact, funded 20 Democrat candidates in 2018, ten of whom won.
Via Recode:
In 2018, the group, which is led by Stanford law school professor
Barbara
Fried
,
raised
about $500,000 for 20 different Democratic congressional challengers
, many of whom were underdogs to win their
bids. Ten of them won. Mind the Gap became a hit in Silicon Valley in particular because it asked tech leaders to
fund races where it had calculated each dollar would have the greatest marginal impact on Democrats taking back
the House, which synced with the industry's data-driven thinking.
This time around, the group is asking its donors to fund three separate voter-registration
programs: the Voter Participation Center (VPC) and the Center for Voter Information (CVI), which in September
alone sent out 7.1 million voter registration applications by mail, according to Mind the Gap. The last endorsed
group is Everybody Votes (EV), which is training organizers to sign up voters in local communities and has used
some of the $35 million that Mind the Gap has already raised to register Democratic voters in Wisconsin, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. (Future money from the group is going to do the same in Florida, Arizona, and
Nevada.)
In this cycle, the group aims to raise over $100 million to fund get-out-the-vote efforts and other political
activities:
Mind the Gap told prospective donors last fall that it had already raised at least $35 million in
political contributions for voter registration efforts, which is part of a fundraising goal that could stretch to
$100 million, according to a memo obtained by Recode.
Mind the Gap is also seeking another estimated $30 million for get-out-the-vote work along with
another estimated $10 million for "orphan races" -- which means primarily funding candidates for state legislatures
that the group sees as wrongly under-funded.
Are you an insider at Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit or any other tech company who wants to
confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email
address
[email protected].
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.
They really are able to turn white into black and black into white.
Notable quotes:
"... 1) Occurs as Iran is on brink of war with USA?; 2) Indications of USA using info war tactics; 3) airliner owner by Kolomoisky? 4) No communication with tower? 5) USA and Israel history of duplicity and narrative management (example: MH-17). ..."
"... NATO has weaponized aircraft accident investigations. Lawfare in combination with state terrorism. ..."
"... The Ukies know how to obliterate a debris field. MH-17 -- They used artillery for months to keep OSCE and Dutch officials away, and despite the locals working to protect the deceased and the debris, body parts have been found years later. ..."
There were also clear sightings of a missile to bring down TWA 800. Except it didn't. As an
Navy Pilot , flight instructor and 737 captain this does not at 1st or 2nd glance appear to
be a missile strike. Catastropic engine failure is my bet. They made most of the turn back to
the airport before losing integrity or loss of thrust.
On Wednesday, Boeing's shares plummeted by 2.3 percent ($3.4bn) after the Ukrainian Boeing
737-800 aircraft crashed in Tehran due to encountering a technical glitch.
On Thursday, the stock rose by 3 percent after unnamed Pentagon officials claimed that
the Ukrainian passenger plane was most likely brought down by anti-aircraft missiles, and
US President Donald Trump implicitly supported the claim. This has been read by analysists
as an attempt to manipulate the stock market; a measure that would both overshadow Trump's
failure in Iraq and save Boeing from bankruptcy.
I didn't find the article on TASS. Maybe it was in its Russian version, or in its
TV/Radio/Podcast version.
I don't discard a terrorist attack from the inside, or sabotage of the plane by the
Ukrainian government. What I think is missile attack can be pretty much discarded: the
evidence the Iranians already have through their air control data discard any possibility, by
sheer logic alone, that that was the case.
Unless, of course, the Iranians are lying. But then there isn't any cui bono for Iran to
lie about it (if it was a mistake they wanted to cover, they could blame a random independent
militia so as to give plausible deniability) with the technical malfunction argument, and now
Russia's foreign minister Ryabkov is on the boat with it - so I don't see the cui bono for
Russia either.
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. Some of
you choose to draw the magic cap down over your eyes and ears so as to make-believe that
there are no monsters in Iran.
"Some of you choose to draw the magic cap down over your eyes and ears so as to
make-believe that there are no monsters in Iran."
No, it is a lot easier than that.
Most of us dont get paid to post bs about the imperial enemies like you, and most off us
still know how to use our brain.
That is it, nothing more nothing less.
Rob@2 - What do you make of the loss of ADS-B? Could a catastrophic engine failure take out
both power buses? The ADS-B transceiver? I know a the turbine blades turn into little missile
blades when they decide to leave the engine, but I have no idea of the way power is
transferred when either bus or the standby goes down. I assume automatic? Are the transfer
switches anywhere near the engines? Does the APU automatically fire up? I assume the ADS-B
box is in the electronics bay, but where is the antenna?
Thanks b! As I commented towards the end of the previous thread on this topic, the mundane
evidence has already been shown. IMO, if a missile or bomb was employed, the Iranians would
be yelling louder than anyone and the denials would be coming from BigLie Media instead of
accusations. And as I answered psychohistorian, the massive coverage by BigLie media serves
as narrative distraction from what's being obfuscated--casualties taken by Outlaw US Empire
troops and the BDA presented by Iranian Military.
In that regard, The
Saker's update sticks to the important facts of the now escalated ongoing war between
Iran and the Evil Empire.
Sorry, but there's good reasons to suspect foul play - as I and others have explained on the
last thread.
1) Occurs as Iran is on brink of war with USA?; 2) Indications of USA using info war
tactics; 3) airliner owner by Kolomoisky? 4) No communication with tower? 5) USA and Israel
history of duplicity and narrative management (example: MH-17).
<> <> <> <>
Also: IMO it's dangerous for Iran to invite experts from a group of Western countries.
What is likely to happen is that all the Western experts will be pressure to disagree with
Iran's findings. CIA knows that people will believe the "group of experts!" over Iran.
I don't know how anal Iran is about keeping track of ordinance but they must be pretty
certain as to whether they downed the plane or not! Looks like they are being transparent and
open. If they come out of this proving engine failure or something else then this could be a
great pr coup.
There would be a lot of egg on many faces trying to explain how the intelligence is wrong yet
again. I look forward to watching trudeau walk that back. Hopefully!
One explanation is the Boeing was used as a human shield, a military plane hides behind a
slow moving plane when detected. The ukrainians did it with the MH17 and the israeli with the
russian plane and tried it with the attack on damascus. In both cases there was a lot of
dis-info and blaming right away. But the iranian would have known what the target was, and
mentioned it, so very unlikely.
Another question is the possibility a smaller missile only damaged the plane, also very
unlikely.
Head of Iran Civil Aviation Organization Ali Abedzadeh exaggerates: "From a scientific
viewpoint, it is impossible that a missile hit the Ukrainian plane."
"We can say that the airplane, considering the kind of the crash and the pilot's efforts to
return it to Imam Khomeini airport, didn't explode in the air. So, the allegation that it was
hit by missiles is totally ruled out," the official noted.
Dude, when you're in Wyoming and see critter tracks down by the creek, you would assume it
was Martians rather than antelope? Get real. The Ukie blew a crappy GE engine...they have
this characteristic...
Stay real, use Occam's Razor + physical evidence. Otherwise it's distraction and
TBS...
Craig Murray has been tracking a propagandist Wikipedia editor called "Philip Cross", here
is the main article, but there are others on his site The Philip Cross
Affair
ICAO is in contact with the States involved and will assist them if called upon. Its
leadership is stressing the importance of avoiding speculation into the cause of the tragedy
pending the outcomes of the investigation ...
ICAO may be a worthy organization (some staff changes seem to be warranted), but isn't it
a bit too much?! If this is a sincere wish of democratically elected heads of democratic
nations that they want to form a harmonious chorus and speculate, then no mundane power can
stop them. BTW, what is wrong with Zelensky that he did not join? PTSD after the brutal
telephonies calls? I would add it to the list of proven damages to the security of those
several states that will be debated in the Senate. [end of snark, "several states" is the
entity named in the so-called Constitution of The United States of America].
The flight originated in Teheran, bound for Kiev, but where was it before it arrived in Iran?
It could have been sabotaged anywhere; then easy, right, to set off an onboard bomb by remote
control from the ground? I'm sure Iran is crawling with Mosssad/MI6/CIA spooks.
So you turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by other countries or peoples because the
US government is responsible for the most? Did you even complete your high school education
with that sort of reasoning? I never absolved the US or any other country. Simpletons like
you seem to live in a black and white world in which one side must be chosen over the other.
I feel unfortunate for b or anyone else who frequents this blog who does not view the world
in such a profoundly problematic way.
I am far more informed about Iranian politics, history, culture and religion than most
people here. Please don't allow your hate for the USA, well justified, to cloud your
judgment.
NATO has weaponized aircraft accident investigations. Lawfare in combination with state
terrorism.
It's time for new rules and regulations. ICAO Annex 13 was drafted in different times. A
rule based order is ancient history.
People should be able to chose their destination, route and carrier based on personal
preferences like price and comfort, not on factors like the latest or next conflict zone,
corruption in the countries along the route, military and political adventurism, etc.
- As said before: I didn't believe for one second that that ukrainian plane was shot down. It
would have given the US simply another stick to beat up the iranian government. I assume the
iranians are smart enough to know that. They simply don't want to escalate the situation
more. Although Iran has now the "moral high ground" it is still (very) vulnerable in a number
of ways.
- I think the ukrainian tourists were small traders. I.e. buy stuff e.g. clothing and other
"merchandise" in Teheran, bring it into the Ukraine and then sell that "merchandise" in
Ukraine with a (big) profit.
We have a distinguished professor in our midst! Quite unlike the lowly regular
professors or inconsequential adjunct instructors that normally grace these pages. Let me
kick back and get a tan from the brilliance pouring out of this one! Us high latitude types
have to get our Vitamin D wherever we can.
As for my lack of criticism of Iran's government, that's the business of the Iranian
people and none of my own. The Evil Empire attacking Iran? That, unfortunately, is everyone's
business whether they want it to be or not.
Why is it that these wise guys from the West (Americans mostly) feel it is their duty to
criticize everyone else's governments and cultures when the examples they are setting
themselves are so appallingly bad? Maybe these distinguished critics of other peoples'
ways of life feel that it is easier to fix those other peoples' societies than it is to fix
their own. After all, they apparently feel that fixing other countries just requires some
number of bombs, while fixing their own country... where do they even start? How do you fix
perfection?
I'd be curious to know whether the flight crew on board Flight PS752 had had sufficient rest.
Three hours of resting do not seem like sufficient time but that depends on the journey the
plane made to Tehran, the duration of that journey and where it started. Was the plane also
checked for signs of wear and tear during the three-hour-plus pause?
Are UIA's owners (among them Ihor Kolomoisky) working their employees and hardware assets
too hard and too cheaply as well?
Yes. I think so too. Looks like the engine ran at reduced thrust as they turned, and then
failed entirely at below minimum control speed, with the expected result, asymmetrical stall,
yaw, roll, bang.
There are pictures of severe erosion of what looks like compressor wheel from, presumably,
ingestion of foreign material. Crap on the runway probably, and pencil-whipped maintenance, I
should imagine.
journey80@26 - Kiev is Ukrainian Airlines main hub. The 737 arrived from Kiev earlier that
morning and was returning there.
Jen@36 - No reason to do anything but a cursory safety check at Tehran. The airline's
mechanics are in Kiev - anything beyond a normal pre-flight check involving maintenance would
be done there, not Tehran. I doubt the crew was rested. That's not how UAI rolls on it's hub
round-trips.
UAI is also bleeding money like crazy. They're nearly bankrupt and stole the money they
collect from passengers for the Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority fees. Tens of millions USD.
The new CEO promises to fix everything somehow. I guess by overworking crews, skipping
maintenance and crappy service. Those are always money-savers for cheap, poorly-run airlines
(prior to bankruptcy). Too bad. Supposedly it wasn't that bad of an airline when they first
added passenger service to their existing cargo ops a decade ago, but has been going downhill
ever since.
"Some real gems you got following your blog b." So why are you here?
Ocams razor... bookies odds... planes fall out o the sky from time to time for all sorts of
reasons not related to malicious activity. What are the odds of this occurring in Iran
shortly after an Iran strike on a US base.
The US has and does use terrorist tactics such as shooting down passenger jets. Trump
threatened Iran with retribution against cultural sites and so forth (terrorist actions).
Fifty two targets of fifty two ways of getting back at Iran.
What are the odds US would down a passenger jet in Iran within hours of Iran's strike against
their base.
I have to go with US terrorist actions for that one. Similar to the protests in Iraq. The
people had genuine grievances as do all good color revolutions but the were just too
advantageous for the US for it not to be a made in the US color revolution style protest. We
now know from the Iraq PM that is exactly what it was.
The odds are unrelated unless there's agency. No agency has been credibly proposed. You know
this is so, as the probability maths in se have been discussed previously @ MoA.
But of course, the US does murder all over the place, so if there is agency, then I tend
to agree with the idea that "they" or their cohort in zionishland may be causative. What are
the "odds" that the engine shown has severe blade erosion? Again 100% . Engine swallows scrap
off the tarmac...a dependent relation, drop junk in engine, blades damaged, run at 100%, 100%
"chance" of engine failure.
Repeating the essence of the matter of odds>
"Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if
the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other
(equivalently, does not affect the odds). Similarly, two random variables are independent if
the realization of one does not affect the probability distribution of the other."
ie without a dependent relationship the odds are whatever the odds are for engine failure
and crash. And the other odds don't exist, because those events, the shooting, was not random
or accidental. The odds of Iran firing rockets in reprisal was dependent on the US attacks,
ie 100%
But if you're building engines at GE, or obsolete defective airplanes in Seattle, then of
course the odds are that you devoutly wish it was a rocket up the tailpipe... Pay-day's come
Friday, and all of that...
I know NYT is a sham, and believe me I held my intellectual nose as I went into its site.
It's not somewhere I frequent at all.
I did think about the point you made too, but there are 2 issues:
1) In the other 2 videos we see the plane as it's already burning, we don't see it in its
"before" state. For me it's reasonable to imagine the hit on the impact caused some initial
burning which was extinguished due to wind, and then started back up again a few moments
after the NYT video ended and before the other 2 videos began.
2) If the NYT video is indeed doctored (and for me it would be a pretty convincing
doctor), why wouldn't the creator simply keep the light going until the end of the vid?
Iran will announce the cause of the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash after the accident
investigation commission meeting on Saturday, the Fars News agency reported on Thursday,
citing a source familiar with the matter.
"Tomorrow, after the meeting of the civil aviation accident investigation
commission, the cause of the crash of the Ukrainian passenger plane will be announced", the
source said.
Domestic and foreign parties, whose citizens died in the crash, will take part in the
Saturday meeting, the outlet added. They will announce the reason for the accident after
reviewing the preliminary report.
[.]Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko asked that the media not spread "unconfirmed"
information on Friday, pleading with reporters to "reduce the level of speculation" while
the probe continues. The experts are still analyzing evidence, looking at the bodies of the
victims and the wreckage in hope of gaining insight into what took down Ukraine
International Airlines Flight PS752, killing all 176 people on board.[,]
If no one had engaged with nine-drongos the thread would not have been disrupted and perhaps
a useful dialog about the plane crash could have ensued. Those who did swallow the hook are
just as guilty the original whatabouter of making this thread useless - good job. I would say
exercise some discipline but that would be a waste of breath given the insecurities about
their beliefs too many here apparently have. Letting some arsehole spout uninterrupted is a
better indication of your point of view than anger, hysteria or ad hominem. Your stupidity
has caused a thread to fail.
The Ukies know how to obliterate a debris field. MH-17 -- They used artillery for months to
keep OSCE and Dutch officials away, and despite the locals working to protect the deceased
and the debris, body parts have been found years later.
#57 posted by Poor Ramin Mazaheri who works for Press TV and has had many articles published
on The Saker. He would describe the Iranian economy as socialist with Iranian charters. The
link to the article below is an excellent source for information on Iran's economy.
What comes as a surprise to me is ICAO seems to have some integrity. It seems the US and
friends haven't completely taken it over.
You can judge someone by their friends. NATO and the terrorists in Idlib have backed the
killing of Soleimani. Who seems to enjoy killing civilians? The US just droned killed 60
civilians in Afghanistan. Information provided by the Iraqi prime minister showed the US is
willing to use snipers and paid protesters to tear Iraq apart. They utterly destroyed Mosul
and Raqqa without regard for civilians. The Syrian government has tried to avoid civilian
deaths, which is why those who want to cause chaos in the region always accuses them of
targeting civilians. So the US would have no problem getting MEK to or some other group to
shoot the plane down but I'm leaning against that scenario.
The US has been planning to control oil for a long time. In 1975 a feasibility study was
prepared for the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on International
Relations on "Oil fields as military objectives", better described as bringing Democracy to
the Middle East. Well, they did that sorta in Iraq, and now the Iraq government has politely
asked the US to leave and the Iranians have demonstrated to them why they should leave. I'm
not sure if the Ukrainian plane crashing is the next move the US has made in this great game,
but I would put my money on shoddy management of the Ukrainian plane. Why not, the country is
barely functioning. I doubt the plane was hit with a missle. More likely the US can't pass up
an opportunity for stirring trouble and the MSM has no problem memory holing another lie.
"Reuters is a British agency.."
Or is it Canadian? Or is it both? It probably doesn't matter.
as b says it is economic warfare-maximum pressure- designed to impoverish and isolate
Iranians.
Lord Salisbury was credited with having said that the problem with those British
strategists who saw Russia as a menace to India was that they were using maps of such small
scale that the enormous distances and formidable physical barriers that lay between Moscow of
Delhi were neglected.
In this case the problem the US has is that it seems to look at Iran only from the west,
forgetting that overland access from the east and north- the New Silk Road- is equally
possible. Sometimes it looks as if the strategy of the US is to do all it can to advance
China's BRI and to tighten the bonds between Eurasia's vast populations.
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the
deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear
program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions
grew. Then the US killed
Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an
attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump
took office
It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path.
For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America
goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires
intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start
a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must
make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.
This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America
fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute
tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless
policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was
when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is
advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament
has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with
Iran.
Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it.
Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies.
America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with
partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential
threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on
protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking
sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions
– we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777
Paul
Craig Roberts: The Justice Department Is Devoid Of Justice
by
Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/09/2020 - 23:05
0
SHARES
In the United States the criminal justice (sic) system is itself not subject to law.
We
see immunity to law continually as police commit felonies against citizens and even murder children
and walk away free. We see it all the time when prosecutors conduct political prosecutions and
when they prosecute the innocent in order to build their conviction record. We see it when judges
fail to prevent prosecutors from withholding exculpatory evidence and bribing witnesses and when
judges accept coerced plea deals that deprive the defendant of a jury trial.
We just saw it again when federal prosecutors recommended a six month prison sentence
for Lt. Gen. Flynn,
the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency accused of lying to
the FBI about nothing of any importance, for being uncooperative in the Justice (sic) Department's
effort to frame President Trump with false "Russiagate" charges. The Justice (sic) Department
prosecutor said:
"The sentence should adequately deter the defendant from violating the law, and to promote
respect for the law. It is clear that the defendant has not learned his lesson. He has behaved
as though the law does not apply to him, and as if there are no consequences for his actions."
That is precisely what the Justice (sic) Department itself did for years in their
orchestration of the fake Russiagate charges against Trump.
The prosecutor's hypocrisy is overwhelming.
The Justice (sic) Department is a criminal organization. It has no sense of
justice. Convicting the innocent builds the conviction rate of the prosecutor as effectively as
convicting the guilty.
The Horowitz report of the Justice (sic) Department's lies to
the FISA court did not recommend a six-month prision sentence for those Justice (sic) Deplartment
officials who lied to the government.
Horowitz covered up the crimes by converting
them into "mistakes." Yes, they are embarrassing "mistakes," but mistakes don't bring prison
sentences.
Gen. Flynn, who was President Trump's National Security Advisor for a couple of weeks
before Mueller and Flynn's attorneys manuevered him into a plea bargain, allegedly lied to the FBI
about whether he met with a Russian.
Flynn and his attorneys should never have accepted
the proposition that a National Security Advisor shouldn't meet with Russians. Henry Kissinger and
Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Russians all the the time. It was part of their job. Trump
originally intended to normalize the strained relations with Russia. Flynn should have been
meeting with Russians. It was his job.
Ninety-seven percent of felony cases are resolved with plea bargains. In other words,
there is no trial.
The defendant admits to guilt for a lighter sentence, and if he throws
in "cooperation," which generally means giving false evidence against someone else in the
prosecutor's net, no sentence at all. Flynn was expected to help frame Trump and Flynn's former
business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, on an unrelated matter. He didn't, which means he is
"uncooperative" and deserving of a prison sentence.
Plea bargains have replaced trials for three main reasons.
One is that the defense attorney doesn't want the hard work of defending his client.
One is that the majority of defendants cannot afford to pay the cost of defense.
One is that refusing to plea guilty and demanding a trial angers both the prosecutor and
judge.
Trials take time and provide a test of often unreliable police and prosecutorial evidence. They
mean work for the prosecutor. Even if he secures a conviction, during the same time he could have
obtained many more plea bargain convictions. For the judge, trials back up his case
docket. Consequently, a trial means for the defendant very high risks of a much longer and more
severe sentence than he would get in exchange for saving prosecutor and judge time and energy. All
of this is explained to the defendant by his attorney.
It was explained to Gen. Flynn. He agreed to a plea, most likely advised that his
"offense" was so minor, no sentence would be forthcoming. Flynn later tried to revoke his plea,
saying it was coerced, but the Clinton-appointed judge refused to let him out of the trap.
Now that we know the only Russiagate scandal was its orchestration by the CIA, Justice (sic)
Department, and Democrats, failing to cooperate with the special counsel investigation of alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election is nonsensical as we know for a definite fact that there
was no such interference.
This is how corrupt American law has become. A man is being put in prison for 6
months for not cooperating with an investigation of an event that did not happen!
If Trump doesn't pardon Flynn (and Manafort and Stone), and fire the corrupt prosecutors
who falsely prosecuted Flynn, Trump deserves no one's support.
A president who will not defend his own people from unwarranted prosecution is not worthy of
support.
In Flynn's case, we cannot dismiss the suspicion that revenge against Flynn was the
driving factor.
Gen. Flynn is the official who revealed on television that Obama made the
willful decision to send ISIS or whatever we want to call them into Syria. Of course, the Obama
regime pretended that the jihadists were moderates seeking to overthrow the alleged dictator Assad
and bring democracy to Syria. Washington then pretended that it was fighting the mercenaries it
had sent into Syria.
Even though the presstitutes did their best to ignore Flynn's
information, Flynn gave extreme offense by letting this information out. That bit of truth-telling
was Flynn's real offense.
Tags
Law Crime
Notice on Racial Discrimination
.
Copyright 2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD
Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else?
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered
right to your inbox.
Please enter a valid email
Then there is the fact that Comey admitted he took advantage of
the the situation by catching Flynn off guard without an
attorney. This is a warning to everyone: never answer questions
by FBI without consulting your attorney first and having him/her
present.
For MI6 this level of detachment from reality is stunning
Notable quotes:
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
That shed some light on the common origin of MH17, Russiagate and Scripal propaganda campaigns connecting all three with British
government's psy-op operation called The ' Integrity Initiative ' which builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists,
military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when
the British center perceives a need.
And among others participants, William Browder is listed too:
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core
cluster also includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council shill Ben Nimmo and
the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person of interest is Andrew Wood who handed the Steele
'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called
journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus of the
BBC.
Here is one interesting comment from MoA:
Anya, Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM
The British government has been running a serious meddling into the US affairs:
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from
publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed
on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed
Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6
double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to
sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran.
Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam
Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy
in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the
conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an
act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We
should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump
administration. Iran has already
promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and
announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation
from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of
all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial
thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.
#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force
– a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style
operations throughout the Middle East, and which is
described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump
celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an
end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning
"imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."
But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and
fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and
propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades.
Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence
and
international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was
developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.
Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and
the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after
Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared
there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military
officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times
reports :
"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most
powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they
viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they
presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents
to make other possibilities appear more palatable."
"Top pentagon officials," the Times
reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that
"the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in
the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's
deliberations. According to that
source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against
American targets outside U.S. borders.
U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information
to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this
president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw
attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly
desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian
who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in
pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.
Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the
President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify
war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding
Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and
Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions ,
based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of
terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they
knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the
murder of more than
1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi
state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of
beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to
seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable
intelligence.
#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring
U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy
represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood
as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed
into this misrepresentation when he
described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of
U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S.
soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019
statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its
responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to
2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.
As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse.
U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation,
which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of
aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's
prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization
(which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense
against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion).
Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the
deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that
domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties
to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of
self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was
conducting an illegal occupation.
#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East
The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that
escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every
major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while
fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support
for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical
Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11,
2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further
deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a
civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.
With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of
the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled
numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass
instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across
both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar
Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS
affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently
admitted
the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's
overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.
All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the
countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and
destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest
in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals,
who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.
The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers:
U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become
increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by
the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all,
when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one
of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of
extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This
point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how
propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on
Terrorism."
Where Do We Go From Here?
Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement
that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran
strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk
this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a
war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early
days of his presidency.
War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader,
while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification
of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.
The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to
consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only
make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing
the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of
experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror
threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest
provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on
Iran as a violation of national and international law.
To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:
The Russian General Staff has reinforced the air defences for Russians at the Iranian
nuclear reactor complex at Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf, according to sources in Moscow. At the
same time, Iran has allowed filming of the movement of several of its mobile S-300 air-defence
missile batteries to the south, covering the Iranian coastline of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf
of Oman. More secretly, elements of Russian military intelligence, electronic warfare, and
command and control advisers for Iran's air defence systems have been mobilized to support Iran
against US and allied attacks.
The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200
kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US
warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air and
naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold.
Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and target
location.
This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's
air-defence sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will launch
its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other oil
production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in the
Gulf.
"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have air
defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the
Global Hawk series can
fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air defence are both
foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in particular, the old
Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300. Recently, Iran transported some S-300's to the
south, but that happened after the drone was shot down [June 20]. Russian specialists are
working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's are also for protection of Bushehr."
Flight distance between Bushehr and Bandar Abbas is about 570 kms. From Bandar Abbas
southeast to Kuhmobarak, the site of the Iranian missile firing against the US drone, is
another 200 kms.
Last Thursday, June 20, just after midnight, a US Global Hawk drone was tracked by Iran from
its launch at an airbase in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), south of Dubai. The take-off and
initial flight route appear to have been more than 300 kms from Iranian tracking radars. Four
hours later, the aircraft was destroyed by an Iranian missile at a point at sea off Kuhmobarak.
Follow the route tracking data published by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif
here .
KEY: blue line=drone flight path; yellow line=Iranian Flight Information Region (FIR);
red line=Iranian territorial waters; green line=Iranian internal waters; yellow dots=Iran radio
warnings sent; red square=point of impact. Source: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:
https://twitter.com/ The US claims
the point of impact was outside the red line.
Additional tracking data on the US drone operation have been published in a simulation by
the Iranian state news agency, Fars. The news agency claims the successful strike was by the
Iran-made Khordad missile, an S-300 copy; the altitude has not been reported
(design ceiling for the aircraft is 18,000 metres). The Russian military source says there is
now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of
course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We
have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against
international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media
published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report
claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use
of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.
Iranian military sources have told western
reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case
of all-out war in the Middle East."
Maps published to date in open Russian military sources show the four main anti-air missile
defence groups (PVO) on Iranian territory, and the strike range of their missiles. The 3
rd and 4 th PVOs are now being reinforced to oppose US reinforcements at
sea and on Saudi and Emirati territory.
Key: yellow=units of the main air-defence (PVO) groups; split blue circles=military
bases; blue diamond=nuclear industry sites; red rings=kill range for missiles; solid
red=command-and-control operations centres. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, "Before the storm",
National
Defence, April 2019
The weaknesses and vulnerabilities of Iranian defences against US air attack are, naturally,
state secrets. The open-source discussion by Russian air-defence expert Anatoly Gavrilov can be
followed here
. According to Gavrilov writing in March, the expected plan of US attack will be the use of
precision missiles and bombs at "primary targets plants for the production and processing of
nuclear fuel, uranium mines, production for its enrichment, refineries, other industrial
centers. But initially [the objective] will be to suppress (completely destroy) the air defense
system. The mass use of cruise missiles for various purposes and guided aircraft bombs will
disable the control system of Iran's troops and suppress the system of reconnaissance and
anti-aircraft missile fire. In this case, the task of the attacking side will be the
destruction in the first two or three days of 70% to 80% of the radar, and after that, up to
90% manned aircraft will begin to bomb only after the complete suppression of the air defense
system. The West protects its professional pilots, and it does not matter that the civilian
population of Iran will also suffer."
The main Iranian vulnerability facing American attack, reports Gavrilov, is less the range,
volume and density of firepower with which the Iranians can respond than the relatively slow
time they have shown to date for processing incoming attack data, fixing targets, and directing
counter-fire. "In today's conditions of organization and conduct of rapid air combat, a high
degree of automation of the processes of collection, processing, transmission and exchange of
radar information, development of solutions for repelling strikes, and conducting anti-aircraft
missile fire is extremely necessary."
RANGE AND ALTITUDE OF MAIN IRANIAN AIR DEFENCE WEAPONS
CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Horizontal axis, range in kilometres for each identified weapon; vertical axis, altitude of
interception. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, National
Defence , April 2019
Gavrilov does not estimate how far the Iranians have been able to solve by themselves, and
with Russian help, the problems of automation and coordination of fire. To offset whatever
weakness may remain, he recommends specific technical contributions the Russians can make.
These include the technology of electronic countermeasures (ECM) to jam or deflect US targeting
signals and ordnance guidance systems.
While Gavrilov believes the Iranian military have already achieved high enough density of
fire against incoming weapons, he isn't sure the range and altitude of Iranian radars will be
good enough to match the attack risks. To neutralize those, he recommends "Russian-made
electronic warfare systems. The complex of EW systems is able to significantly reduce the
ability of attack aircraft to search for, detect and defeat ground targets; disrupt the onboard
equipment of cruise missiles in the GPS satellite navigation system; distort the readings of
radio altimeters of attack aircraft, cruise missiles and UAV's [unmanned aerial vehicle, drone]
"
In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the
Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defences may prove to be under
prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to
counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack
commences; that's to say, at launch, not inflight nor at impact.
Left: Kremlin photograph of the Security Council meeting at the Kremlin on the afternoon
of June 21. Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/ Right: Major
General Mohammad Baqeri, Iran's armed forces chief of staff.
The day following the US attack and Iranian success, President Vladimir Putin chaired a
meeting of his regular Security Council members in Moscow. The military were represented by the
Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu. The US attack on Iran was the main issue on the table. "The
participants," reported the Kremlin communiqué, "discussed, in particular, the
developments in the Persian Gulf. They expressed serious concern over the rising tension and
urged the countries involved to show restraint, because unwise actions could have unpredictable
consequences in terms of regional and global stability."
Unpredictable consequences in Russian is being translated in Farsi to mean the cessation of
the oil trade in the Persian Gulf. "As oil and commodities of other countries are passing
through the Strait of Hormuz, ours are also moving through it," Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
the Iranian chief of staff,
said on April 28. "If our crude is not to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, others'
[crude] will not pass either."
With Iraq's airspace being frequently violated by American and even Israeli bombing raids
against the country's paramilitary units backed by Iran of late, Iraq has for the last several
months considered purchasing Russian air defense and missile systems, including both the S-300
and more advanced S-400, however, it has been met with fierce pressure from the US.
And now Russian media is reporting authorities in Baghdad have formally resumed talks to
possibly acquire the S-300 systems. Head of the Iraqi Parliament's Security and Defense
Committee, Mohammad Reza, has indicated negotiations were renewed following the latest attacks
initiated nearly two weeks ago on Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces .
"The issue was supposed to be solved several months ago after attacks on Shiite militia
al-Ḥashd ash-Sha'bi [Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF] bases in Baghdad and other
provinces created the need for such air defenses", the lawmaker was
quoted in Russia's Sputnik as saying.
It was first revealed in September that Baghdad was mulling the purchase of the S-300. This
after a summer in which Israel brazenly launched multiple drone and aerial attacks on PMF bases
which at first had 'mysterious' origins , but
was later confirmed to have the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) behind them.
According to Iraqi official sources, those initial purchase talks were quashed when
Washington vehemently objected , also at a moment parliament officials and the public were
increasingly angered over unilateral US bombing raids against PMF sites conducted without the
knowledge or approval of Iraq's government and military.
At the point when talks were initiated with Russia in September, international reports
counted nine strikes in total on Iraq's paramilitary forces -- in some cases while they were
allegedly operating just across the country's western border with Syria.
This had also fueled speculation that the Trump administration had greenlighted stepped up
Israeli attacks on Iranian proxies in the region as an alternative to direct war with Iran.
However, this simultaneously bolstered the ongoing political movement in Iraqi parliament to
have US troops expelled once in for all, especially over charges they had invited in and
cooperated with a foreign power to attack sovereign Iraqi soil.
I agree that, today, protecting the Dollar Standard is the main national security
objective of the USA. That is so because issuing the universal fiat currency is a
conditio sine qua non of keeping the financial superpower status.
I also agree that the Petrodollar is the base that sustains the Dollar Standard.
But I disagree with the rest:
1) the Cold War didn't begin in 1945, but in 1917 - right after the October Revolution.
There's overwhelming documental evidence of that and, in fact, the years of 1943-1945 was the
only break it had. Until Stalingrad, the Western allies were still waiting to see if the USSR
and the Third Reich could still mutually anihilate themselves (yes, it is a myth the Allies
were really allies from 1939, but that's not a very simple demonstration);
2) in the aftermath of WWII, the USA emerged as both the industrial and financial
superpower in the capitalist world (i.e. the West). But this was an accidental - and very
unlikely - alignment of events. The USA always had imperial ambitions from its foundation
(the Manifest Destiny), but there's no evidence it was scheming to dominate the world before
1945. The American ascension was more a fruit of the European imperial superpowers destroying
themselves than by any American (or Jewish, as the far-right likes to speculate) design;
3) the USSR had nothing to do with Bretton Woods. BW was a strictly capitalist affair. And
it could not be any difference: the USSR was a socialist country, therefore, it didn't have
money-capital (money in the capitalist system has three functions: reserve of value, means of
exchange and means of payment). The only way it had to trade with the capitalist half of the
world was to exchange essential commodities (oil) for hard currency, with which it bought
what it needed for its own development (mainly, high technological machines which it could
copy and later develop on). So, the USSR didn't "balk" at BW - it was literally impossible
for it to pertain to the agreement.
Michael Hudson is not the only one who's come to understand that maintaining the
reserve-currency status of the US dollar (the "dollar hegemony") is the primary goal of US
foreign policy. Indeed, it's been the primary goal of US foreign policy since the end of
World War II, when the Bretton Woods agreement was put into effect. Notably, the Soviets
ended up balking at that agreement, and the Cold War did not start until afterwards. This
means that even the Cold War was not really about ideology - it was about money.
It's also important to note that the point of the "petrodollar" is to ensure that
petroleum - one of the most globally traded commodities and a commodity that's fundamental to
the global economy - is traded primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of the US dollar.
Ensuring that as much global/international trade happens in US dollars helps ensure that the
US dollar keeps its reserve-currency status, because it raises the foreign demand for US
dollars.
I agree that, today, protecting the Dollar Standard is the main national security
objective of the USA. That is so because issuing the universal fiat currency is a
conditio sine qua non of keeping the financial superpower status.
I also agree that the Petrodollar is the base that sustains the Dollar Standard.
But I disagree with the rest:
1) the Cold War didn't begin in 1945, but in 1917 - right after the October Revolution.
There's overwhelming documental evidence of that and, in fact, the years of 1943-1945 was the
only break it had. Until Stalingrad, the Western allies were still waiting to see if the USSR
and the Third Reich could still mutually anihilate themselves (yes, it is a myth the Allies
were really allies from 1939, but that's not a very simple demonstration);
2) in the aftermath of WWII, the USA emerged as both the industrial and financial
superpower in the capitalist world (i.e. the West). But this was an accidental - and very
unlikely - alignment of events. The USA always had imperial ambitions from its foundation
(the Manifest Destiny), but there's no evidence it was scheming to dominate the world before
1945. The American ascension was more a fruit of the European imperial superpowers destroying
themselves than by any American (or Jewish, as the far-right likes to speculate) design;
3) the USSR had nothing to do with Bretton Woods. BW was a strictly capitalist affair. And
it could not be any difference: the USSR was a socialist country, therefore, it didn't have
money-capital (money in the capitalist system has three functions: reserve of value, means of
exchange and means of payment). The only way it had to trade with the capitalist half of the
world was to exchange essential commodities (oil) for hard currency, with which it bought
what it needed for its own development (mainly, high technological machines which it could
copy and later develop on). So, the USSR didn't "balk" at BW - it was literally impossible
for it to pertain to the agreement.
Correction: the three functions of money in capitalism are reserve/store of value, means
of exchange and unit of account . I basically wrote "means of exchange" twice in the
original comment.
Hello! Michael Hudson first set forth the methodology of the Outlaw US Empire's financial
control of the world via his book Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American
Empire in 1972. In 2003, he issued an updated edition which you can download for free
here .
If you're interested, here's an interview he gave while in China that's autobiographical
. And here's his most recent Resume/CV/Bibliography , although it doesn't
go into as much detail about his recent work as he does in and forgive them their debts:
Lending, Foreclosure, and Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , which
for me is fascinating.
His most recent TV appearances are here and here .
Bingo! You're the first person here to make that connection aside from myself. You'll note
from Hudson's
assessment of Soleimani's killing he sees the Outlaw US Empire as using the Climate
Crisis as a weapon:
"America's attempt to maintain this buttress explains U.S. opposition to any foreign
government steps to reverse global warming and the extreme weather caused by the world's
U.S.-sponsored dependence on oil. Any such moves by Europe and other countries would reduce
dependence on U.S. oil sales, and hence on the U.S's ability to control the global oil spigot
as a means of control and coercion. These are viewed as hostile acts.
"Oil also explains U.S. opposition to Russian oil exports via Nordstream. U.S. strategists
want to treat energy as a U.S. national monopoly. Other countries can benefit in the way that
Saudi Arabia has done – by sending their surpluses to the U.S. economy – but not
to support their own economic growth and diplomacy. Control of oil thus implies support for
continued global warming as an inherent part of U.S. strategy....
"This strategy will continue, until foreign countries reject it. If Europe and other
regions fail to do so, they will suffer the consequences of this U.S. strategy in the form of
a rising U.S.-sponsored war via terrorism, the flow of refugees, and accelerated global
warming (and extreme weather)."
@Cynica #38
Financially, the US dollar as reserve currency is enormously beneficial to the US
government's ability to spend.
And oil has historically been both a tactical and a strategic necessity; when the US was
importing half its oil, this is a lot of money. 8 million bpd @ $50/barrel = $146B. Add in
secondary value add like transport, refining, downstream industries, etc and it likely
triples the impact or more - but this is only tactical.
Worldwide, the impact is 10X = $1.5 trillion annually. Sure, this is a bit under 10% of the
$17.7T in world trade in 2017, but it serves as an "anchor tenant" to the idea of world
reserve currency. A second anchor is the overall role of US trade, which was $3.6T in 2016
(imports only).
If we treat central bank reserves as a proxy for currency used in trade, this means 60%+ of
the $17.7T in trade is USD. $3.6T is direct, but the $7 trillion in trade that doesn't impact
the US is the freebie. To put this in perspective, the entire monetary float of the USD
domestically is about $3.6T.
USD as world reserve currency literally doubles (at least) the float - from which the US
government can issue debt (money) to fund its activities. In reality, it is likely a lot more
since foreigners using USD to fund trade means at least some USD in Central Banks, plus the
actual USD in the transaction, plus corporate/individual USD reserves/float.
Again, nothing above is formally linked - I just wanted to convey an idea of just how
advantageous the petrodollar/USD as world trade reserve currency really is.
"... The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace. ..."
"... Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected] ..."
The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito
Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the
effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival
nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', '
Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly,
who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace.
Of course, the major difference with movie's Freedonia and our own is like night and day. In
the film the leader, Firefly, had full control of every decision needed to be made. In our
Freemerika , Mr. Trump, regardless of the image he portrays as an absolute ruler, has to
dance to the tune of the Military Industrial Empire, just like ALL our previous
presidents. Folks, sorry to say, but presidents are not so much harnessed by our Constitution
or Congress ( or even the Supreme Court) but by the wizards who the empire picks to
advise him. They decide the ' when and if' of such dramatic actions like the other day's
drone missile murder in Iraq of the Iranian general. Unlike when Groucho decides he was
insulted by Trentino, the Sylvanian ambassador, and declares ' This means war!', Mr. Trump gave
the order for the assassination but ONLY after those behind the curtain advised
him.
To believe that our presidents have carte blanche to do the heinous deeds is foolish at best
. LBJ's use of the Gulf of Tonkin phony incident to gung ho in Vietnam was not just one man
making that call.
Or Nixon's Christmas carpet bombing of Hanoi, Bush Sr.'s attack on Iraq in 1991 , his son's
ditto against Iraq in 2003, Obama's use of NATO to destroy Libya in 2011, or this latest
arrogance by Trump, were all machinations by this empire's wizards who advised them.
When the late Senator Robert Byrd stood before a near empty Senate chamber in 2003 to warn of
this craziness, that told it all! We are not led by Rufus T. Firefly, rather a
Cabal that most in this government do not even realize who in the hell these people
are!
Of course, the embedded mainstream media does the usual job of demonizing who the
empire chooses to be our enemies. As with this recent illegal act by our government of
crossing into another nation's sovereignty to do the deed, now they all tell us how deadly this
Iranian general was. Yet, how many of the news outlets ever mentioned this guy for what they
now tell us he was, for all these years? Well, here is the kicker. I do not know what this man
was responsible for , regarding acts of insurgency against US forces in Iraq. Maybe he did aid
in the attacks on US personnel. Maybe he also was there to neutralize the fanatical ISIS
terrorists who were killing US and Iraqi personnel in Iraq and Syria. What I do know is that,
in the first place, we had no business ever invading and occupying Iraq period! Thus,
the rest of this Duck Soup becomes postscript.
Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also
frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian
sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn
College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on
the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also
host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be
reached at [email protected]
@Authenticjazzman
The US could afford lots of things if we cut the military budget by 99%, as we should have
done after WWII.
The military works for the plutocrats, stealing money from the taxpayers. The ruling class
turned Vietnam from an agricultural nation into a low paid factory nation which took
thousands of textile jobs from Americans – i.e winning the Vietnam war. The problem
lies in the taxpayers not understanding what winning means. Manufacturing havens with super
low wages and homeless veterans begging at every intersection. West Point teaches people they
have the right to drop bombs on civilians and torture them in Guantanamo. Of course these
folks think of themselves as the smartest people who ever lived.
Qasem Soleimani was assassinated on January 2nd, 2020 in Baghdad by a drone strike ordered
by Israel-first Trump. The Iranian Commander of the 'Quds Force' was murdered alongside the
leader of the Iraqi 'Popular Mobilization Forces', Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, aka Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis, in addition to at least 6 other persons.
It was a coward act by a coward President who's no better than a gangbanger on a drive-by
shooting targeting unarmed individuals, who in this case were on a
diplomatic mission .
Who was General Soleimani?
"It was through his leadership that the IRGC greatly assisted the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in
its destruction of Daesh (ISIS). He's played a larger role than any individual in defeating
terrorism in Syria and Iraq, and he was widely respected as among one of the most brilliant
unconventional warfare tacticians in recent memory. It was because of his success, however,
that he became a most hated foe He was therefore marked for death,"
wrote Andrew Korybko. By Andrew Korybko Global Research,
January 03, 2020 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme:
US NATO War
Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?
The US carried out a de-facto act of war against Iran after assassinating Major General
Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force in Baghdad last night, but
despite the doomsday scenarios that many in Alt-Media are speculating that this will lead to,
the commencement of World War III is extremely unlikely for several reasons.
***
The "Decapitation Strike" That Shook The World
Trump's approval of
the US' assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force in Baghdad last night amounts to a de-facto act of war against Iran,
but it wasn't the decision of a "madman" or someone whose permanent military, intelligence, and
diplomatic bureaucracies ("deep state") didn't think this completely through. Rather, it was a
premeditated "decapitation strike" carried out to prove the US' conventional "escalation
dominance" in its regional proxy war with Iran, one which America surely knows will elicit a
kinetic response of some sort from the Islamic Republic but which the Pentagon and its regional
allies are prepared for. Contrary to the narrative bandied about in Alt-Media , the US didn't "surrender"
the Mideast to Russia and Iran in recent years (who, to be clear, are not "allies", but
anti-terrorist "partners of convenience" in Syria) despite some regional setbacks to its grand
strategy, but merely adjusted the nature through which it intends to restore its influence
there.
Background Context
Instead of continuing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars a day funding the
counterproductive 100,000-strong occupation of Iraq and potentially exposing that many troops
("sitting ducks") to retaliatory attacks, it decided to scale down its conventional presence
there and replace it with highly trained Marines and special forces that operate with the
support of targeted missile strikes. It was one such strike earlier in the week against the
Popular Mobilization Units' (PMU) Kataib Hezbollah, which is integrated into the Iraqi Armed
Forces, that provoked the group's supporters (allegedly with the coordination of the IRGC
according to the US) into besieging the American Embassy in Baghdad. Trump responded by
immediately dispatching troops to the world's largest diplomatic facility and bragging on
Twitter that this was his " anti-Benghazi "
moment in a clear swipe at Obama's notorious failure to protect American diplomats back in 2012
when they were in similar circumstances.
Once the unrest died down following the organizers' decision to withdraw after they
declared
that their "message has been heard", US Secretary of Defense
ominously warned that his country could take "preemptive action" if it detects any signals
that Iran is supposedly planning more anti-American attacks in Iraq. The Islamic Republic
denied that it played any role in the recent events unfolding in the neighboring country, but
the US obviously didn't believe it. It therefore set out to
assassinate Maj. Gen. Soleimani in order to send the message that it's serious about
"deterring" any forthcoming allegedly Iranian-connected anti-American attacks seeing as how it
blamed him for being involved in the latest ones. It also wanted to put additional pressure on
Iran to withdraw from Iraq, but probably expected that it could exploit Tehran's response to
this de-facto act of war as a pretext for further intensifying its pressure campaign through
more "decapitation strikes". This attack therefore dangerously escalated tensions with Iran and
made many observers fear the onset of World War III.
Some Words About Maj. Gen. Soleimani
What follows isn't an excuse for America's actions, but simply a cold, hard analysis
explaining why Trump decided to assassinate Solemani and thus carry out a de-facto act of war
against Iran, one which will not lead to World War III despite the fearmongering speculation
that's taken social media by storm ever since. Simply put, Iran misjudged the US' resolve to
regain its lost influence in the region and never thought that it would escalate the situation
to this level, hence why Maj. Gen. Solemani had no fear of being killed in the heart of Baghdad
despite the US' conventional air superiority and explicit warnings that it could take
"preemptive action" against Iran if it believes that it played any role whatsoever in any
forthcoming anti-American attacks. It doesn't matter whether or not the PMU's Kataib Hezbollah
is justified in seeking the removal of US forces from the country through any means possible or
if it coordinates those actions with the IRGC since all that's important is that the US was
looking for a pretext to carry out its calculated "decapitation strike" against Maj. Gen.
Soleimani.
A few words about him are appropriate at this point. It was through his leadership that the
IRGC greatly assisted the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in its destruction of Daesh. He's played a
larger role than any individual in defeating terrorism in Syria and Iraq, and he was widely
respected as among one of the most brilliant unconventional warfare tacticians in recent
memory. It was because of his success, however, that he became one of the US' most hated foes
since he contributed to the defeat of Washington's regional proxy forces and thus was partly
responsible for the decline in American influence there lately. He was therefore marked for
death by the US, but Trump knew that killing him without any pretext would be an unnecessary
escalation so he wanted to save that "ace up his sleeve" for later. Iran knows that the US
wants it to withdraw from Syria and Iraq but steadfastly refuses because it has the legal right
to remain there at the request of those countries' internationally recognized governments, but
nevertheless, the US thinks that "might makes right" and is trying to force it out.
The Islamic Republic Won't Commit Suicide
American and "Israeli" strikes against allegedly IRGC-allied PMU forces over the past month
or so were intended to achieve that outcome, which naturally prompted those forces to
kinetically react by targeting a US base earlier in the week that afterwards served as the
pretext for America's latest attack against Kataib Hezbollah which in turn triggered the
embassy siege. There's no doubt that the US is escalating the situation in contravention of
international law and targeting anti-terrorist forces that contributed to the defeat of Daesh,
but polemics -- while having their "perception management" purposes -- are pointless when it
comes to analyzing situations as objectively as possible and forecasting what might come next.
Therefore, they're being excluded from this piece going forward. Having gotten that out of the
way, it's now time to turn the article's attention towards rebutting the fearmongering claims
that World War III is about to start after Maj. Gen. Soleimani's assassination.
Iran has the international legal right to defend itself, and its Supreme Leader already
vowed a " harsh
revenge " to that end, but it's extremely unlikely to take the form of direct attacks
against the US or its allies. As much as the next phrase is going to trigger many Alt-Media
folks, the US military is capable of destroying Iran in minutes so long as it's willing to bear
the regional costs of its actions, both short-term in the sense of casualties and long-term as
it relates to the geopolitical future of the Mideast. After proving his commitment to
overwhelmingly respond to any anti-American attacks that his government alleges (whether
truthfully or not) are carried out with any degree of Iranian coordination, Trump certainly
wouldn't hesitate to bomb Iran itself if missiles were launched from there against his or his
allies' forces. The Islamic Republic knows that it would literally be suicide to do such a
thing, and despite what neoconservatives, Zionists, and Wahhabis claim about the Iranian
authorities, they aren't an "apocalyptic death cult" and thus aren't going to start World War
III.
Several Scenarios
There's no doubt that Iran could inflict very serious damage to its regional foes if it
chooses to "go out with a bang" (whether after being provoked to do so or at its own
prerogative), but it's much more likely that its response to Maj. Gen. Soleimani's
assassination will take the form of intensified Unconventional Warfare against their interests.
The US and its allies must have clearly foreseen this and will likely blame Iran for anything
that happens in the coming days no matter whether it's truly involved or not, using that as a
pretext for more "decapitation strikes" and other similar measures intended to decimate it and
its allies' forces. The nature of conflict between the two sides is therefore asymmetric since
the US has conventional dominance whereas Iran has its unconventional counterpart, and both
might be put to the test in the event of another US Embassy siege in Baghdad, which is very
probable in the coming days seeing as how Iraqi society is seething with rage and can easily
assemble a critical mass of protesters to besiege the compound once again.
For as big of a prize as seizing the world's largest diplomatic facility would be for
whoever can take it (be it Iran, Iranian-allied, or otherwise), there's no way that Trump would
let that happen. Just like the Berlin Airlift of the Old Cold War, the US would carry out a
Baghdad Airlift if it need be, which could entail leveling entire neighborhoods in order to
prevent its enemies from hiding anti-air missiles there for taking down its air assets. One can
only speculate how such a scenario would unfold, but there shouldn't be any question in
anyone's mind about the US backing down, especially not during an election year and definitely
not after Trump proudly boasted that this is his "anti-Benghazi" moment. Another potential
retaliatory scenario is disrupting energy transit through the Strait of Hormuz, but that would
affect more than just the US and surely elicit universal condemnation from everyone except
perhaps allied Syria, just like if Hezbollah or other IRGC-allied forces decide to bomb "
Israel " (in which case it and the US would certainly respond through military means).
Don't Expect Russia Or China To Save Iran
It's "politically inconvenient" for many of Iran's supporters across the world to accept,
but the country doesn't have any state-based military allies willing to go to war alongside it
except perhaps Syria, but the SAA has been utterly devastated over the last 9 years and is now
a shadow of its former self. There is also absolutely no way that Russia would allow Syria to
actively participate in any state-based military hostilities alongside Iran because doing so
would endanger the forces and substantial investments that it has in the Arab Republic
nowadays. Speaking of which, Russia isn't Iran's ally, but
"Israel's" , though it wouldn't go to war alongside the self-professed "Jewish State" but
rather stay out of any potential conflict between the two (which wouldn't last long considering
that the US' conventional dominance could crush the Islamic Republic within days if Trump
authorized it to be unleashed to its fullest extent and he was willing to accept the previously
mentioned costs).
Neither Russia nor China would go to war in support of Iran, though they could be expected
to issue very strong statements of condemnation against the US and anyone else who might
conventionally attack it (whether "preemptively" or as "retaliation"). This objectively
existing and easily verifiable statement of fact will likely take many in Alt-Media by surprise
who have been indoctrinated over the past couple of years with fake news "analyses" alleging
that those two Eurasian Great Powers are "anti-American" and willing to fight the US in order
to "save the world". That will never happen unless one of them is attacked first (though even
in that case, neither would go to war for the other because they've made it clear that they're
not "military
allies" ), which probably won't happen because of the concept of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD), at least not unless the US is able to surmount that "obstacle" through the
combination of its anti-missile technology and "Space Forces". In any case, nobody should
expect Russia or China to rush to Iran's aid and defend it from the US.
Concluding Thoughts
The most likely outcome of Maj. Gen. Soleimani's assassination is an intensified period of
proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen which stays just below the conventional threshold
given Iran's inability to survive an overwhelming US' "retaliatory" strike if Trump authorized
one in response to the unlikely massive missile strike that some speculate Tehran might be
preparing. The US might also carry out "surgical strikes" against places in Iran where it might
claim other strikes were "organized", such as if Yemen's Ansarullah attempt to repeat their
successful drone strike against Saudi Aramco from last September. "Decapitation strikes" might
therefore become increasingly more frequent and nobody would be safe, not even Hezbollah's
Nasrallah in the worst-case scenario, since the US just signaled that it has the political will
to take out "high-value targets". As all of this unfolds, Russia and China will do their utmost
to stay away from any regional fray and definitely wouldn't intervene to defend Iran. As such,
Iran's expected responses will be purely asymmetrical and not conventional.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld .
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the
relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's One Belt One Road global vision
of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe
beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian
actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand
(even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in
central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more
less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other
than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the
US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not
a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of
The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think
that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because
he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars
has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but
its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous
arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were
the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to
come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be
rules.
After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness
blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or
not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their
influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The
Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.
Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss
of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.
And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic
sanctions and isolation.
This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle
carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat ,
tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.
I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited
those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how
they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic,
diplomatic and military conditions.
The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over.
There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he
himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations
with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable
offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani
by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the
mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was
in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial
flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in
Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit
the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside
the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases
where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this
will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to
decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories
of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would
be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President
Pence. Might have to get use to that.
Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of
Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.
There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.
Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13
1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late
1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions
annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion
control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control
Act.<<
2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a
bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?
Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed.
Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good
argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop
digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, instead of using the opportunity to widen the circle
of U.S. allies or at least non-enemies in the Middle East, the Bush administration declared war
on "all terrorism of global reach," not just on the Sunni terrorists responsible. That meant
not seeking some sort of détente with Shiite Iran -- despite its assistance in
overturning the Taliban in Afghanistan and forming a replacement government -- but putting
Tehran in an "Axis of Evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Some members of the Bush administration went further. John Bolton, then an undersecretary of
state nominally tasked with arms control (he mostly did the reverse), said that Iran should
"take a number," implying it would be the next to experience regime change after Iraq.
Neoconservatives worried about Iran and its expanding stockpile of low-enriched uranium, as
well as its long opposition to Israel, said that "real men go
to Tehran," not Baghdad.
The Bush administration also went back on a promise to trade leaders of the Mujaheddin-e
Khalq -- a militant Iranian group nurtured by Saddam that fought on Iraq's side during the
Iran-Iraq war -- for members of al-Qaeda detained in Iran. Instead the U.S. gave the group
protection and Bolton among others argued that the MEK could be deployed against Iran.
As a result, the U.S. helped turn the Quds Force -- the elite overseas branch of Iran's
Revolutionary Guards -- into a full-fledged enemy even as its removal of Saddam's Baathist
regime opened Iraq fully to Iran-backed militants, many of whom were trained in Iran during the
Iran-Iraq war. Starting with the Badr Brigade, Iran has since helped shape other Iraqi
militias, among them Kataib Hezbollah, whose targeting of Americans in Iraq touched off the
latest escalatory spiral.
Of course, the Trump administration's decision in 2018 to quit the Iran nuclear deal and a
year later to impose an oil embargo on Iran has been the major cause of the mayhem in the
region over the past nine months.
Now, by assassinating Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, the Trump administration has
likely foreclosed any possibility of U.S.-Iran diplomacy and sharply increased the likelihood
of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Iran announced on Sunday that it would no longer
observe the limits set in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and would resume its
nuclear program. That will incentivize Saudi Arabia to get nukes of its own.
It is said that George W. Bush, when he decided to invade Iraq, did not understand the
difference between Sunnis and Shias. Donald Trump seems to dislike all Muslims, except those
who buy American arms or host Trump properties.
In killing Soleimani, Trump has shown his ignorance of the power of martyrdom in Shia
theology. To Iranians and many Arab Shia -- including those who would like to get Iran out of
their countries' affairs -- Soleimani was a bulwark against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State,
defending the interests of a religious minority in the Middle East. Pictures of Soleimani being
embraced by the Imam Hussein -- the revered Shia figure martyred in the year 680 in Karbala,
Iraq, by the forces of the Sunni tyrant Yazid -- are circulating widely on social media. The
U.S., by implication, has become Yazid.
It is not 'Shia' vs. 'Sunni' when referencing the perspective of the U.S. : Middle East
relationship. It is the petro dollar. And every so often we have someone writing from a
'thinktank', i.e., The Atlantic Council, that never touches upon the scenario of the 'petro'
dollar and how it governs U.S. foreign policy in that region. Instead they frame their gripes
with partisan politics. Bush, Obama, and Trump have to kiss the Saudi ass in order to pay for
the enormous 'warfare' and 'welfare' state of Washington D.C. The Petro Dollar ensures that
the printing presses in Washington continue to print those dollars that will support a larger
budget for the Pentagon, and Medicare, and in the very near future if Trump loses the White
House: Medicare for All {including undocumented immigrants}, Reparations, free college for
all, etc. You can add the United State's incredible generosity with tax payer money that
pretty much pays for an 'ungrateful' Western Europe security.
And Trump did not do this to America. But he has to continue it in order to keep those
printing presses rolling at the Treasury: in other words keep the American Dollar the 'top
dog' currency of the world which allows for this $20 trillion + deficit and at the same time
'fantasy island' welfare state promises from the politicians. And politicians have no problem
with this policy - they can just exploit it for partisan politics and at the same time
promise an pseudo 'sustainable' increase in the welfare state to win elections.
That said, the Saudis are Sunnis. They want to increase their power. And in order to keep
them happy {so they will not change currency exchanges for their oil to the 'gold-backed'
yuan}, then the United States must fight messy and horrible wars in Yemen; start wars in
Syria [General Mattis was and is a big time supporter of this] - supporting terrorist groups
who love killing Christians with U.S. weapons, and ultimately regime change in Iran. Why do
you think George W. Bush, etal have to look the other way on 9/11 - shield the Saudis {oh,
and Obama is included on this list also}. All U.S. presidents face this problem. But
especially the Democrats since their big welfare state costs way more to sustain than the
Pentagon.
In conclusion - Obama, a Democrat, oversaw the CIA that supported and aided MBS onto the
throne in Saudi Arabia because, unlike his myriad of family members, he will continue to
exchange oil {along with the Gulf 'Sunni' dominated states' using the Dollar. It is all the
presidents of all political parties beginning with the Nixon administration.
Russia and China are ALREADY seen as more sane and rational powers than USA. That's why we
couldn't let Soleimani negotiate peace between Persia and Saudi. Killing him won't stop the
negotiations; more likely it will speed up Saudi's divorce from US/Israel craziness.
Putin and Xi are more honest and useful brokers than the United States.
That is not a major accomplishment. The United States has demonstrated time and again that
it acts not even in its own interests, but in the interests of its Saudi owners and Israeli
masters.
In theory, the US could be a powerful stabilizing force in the Middle East. We have the
resources and the military might to provide very effective carrots and sticks.
However, over the past decades we have proven that we are so ignorant of the local
cultures and politics, so blinded by our own preconceptions and ideologies, and so unwilling
to learn, that we keep punishing people with carrots and rewarding them with sticks. Time to
admit we can't get it right and go home.
Even worse, we have chosen two particular countries in the region, the Israelis and the
Saudis, as Our Special Friends and we use the carrots and sticks almost entirely in their
interests.
The biggest impediment to that is the frequent change of administrations and their policies.
But since we weren't designed to be doing that sort of thing in the first place it's only
natural that we aren't very good at it. We should get out of foreign entanglements but
Congress (and its lobbyists) fights it tooth and nail, across administrations. They've even
developed a nasty word for it... isolationism .
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the
statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing
nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had
occurred.
One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a
military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the
popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were
wounded.
"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US
military's Africa Command said.
But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest
supporters on the world stage.
He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani
isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be
dragged into it."
It was not the US decision to fire missiles against the IRGC commander Brigadier General
Qassem Soleimani that killed the Iranian officer and his companions in Baghdad. Yes, of course,
the order that was given to launch missiles from the two drones (which destroyed the two cars
carrying Sardar Soleimani and his companion the Iraqi commander in al-Hashd al-Shaabi Jamal
Jaafar Al-Tamimi aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and burned their bodies in the vehicle) came from US
command and control.
However, the reason President Donald Trump made this decision derives from the weakness of
the "axis of resistance", which has completely retreated from the level of performance that
Iran believed it was capable of after decades of work to strengthen this "axis".
A close companion of Major General Qassim Soleimani, to whom he spoke hours before boarding
the plane that took him from Damascus to Baghdad, told me:
"The nobleman died. Palestine above all has lost Hajj Qassem (Soleimani). He was the
"King" of the Axis of the Resistance and its leader. He was assassinated and this is exactly
what he was hoping to reach in this life (Martyrdom). However, this axis will live and will
not die. No doubt, the Axis of the Resistance needs to review its policy and regenerate
itself to correct its path. This was what Hajj Qassim was complaining about and planning to
work on and strategizing about in his last hours."
The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But the
"axis of the Resistance" killed him before that. This is how:
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assassinated the deputy head of the Military
Council (the highest authority in the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is headed by its
Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah), Hajj Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah could
not avenge him until today.
When Trump gave Netanyahu Jerusalem as the "capital of Israel", the "Axis of the Resistance"
did not move except by holding television symposia and conferences verbally rejecting the
decision.
When President Trump offered the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Israel and the "Axis of
Resistance" did not react, the US President Donald Trump and his team understood that they were
opposed by no effective deterrent. The inaction of the Resistance axis emboldened Trump to do
what he wants.
And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria , the "Axis of the
Resistance" justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: "We do not want to be
dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy," as a senior official in
this axis told me.
In Iraq shortly before his death, Major General Soleimani was complaining about the
weakening of the Iraqi ranks within this "Axis of the Resistance", represented by the Al-Bina'
(Construction) Alliance and other groups close to this alliance like Al-Hikma of Ammar al-Hakim
and Haidar al-Abadi, formerly close to Iran, that have gone over to the US side.
In Iraq, Major General Soleimani was very patient and never lost his temper. He was trying
to reconcile the Iraqis, both his allies and those who had chosen the US camp and disagreed
with him. He used to hug those who shouted at him to lower tensions and continue dialogue to
avoid spoiling the meeting. Anyone who raised his voice during discussions soon found that it
was Soleimani who calmed everyone down.
Hajj Qassem Soleimani was unable to reach a consensus on the new Prime Minister's name among
those he deemed to be allies in the same coalition. He asked Iraqi leaders to select the names
and went through all of these asking questions about the acceptability of these names to the
political groups, to the Marjaiya, to protestors in the street and whether the suggested names
were not provocative or challenging to the US. Notwithstanding the animosity between Iran and
the US, Soleimani encouraged the selection of a personality that would not be boycotted by the
US. Soleimani believed the US capable of damaging Iraq and understood the importance of
maintaining a good relationship with the US for the stability of the country.
Soleimani was shocked by the dissension among Iraqi Shia and believed that the "axis of
resistance" needed a new vision as it was faltering. In the final hours before his death, Major
General Soleimani was ruminating on the profound antagonisms between Iraqis of the same
camp.
When the Iraqi street began to move against the government, the line rejecting American
hegemony was fragmented because it was part of the authority that ruled and governed Iraq. To
make matters worse, Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr directed his arrows against his partners in
government, as though the street demonstrations did not target him, the politician controlling
the largest number of Iraqi deputies, ministers and state officials, who had participated in
the government for more than ten years.
Major General Soleimani admonished Moqtada Al-Sadr for his stances, which contributed to
undermining the Iraqi ranks because the Sadrist leader did not offer an alternative solution or
practical project other than the chaos. Moqtada has his own men, the feared Saraya al-Salam,
present in the street.
When US Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on
December 28 and informed him of America's intentions of hitting Iraqi security targets inside
Iraq, including the PMU, Soleimani was very disappointed by Abdul-Mahdi's failure to
effectively oppose Esper. Abdul-Mahdi merely told Esper that the proposed US action was
dangerous. Soleimani knew that the US would not have hit Iraqi targets had Abdul-Mahdi dared to
oppose the US decision. The targeted areas were a common Iranian-Iraqi operational stage to
monitor and control ISIS movements on the borders with Syria and Iraq. The US would have
reversed its decision had the Iraqi Prime Minister threatened the US with retaliation in the
event that Iraqi forces were bombed and killed. After all, the US had no legal right to attack
any objective in Iraq without the agreement of the Iraqi government. This decision was the
moment when Iraq has lost its sovereignty and the US took control of the country.
This effective US control is another reason why President Trump gave the green light to kill
Major General Soleimani. The Iraqi front had demonstrated its weakness and also, it was
necessary to select a strong Iraqi leader with the guts to stand to the US arrogance and
unlawful actions.
Iran has never controlled Iraq, as most analysts mistakenly believe and speculate. For
years, the US has worked hard in the corridors of the Iraqi political leadership lobby for its
own interests. The most energetic of its agents was US Presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who
clearly realised the difficulties of navigating inside Iraqi leaders' corridors during the
search for a prime minister of Iraq before the appointment of Adel Abdel Mahdi, the selection
of President Barham Saleh and other governments in the past. Major General Soleimani and McGurk
shared an understanding of these difficulties. Both understood the nature of the Iraqi
political quagmire.
Soleimani did not give orders to fire missiles at US bases or attack the US Embassy. If it
was in his hands to destroy them with accurate missiles and to remove the entire embassy from
its place without repercussions, he would not have hesitated. But the Iraqis have their own
opinions, methods, modus operandi and selection of targets and missile calibres; they never
relied on Soleimani for such decisions.
Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs was never welcomed by the Marjaiya in Najaf, even if it
agreed to receive Soleimani on a few occasions. They clashed over the reelection of Nuri
al-Maliki, Soleimani's preferred candidate, to the point that the Marjaiya wrote a letter
making its refusal of al-Maliki explicit. This led to the selection of Abadi as prime
minister.
Soleimani's views contradicted the perception of the Marjaiya, that had to write a clear
message, firstly, to reject the re-election of Nori al-Maliki to a third session, despite
Soleimani's insistence.
All of the above is related to the stage that followed the 2011 departure of US forces from
Iraq under President Obama. Prior to that, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis was the link between the
Iraqis and Iran: he had the decision-making power, the vision, the support of various groups,
and effectively served as the representative of Soleimani, who did not interfere in the
details. These Iraqi groups met with Soleimani often in Iran; Soleimani rarely travelled to
Iraq during the period of heavy US military presence.
Soleimani, although he was the leader of the "Axis of the Resistance", was sometimes called
"the king" in some circles because his name evokes Solomon. According to sources within the
"Axis of the Resistance", he "never dictated his own policy but left a margin of movement and
decision to all leaders of the axis without exception. Therefore, he was considered the link
between this axis and the supreme leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was able to contact
Sayyed Khamenei at any time and directly without mediation. The Leader of the revolution
considered Soleimani as his son.
According to sources, in Syria, Soleimani "never hesitated to jump inside a truck, ride an
ordinary car, take the first helicopter, or travel on a transport or cargo plane as needed. He
did not take any security precautions but used his phone (which he called a companion spy)
freely because he believed that when the decision came to assassinate him, he would follow his
destiny. He looked forward to becoming a martyr because he had already lived long."
Was the leader of the "resistance axis" managing and running it?
Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: "You are an Arab and the Arabs accept you
more than they accept Iran". Sayyed Nasrallah directed and managed the axis of Lebanon, Syria
and Yemen and had an important role in Iraq. Hajj Soleimani was the liaison between the axis of
the resistance and Iran and he was the financial and logistical officer. According to my
source, "He was a friend of all leaders and officials of all ranks. He was humble and looked
after everyone he had to deal with".
The "Axis of Resistance" indirectly allowed the killing of Qassem Soleimani. If Israel and
the US could know Sayyed Nasrallah's whereabouts, they would not hesitate a moment to
assassinate him. They may be aware: the reaction may be limited to burning flags and holding
conferences and manifesting in front of an embassy. Of course, this kind of reaction does not
deter President Trump who wants to be re-elected with the support of Israel and US public
opinion. He wants to present himself as a warrior and determined leader who loves battle and
killing.
Iran invested 40 years building the "Axis of the Resistance". It cannot remain idle, faced
with the assassination of the Leader of this axis. Would a suitable price be the US exit from
Iraq and condemnation in the Security Council? Would that, together with withdrawal from the
nuclear deal, be enough for Iran to avenge its General? Will the ensuing battle be confined to
the Iraqi stage? Will it be used for the victory of certain Iraqi political players?
The assassination of its leader represents the supreme test for the Axis of Resistance. All
sides, friend and foe, are awaiting its response.
And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria , the "Axis of
the Resistance" justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: "We do not want
to be dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy," as a senior
official in this axis told me.
If the 'source' in this article was so close to Soleimani, then he would also have
mentioned that Russia was dictating terms in Syria.
Soleimani knew this and could not afford to lose Russia as an ally, this would definitely
have happened if another 'player' was brought into the war just because Soleimani decided to
retaliate to Zionist bombing.
Putin, Assad and Soleimani had a long term view of winning in Syria, not making things
worse because of a quick retaliatory strike.
Non-binding resolution asking the prime minister to rescind Iraq's invitation...
The current government is unlikely to push this through. After a new PM is chosen, it
would still take a year or more to move the US troops out by the agreements under which they
set up their base. All of this has to be viewed under the context that the US was
asked to send troops by the Iraqi president.
Yesterday,
Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel foreign troops from the country during an emergency
parliamentary session. Interim Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi, stressed during the
session, that while the US government notified the Iraqi military of the planned strike on
Soleimani, his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
In a meeting Monday, Mahdi, a caretaker prime minister who said in November he would resign,
told US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller that the US and Iraq needed to cooperate "to implement
the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with the decision of the Iraqi parliament,"
according to a statement from the PM's office that was cited by
the Washington Post .
Though the Iraq war 'officially' ended in 2011, thousands of coalition troops stuck around.
Their numbers increased following the rise of ISIS in the region.
Ending the US troop presence in Iraq has been a longtime goal of non-interventionists like
Ron Paul and his son, Rand.
That said, even without troops in Iraq, the US will still have plenty of capacity to bully
Iran, and other other regional powers.
AP WASHINGTON (AP) -- Having the leader of Iran's elite Quds Force direct Iraqi forces
battling the Islamic State group is complicating the U.S. mission against terrorism and
contributing to destabilization in Iraq, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency
said Sunday.
During more than a half-century of Washington watching we have seen stupidity rise from one
height to yet another. But nothing -- just plain nothing -- compares to the the blithering
stupidity of the Donald's Iran "policy", culminating in the mindless assassination of its top
military leader and hero of the so-called Islamic Revolution, Major General Qassem
Soleimani.
To be sure, we don't give a flying f*ck about the dead man himself. Like most generals of
whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.
And in this day and age of urban and irregular warfare and drone-based annihilation
delivered by remote joy-stick, generals tend to kill more civilians than combatants. The dead
civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back to the 1960s surely attest to
that.
Then again, even the outright belligerents Soleimani did battle with over the decades were
not exactly alms-bearing devotees of Mother Theresa, either. In sequential order, they were the
lethally armed combatants mustered by Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, the Sunni jihadists of
ISIS and the Israeli and Saudi air forces, which at this very moment are raining high tech
bombs and missiles on Iranian allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
The only reason these years of combat are described in the mainstream media as evidence of
Iranian terrorism propagated by its Quds forces is that the neocons have declared it so.
That is, by Washington's lights Iran is not allowed to have a foreign policy and its alliances
with mainly Shiite co-religionists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen are alleged per se to be
schemes of aggression and terror, warranting any and all retaliations including assassination
of its highest officials.
But that's just colossal nonsense and imperialistic arrogance. The Assad government in
Syria, the largest political party in Lebanon (Hezbollah), the dominant population of northern
Yemen (Houthis) and a significant portion of the Iraqi armed forces represented by the Shiite
militias (the PMF or Popular Mobilization Forces) are no less civilized and no more prone to
sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region. And the real head-choppers of
ISIS and its imitators and rivals have all been Sunni jihadist insurrectionists, not
Shiite-based governments and political parties.
The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on
for 1300 years in the region. And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into
Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents
in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not
Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.
So we needs be direct. The aggression in the Persian Gulf region during the last three
decades has originated in the Washington DC nest of neocon vipers and among Bibi Netanyahu's
proxies, collaborators and assigns who rule the roost in the Imperial City and among both
political parties. And the motivating force has all along been the malicious quest for regime
change -- first in Iraq and then in Syria and Iran.
Needless to say, Washington instigated "regime change" tends to provoke a determined
self-defense and a usually violent counter-reaction among the changees. So the truth is, the
so-called Shiite crescent is not an alliance of terrorists inflicting wanton violence on the
region; it's a league of regime-change resisters and armed combatants who have elected to say
"no" to Washington's imperial schemes for remaking the middle eastern maps.
So in taking out Soleimani, the usually befuddled and increasingly belligerent occupant of
the Oval Office was not striking a blow against "terrorism". He was just dramatically
escalating Washington's long-standing regime-change aggression in the region, thereby risking
an outbreak of even greater violence and possibly a catastrophic conflagration in the Persian
Gulf where one-fifth of the world's oil traverses daily.
And most certainly, the Donald has now crushed his own oft-repeated intent to withdraw
American forces from the middle east and get out of the regime change business -- the very
platform upon which he campaigned in 2016. There are now upwards of 50,000 US military
personnel in the immediate Persian Gulf region and tens of thousands of more contractors,
proxies and mercenaries. After Friday's reckless maneuver, that number can now only go up --
and possibly dramatically.
In joy-sticking Soleimani while lounging in his plush digs at Mar-a-Lago, the Donald was
also not avenging the innocent casualties of Iranian aggression -- Americans or otherwise. He
was just jamming another regime-change stick in the hornets nest of anti-Americanism in the
region that Washington's bloody interventions have spawned over the decades, and which will now
intensify by orders of magnitude.
Sometimes a picture does tell a thousand words, and this one from the funeral procession in
Tehran yesterday surely makes a mockery of Secretary Pompeo's idiotic claim that the middle
east is now safer than before. If there was ever a case that this neocon knucklehead should be
immediately dispatched to his hog and corn farm back in Kansas, this is surely it.
Iranians
carried the coffins of top general Qassem Soleimani and his allies in Kerman, Iran
The larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have
so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the
Iranian side of the story has been completely lost -- literally airbrushed right off the pages
of contemporary history in Stalineseque fashion.
Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which
resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the
long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious
shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence
of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics.
But that's exactly the crime of Washington's neocon-inspired hostility and threats to the
Iranian regime. It merely rekindles Iranian nationalism and causes the public to rally to the
support of the regime, as is so evident at the current moment.
Worse still, the underlying patriotic foundation of this pro-regime sentiment is completely
lost on Imperial Washington owing to its false narrative about post-1979 history. Yet the fact
is, in the eyes of the Iranian people the Quds forces and Soleimani have plausible claims to
having been valiant defenders of the nation.
In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield
contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And
Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often
barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by
the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians
know all about, even if present day Washington feints ignorance.
Then after Bush the Younger visited uninvited and unrequested Shock & Awe upon Baghdad
and much of the Iraqi countryside, it transpired that the nation's majority Shiite population
didn't cotton much to being "liberated" by Washington. Indeed, the more radical elements of the
Iraqi Shiite community in Sadr City and other towns of central and south Iraq took up arms
during 2003-2011 against what they perceived to be the American "occupiers" because, well, it
was their country.
Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort
to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal
enemy. After all, a full year before Bush the Younger launched the utterly folly of the second
gulf war in March 2003, his demented neocon advisors and speechwriters, led by the insufferable
David Frum, had concocted a bogeyman called the Axis of Evil, which included Iran and marked it
as next in line for Shock & Awe.
But the idea that the Iraqi people and especially its majority Shiite population would have
been dancing in the streets to welcome the US military save for the insidious interference of
Iran is just baseless War Party propaganda.
Stated differently, Washington sent 158,000 lethally armed fighters into a country that had
never threatened America's homeland security or harbored its enemies, and had no capacity to do
so in any event. But contrary to the glib assurances of Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the
neocon jackals around Bush, these U.S. fighters soon came to be widely viewed as "invaders",
not liberators, and met resistance from a wide variety of Iraqi elements including remnants of
Saddam's government and military, radicalized Sunni jihadists and a motley array of Shiite
politicians, clerics and militias.
Foremost among these was the Sadr clan which emerged as the tribune of the the dispossessed
Shiite communities in the south and Baghdad. They rose to prominence after Bush the Elder urged
the Shiite to rise up against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War, and then left them dangling in
the wind.
No U.S. support materialized as the regime's indiscriminate crackdown on the population
systematically arrested and killed tens of thousands of Shiites and destroyed Shiite shrines,
centers of learning, towns and villages. According to eyewitness accounts, Baathist tanks
were painted with messages like "No Shiites after today," people were hanged from electric
poles, and tanks ran over women and children and towed bodies through the streets.
From this horror and brutality emerged Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, the founder of
the Sadrist movement that today, under the leadership of his son Muqtada, constitutes Iraq's
most powerful political movement. After the collapse of the Baathist regime in 2003, the
Sadrist movement formally established its own militia, known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the
Mahdi Army .
The vast Shiite underclass needed protection, social services and leadership, and the
Sadrist movement stepped into these gaps by reactivating Sadeq al-Sadr's network. In the
course of U.S. occupation, the Mahdi Army's ranks of supporters, members and fighters
swelled, particularly as sectarian conflict intensified and discontent towards the occupation
grew out of frustration with the lack of security and basis services.At one point the Mahdi
Army numbered more than 60,000 fighters, and especially as Iraq degenerated into total
sectarian chaos after 2005, it became a deadly thorn in the side of U.S. forces occupying a
country where they were distinctly unwelcome.
But the Mahdi Army was homegrown; it was Arab, not Persian, and it was fighting for its own
homes and communities, not the Iranians, the Quds or Soleimani. In fact, the Sadrists strongly
opposed the Iranian influence among other Shiite dissident groups including the brutal Badr
Brigade and the Iran-aligned Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI). As the above
study further noted,
I raqis today refer to the Sadrist Movement's Peace Brigades as the "rebellious"
militias, because of their refusal to submit not only to Iran , but also to the federal
government and religious establishment. Muqtada al-Sadr has oriented his organization around
Iraqi nationalistic sentiments and derided the Iran-aligned militias . In line with the true
political outlook of his father and his followers, Muqtada's supporters chanted anti-Iranian
slogans and stormed the offices of the Dawa Party, ISCI and the Badr Brigade when they
protested against the government in May 2016.
As it happened, the overwhelming share of the 603 US servicemen the Pentagon claims to have
been killed by Iranian proxies were actually victims of the Mahdi Army uprisings during
2003-2007. These attacks were led by the above mentioned Iraqi nationalist firebrand and son of
the movements founder, Muqtada al-Sadr.
In fact, however, the surge in U.S. deaths at that time was the direct result of
subsequently disgraced General David Petraeus' infamous "surge" campaign. Among others, it
targeted al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in the hope of weakening it. Beginning in late April 2007, the
U.S. launched dozens of military operations aimed solely at capturing or killing Mahdi Army
officers, causing the Mahdi Army to strongly resist those raids and impose mounting casualties
on U.S. troops.
So amidst the fog of two decades of DOD and neocon propaganda, how did Iran and Soleimani
get tagged over and over with the "killing Americans" charge, as if they were attacking
innocent bystanders in lower Manhattan on 9/11?
It's just the hoary old canard that Iran was the source of the powerful roadside bombs
called Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) that were being used by many of the Shiite
militias, as well as the Sunni jihadists in Anbar province and the west. Yet that claim was
debunked more than a decade ago by evidence that the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias were
getting their weapons not just from the Iranians but from wherever they could, as well as
manufacturing their own.
As the estimable Iran export, Gareth Porter, recently noted:
The command's effort to push its line about Iran and EFPs encountered one embarrassing
revelation after another. In February 2007 a US command briefing
asserted that the EFPs had "characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran."
However, after NBC correspondent Jane Arraf confronted the deputy commander of coalition
troops, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, with the fact that a senior military official had acknowledged
to her that US troops had been discovering many sites manufacturing EFPs in Iraq, Odierno was
forced to admit that it was true.
Then in late February 2007, US troops found another cache of parts and explosives for
EFPs near Baghdad, which included shipments of PVC tubes for the canisters that contradicted its
claims . They had come not from factories in Iran, but from factories in the UAE and
other Arab countries, including Iraq itself. That evidence clearly suggested that the Shiites
were procuring EFP parts on the commercial market rather than getting them from Iran.
Although the military briefing by the command in February 2007 pointed to cross-border
weapons smuggling, it actually confirmed
in one of its slides that it was being handled by "Iraqi extremist group members" rather
than by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And as Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the US
commander for southern Iraq, admitted in a July 6
press briefing , his troops had not "captured anybody that we can directly tie back to
Iran."
On the other hand, what the Iranian Quds forces have actually accomplished in Iraq and Syria
has been virtually expunged from the mainstream narrative. To wit, they have been the veritable
tip of the spear in the eradication of the Islamic State.
Indeed, in Iraq it was the wobbly Iraqi national army that Washington stood up at a cost of
billions, which turned tail and ran when ISIS emerged in Anbar province in 2014. So doing, they
left behind thousands of US armored vehicles, mobile artillery and even tanks, as well as
massive troves of guns and ammo, which enabled the Islamic State to briefly thrive and
subjugate several million people across the Euphrates Valley.
It was also Washington that trained, equipped, armed and funded the so-called anti-Assad
rebels in Syria, which so weakened and distracted Damascus that that the Islamic State was
briefly able to fill the power vacuum and impose its barbaric rule on the citizens of Raqqa and
its environs. And again, it did so in large part with weaponry captured from or sold to ISIS by
the so-called moderate rebels.
To the contrary, the panic and unraveling in Iraq during 2014-2015 was stopped and reversed
when the Iranians at the invitation of Baghdad's Shiite government helped organize and mobilize
the Iraqi Shiite militias, which eventually chased ISIS out of Mosul and Anbar.
Likewise, outside of the northern border areas liberated by the Syrian Kurds, it was the
Shiite alliance of Assad, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces that rid Syria of the ISIS
plague.
Yes, the U.S. air force literally incinerated two great cities temporarily occupied by the
Islamic State -- Mosul and Raqqa. But it was the Shiite fighters who were literally fighting
for their lives, homes and hearth who cleared that land of a barbaric infestation that had been
spawned and enabled by the very Washington neocons who are now dripping red in tooth and
claw.
So we revert to the Donald's act of utter stupidity. On the one hand, it is now evident that
the reason Soleimani was in Baghdad was to deliver an official response from Tehran to a recent
Saudi de-escalation offer. And that's by the word of the very prime minister that Washington
has stood up in the rump state of Iraq and who has now joined a majority of the Iraqi
parliament in demanding that Iraq's putative liberators -- after expending trillions in
treasure and blood -- leave the country forthwith:
Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he
was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to
Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated
Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had
asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no
wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming.
At the same time, the positive trends that were in motion in the region just days ago --
-ISIS gone, Syria closing in on the remaining jihadists, Saudi Arabia and Iran tentatively
exploring a more peaceful modus vivendi, the Yemen genocide winding to a close -- may now
literally go up in smoke. As the always sagacious Pat Buchanan observed today,
What a difference a presidential decision can make.
Two months ago, crowds were in the streets of Iraq protesting Iran's dominance of their
politics. Crowds were in the streets of Iran cursing that regime for squandering the nation's
resources on imperial adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Things were going America's
way.
Now it is the Americans who are the targets of protests.
Over three days, crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands and even millions have
packed Iraqi and Iranian streets and squares to pay tribute to Soleimani and to curse the
Americans who killed him.
We have long believed that there is nothing stupider in Washington than the neocon policy
mafia that has wrecked such unspeakable havoc on the middle east as well as upon American
"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which
resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the
long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious
shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and
incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."
I get it that maybe Iranians don't have a Walmart in every town, and may not have the
privilege of mortgaging their lives on a Visa or MC – but that's not what I call
backwardness, rather progress. If times are tough, is it the backwardness of their system, or
might crippling sanctions play a small role in that? What "cultural and religious shackles"
might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have
instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror! Finally – if you
want to use the term "regime", please apply it with a broad brush, maybe even broad enough to
touch on the oh-so-democratic West. Let's just call them "governments", OK?
Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News
blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's
budget must be cut:
@Sasha Well and truly spoken. American pop and consumerist culture along with pop drinks
and endless fads, crude music and fast foods are being peddled as markers of serious culture.
They are shoved down the throats of unsuspecting minds in asymmetric commerce as part of an
aggressive campaign to turn the planet into a consumerist backyard for American junk and to
consolidate American hegemony.
The larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones
have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative
that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost --
Iran's foreign minister Zarif has been denied entry into the United States to attend a UN
meeting. Speaking of idiocy in denying Iranians their side of the story. That has been the
imperial modus operandi in appropriating narratives with the complicity of our poor excuse
for journalism, the servile MSM.
@Sasha I agree. If Iranians are really that disgusted by the "cultural and religious
shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or the economic backwardness and incompetence of
what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics", those clerics wouldn't still be in power.
All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money,
power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know
they are wise to take a different path.
Culturally, economically, politically, even technologically, the US is on a downward
spiral, courtesy of the Jews. This warmongering perpetuated by the same tribe will eventually
finish us off. China, Russia and Iran have existed for thousands of years. They will have the
last laugh.
Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was
scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to
Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated
Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him.
So, Iranian de-escalation was based on a sneak attack against the U.S. Embassy? No. Simple
logic shows that Mahdi is lying. Iran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.
-- What does Stockman suggest as a response to the Iranian sneak attack on the U.S.
Embassy?
-- Why are the voices that are always screaming about 'International Law' not outraged by
Iran's violations?
Given the history of such actions from the Carter era, a strong response was necessary and
inevitable. Iran offered war. And, Trump responded prudently and proportionally.
________
Based on tonight's news, Khameni made a 'show' reprisal that had little impact on U.S.
Forces. (1)
Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops,
but preliminary reports suggest there are no U.S. casualties yet, two sources with
direct knowledge of actions on the ground told Military Times Tuesday night.
Khameni's attack on the embassy was a failure that backfired badly. He is now desperately
trying to back down, because he knows that Iran has no effective defense against U.S.
Military options.
Stockman knew Reagan's first budget was a joke. He wrote it: telling the late Bill Greider
–in real time– that it was a 'Trojan Horse.'
Now he's telling Pompeo to go back to the pig farm but word is the Sec.State is now not
running for a Senate seat. But I tend to believe Pompeo is not directing things
it's coming from Trump's inner circle. Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's
obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear
capabilities before the end of the summer.
I heard Andrea Mitchell praising Stephen Hadley (Bush Neocon) as a "wise man" who called
this an opportunity for negotiation. That's g one Andrea: it went out when Trump got
rid of the deal Iran was adhering to, which the neocons and Israel didn't want.
I was reading earlier today that American Military Contractor company's stock began soaring
right after the assassination; Ratheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, etc etc
Now Asian market defense contracting company stocks are soaring because Iran has fired
missiles at a couple US bases in Iraq.
Insanity. Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start
feeling better.
I'm sorry to say I voted for this moron; and all because I hated the alternative and he
was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but
I was willing to give him a chance. Won't be voting in this fall's election. There is not one
candidate worth voting for; none.
Geez, by November we might be in full blown WW3 & elections suspended. who the hell
knows at this point.
As stupid as it gets
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Well, the Iranians really loused up now. Now Trump and his Israeli loving friends can finally
kick their butts really good. Very bad idea attacking us.
After the latest round of shit-slinging, Washington stinks, Tehran stinks, but Israel is
still smelling like a rose even though they are the instigator of the whole affair.
How do they keep getting away with it each and every time?
This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi
generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese
generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.
Unless you truly believe there is no good and bad sides in all these Middle Eastern wars
this can't be true.
The Americans are aggressors and invaders in the Middle East. For the Iraqis to turn on
the Americans it must mean something.
We get closer to the truth when we see Soleimani as a freedom fighter and Americans as
terrorists.
To lump Soleimani with the American lot is devoid of morals and common sense
All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money,
power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know
they are wise to take a different path.
Yes, although it is interesting to note that the Iran has been one of the top nations for
sex-change surgeries because the regime would rather change tomboys and sissies into "boys"
and "girls" rather than allow homosexuality or even atypical gender affect. They do avoid
having a pernicious and culturally radicalizing gay lobby though.
Anyway, it's none of our business and if we really had to choose sides in the Saudi vs
Iran conflict then Iran would be the rational choice. Maybe neocon stupidity will help bring
that conflict to a truce as they unite against the USA.
Moqtada al-Sadr, the most influential person in Iraq, is now calling the US an enemy and
threatening Trump personally. If Mahdi Army joins the other Shia groups around the world, big
damage will be done to the US via many means and no american will be able to stay in Iraq.
Embassy could be gone too. US companies working on oil and gas will be kicked out. The
country will move strongly towards Russia and China. All US investment in the Iraq adventure
will be totally lost.
Angering iraqi shia is very stupid US move. They are an ascending force, with young combat
ready population and young and expanding demographics. Last time the US angered the iraqi
shia (2004), it lost the war in Iraq even before it knew it.
This is the result of a declining power not recognizing its decline and making enemies
everywhere.
The 2020s will be a turbulent period of power transition where the US and Europe decline
and the rest of the world rises, the end of the superpower moment and the beginning of a
multipolar world.
Excellent article by a man so principled that as a representative from Michigan he voted
against the Chrysler bail-out.
So please forgive me for pointing out this error:
From the interweb:
A feint (noun) is primarily a deceptive move, such as in fencing or military maneuvering.
It can also mean presenting a feigned appearance. Feint can also be a verb, but in that case
it simply means to execute a feint.
To feign (verb) is to deceive; either by acting as if you're something or someone you're not,
or lying.
There is some overlap between particular meanings of the two words (For example, his
ignorance was a feint, he was feigning ignorance), but mostly they are separate.
Both words come from the French feindre, which means to "pretend, represent, imitate,
shirk".
Thanks for this well-written, passionate but nevertheless lucid analysis.
Yet I feel mention should always be made of US corporate and imperial greed as a main
motive for intervention anywhere in the world. It is about the oil and the profits and it is
highly illuminating to turn to works by non-US authors. A good starting point would be Pino
Solanas classic masterpiece La hora de los hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces) from
1968.
Also read Alfons Goldschmidt's eloquent and committed Die dritte Eroberung Amerikas
(1929). And the recent magnificent overview by Matthieu Auzanneau, Or noir. La grande
histoire du pétrole (2015).
Here is the best short analysis of the crime that was the invasion and conquest of
Iraq:
The Trump presidency has been nothing but neoliberalism and Zionism on steroids and
shouldn't be renewed for a second season. Feel free to convince me otherwise
"In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield
contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.
And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against
often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance
rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation
of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints (sic) ignorance" and a
whole generation (and more) know that this Washington-assisted depredation was carried out by
the U.S. Administration in which Mr.Stockman served, whether or not he prefers now to "feint"
ignorance of that, too. An Administration which also gave us the Nicaraguan Contra
terrorists, the infamous Iran-Contra deal, Central American death squads, Israel's invasion
of Lebanon & much more. Funny how Mr. Stockman was mum on such matters at the time.
Maybe, like Jimmy Carter, he's found his moral compass since leaving government but wish he
had found it a whole lot sooner. Hate to see a good Harvard Divinity School education go to
waste. No matter, the article makes perfect sense even if it comes a little late.
Whenever I see the kind of absurd foul language employed here by Stockman, I simply stop
reading. What on earth is a "flying f ** ck' anyway, other than a supposed macho signal of
just how big and angry a 'BSD' (to use another swaggering obscenity prevalent on his home
turf) he thinks he is. Perhaps he'd care to explain.
The recent and nearly simultaneous crash of the newish Ukranian 737 in Tehran (with the 15
missiles launched from Iran) may be quite significant – indirect way to hurt the US
(Boeing) again and Israel too – owned by Ukraine's most notorious billionaire
Kolomoisky – and the guy who selected the new comedian President – and amazingly
no US or Israeli passengers on board. Was it an accident or an exquisite punishment?
And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent
history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they
began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite
allies and proxies in the region.
It is especially hard to overlook that the terrorists and self-radicalized (mass-)murders
who killed hundreds of Europeans, including my own countrymen, were adherents to the
wahhabist ideology, created, funded and often staffed by the very countries which are the
closest allies of the USA and Israel. And whom they sell hundreds of billions of weapons to
as they wage their so called "war on terror" which is mostly the war to take out Israel's and
Saudi-Arabias enemies.
David Stockman may be at the center of the intelligentsia which built the empire that many
in the world looked up to and admired, and which crude figures like Pompeo, Bolton, Shapiro,
Perle and Nuland are tearing down. But the problems and outright evilness of the empire now
are inherent to its system and not merely a question of sophistication versus
brutishness.
@Sabretache Stockman is just guilty and fake thats all..why he uses such language.
there is not a sincere word in all that he wrote above there, save that there is somethng
important in there that Stockman is losing or wants..and is trying to set up to get
Mass murderer and Assassin in Chief is SIMPLY continuing to execute blood lusty and genocidal
policies established by alliance of TERROR which calls itself 5 eyes but Sovereign, FREEDOM
loving people call 5 headed BEAST.
God Bless Axis of Resistance!
Resist Slavery, TERROR and neoNazis!
This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say
Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese
generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.
Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive
realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.
Hollywood says otherwise, but what Hollywood says is little to do with historical fact and
accuracy.
David Stockman blames "neocon stupidity", but Trump's foreign policy has nothing to do with
stupidity it's planned and it's all about Israel ,"endless wars" , arms manufacturing and
sales , and ensuring that the "war on terror" continues . We live in a Pathocracy and are
governed by psychopaths and narcissists who have no compunction about the killing of
civilians (collateral damage ) ,murder by drone , the destruction of cultural sites, the
killing of 500,000 Iraqui children by sanctions (it was worth it – Madeleine Albright)
and the murder of populist leaders such as Allende .
@Sasha How does the mind develop? A boy grows up loving baseball ,because he grew up
watching it since age 3 or 10 . If he watched soccer or Tennis, that would have been his
favorite game . A blank page is ready for description of murder or love in English or Iranian
language .
It is same about religion ,participation in civic rituals ,enjoying certain shows or music or
theaters, food,consumption,and giving into outside demands rather than to self restraint self
reflection and self observation and self evaluation of the imposed needs .
Mind learns to praise hollow words and illegal amoral immoral activities . Because we don't
appreciate the converse and don't reward the opposite. Gradually society eliminates those
thinkers Very soon we have one sort of thinking everywhere . Very soon adult bullying is
copied by kids from TV and from watching the praise heaped on psychopaths.
This also means IQ gets distorted . Capacity to analyze gets impaired .
,American mind is manufactured mind by outside . BUt the process never stops. It doesn't get
that chance to take internal control at any stage . In childhood and adolescence, when the
time is right to inculcate this habit and enforce this angle or build this trait ,it is not
done at all. Other nations try and other cultures do. Here is the difference between self
assured content mind and nervous expectant mind always on a shopping outing . Most of our
problems in society come from this situation,
I enjoyed reading someone with a Washington resume' tearing into the current crew, too.
And it was a relief to see addressed the accusation about the Iranian official being not only
killed for, but set up by feigned US interest in, peace. Those with a public voice --
especially "journalists" -- who won't even mention this are either inept or corrupt.
But note the condescension towards the people of the Middle East and their "regimes" noted
above, starting with comment #1. Read the column carefully, and you'll see that the criticism
from Mr. Stockman is tactical, not principled. That's because he puts himself above all of
those people over there, including the group shown relative sympathy, who "are no less
civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone
region." Ask yourself the writer's purpose of those last four words, and in his use of
"sectarian." Would a more concise "are no less civilized and no more prone to violence than
anybody else" be a little too truthful?
I wonder whether this columnist is being brought in to buttress and/or replace the
discredited one who he describes as "the always sagacious Pat Buchanan." (Those who haven't
should read Mr. Paleoconservative's latest "If Baghdad Wants Us Out, Let's Go!" and the
overwhelmingly negative comments it has drawn.) Heretical to their extents, but both remain
devout Exceptionalians.
After more than a decades worth of failed economic prognostications ( that cost anyone who
listened to him dearly) Stockman is now going to give us foreign policy advice? Remember this
guys only official role was as an OMB appointee in the first term of Ronald Reagan.
@Ronnie Interestingly the plane just happened to be Ukrainian. Could this be the casus
belli the West needs to go ham on Iran? More strikes on Iran justified by this plane
crash and perhaps even sanctions on Russa as no doubt they will try an pin it on them as
well?
@Sasha Stockman is notorious for defending cultures and countries (Russia, China,
Iran, Islam) by belittling them. Paraphrasing: It is wrong for the US to confront Russia,
because they have a third rate economy. or it is wrong for the US to confront China
because China can't project power across the world. . He always takes the elitist
position the US should not attack lessers like Russia, China, etc'. It seems he is
trying to cover his ass against the dreaded charge that he is taking 'the enemy's side'.
"What you want to do is just beam in Melrose Place and 90250 into Tehran because that
is subversive stuff. The young kids watch this, they want to have nice clothes, nice
things . . and these internal forces of dissension beamed into Iran which is,
paradoxically, the most open society, a lot more open than Iraq . . . therefore you have
more ability to foment this dynamic against Iran. The question now is, Choose: beam Melrose
Place -- it will take a long time (ha ha).
On the other hand if you take out Saddam I guarantee you it will have ENORMOUS positive
reverberations that people sitting right next door, young people, in Iran, and many others
will say, The time of such despots is gone, it's a new age."
@Haxo Angmark What a trap DJT fell into! The president has proved himself more of a
neocon patsy, as he was as much set up as the Iranian general, whose name will be forgotten
by week's end in America. The neocons feeding the President a straight diet of cooked intel
and their "never Trump" flunkies in the Senate have killed two birds with one stone inasmuch
as the President's boasting he'd take out Iran's main cultural landmarks will be cast as a
threat of genocide, which the Dems will now use to tar DJT as an intemperate megalomaniac in
the minds of independents, probably ending his chances of winning reelection later this year.
The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going
on for 1300 years in the region. [ ] Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were
more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what
by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy
The Sunni regime in Riyadh ceaselessly complain about the treatment of the Arab minority
in Iran even though these are Shia Arabs, The Shia in Iraq are likewise Arabs. Iran is
almost as big as Egypt or Turkey. Being a country of 80 million Shia Persians Iran
could not possibly be conquered by the US without a massive effort, even if the deep state
and joint chiefs wanted to, which they do not. The only time Iran runs into trouble is when
it tries to act abroad as a power independent of both the US and Russia.
After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage
a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage. America was
totally paralyzed and humiliated. Its raid to rescue the hostages was pathetic and exposed a
total lack of special forces capability. the Islamic republic repudiated the Shah's role as
America's cop on the beat, but it wanted to remain the most dominant power in the region
nonetheless. Already worried by the arms given to Iran under the Shah who also supplied the
Kurds fighting in Iraq, the 1974-75 Shatt al-Arab clashes between the Shah and Saddam's
forces that led to led to 1000 KIAs, Saddam was faced with a radical Shia Iran appealing to
his own oppressed Shia majority. After a series of border clashes with the aggressive
Revolutionary Guards, Saddam predictably decided on an all out attack on Iran. The US backed
Saddam and there was massive support for Iraq from the Soviet Union in the final phase of the
war.
The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran made use of suicide squads of schoolboys
to clear minefields and in human wave attacks and by the end the front lines were well within
Iraqi territory and Saddam had to settle for merely surviving. Iran had linked up with
Assad's minority Alawite regime ruling a Sunni majority, and his Shia allies in Lebanon.
Israeli defence minister and former general Ariel Sharon moved Israeli forces into West
beirut then allowed Phalange gunmen let into palestinian refugee camps (PLO fighters had
already left the city) where they slaughtered thousands of non combatants.
Under the influence of Iranian clerics' interpretations from the war with Saddam
justifying suicide if the enemy was killed in the act, Assad's cat's paw Lebanese Shia
suicide bombed the US marines out of Beirut. Then Palestinians learnt how suicide bombing was
a powerful weapon and in the aftermath of the failure of Camp David 2000 embarked a vicious
series of suicide massacres that destroyed Ehud barak and brought Sharon to power. Iran has
gained influence in the region but ti is difficult to see what the Palestinians have got ot
out of the patronage of Iran, which is first and mainly concerned with itself.
Due entirely to side effects of actions the US took against Saddam's Iraq taken to protect
the current regime in Saudi Arabia Iran has went from strength to strength and they seem to
think that run of luck will continue. Unfortunately for Iran, they are now a very real threat
to Saudi Arabia, and the US knows it cannot put an army in Saudi Arabia to guard it with
outraging Islamic nationalist opinion in that country
Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish
its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not
concentrate on its own business? It seems to be calculating that Trump cannot afford to the
bad publicity of starting a war too close to an election, and so they can make hay while the
sun shines. Or perhaps they are pressing their luck like any good gambler on a roll. The
assassination of Soleimani was intended to be taken a sign that Dame Fortune in the shape of
America has grown tired of their insouciance. I think Iran should cut their losses although
such is not human nature. The dictates of realism according to Mearsheimer mandate endless
offence to gain even the slightest advantage, but he also says a good state must know its
limitations.
@Justsaying America's problems don't have anything to do with soda pop or fast food. Nor
is "consumerism" a serious problem that the world needs to worry about. I like having new
smartphones, fast internet, and the convenience of getting things quickly.
Trump is insane as is the ZUS government and its dual citizens who are calling the shots.
Trump is the reincarnation of the Roman emperor Caligula.
All of this was brought on by the joint attack by Israel and traitors in the ZUS
government on the WTC on 911, blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the
middle east for zionist Israel and their greater Israel agenda.
Isn't Stockman the guy pumping a large investment newsletter scam? Is Unz getting a % of the
scam to promote him? And how about these dumbo boomers who support him. Lmao
Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News
blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's
budget must be cut:
Yes, I was slightly surprised and gratified by his views.
'Maria' Bartiromo is/was married to a Joo . 'Nuff said.
That other one, the shrill Daegen McDowell, is also married to a Jew but is even more Zionist
than your average 'Likudnik'. She was a regular on 'Imus in the Morning' but then had a
falling out with Imus and was never back. I hope he haunts her until her demise.
(Purple grinning Satan here)
This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say
Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese
generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.
American censorship ensures that Americans only hear of the greatness of American
Generals. American Generals killed far more civilians with weaponry than opposing Generals in
World War II, in Korea, and in Vietnam. Few know about mass slaughters they were responsible
for, like:
@Z-man Taking him out would be boring, if we are talking about hypotheticals, then better
to start isolating Israel and sanctioning them. It will be funny watching them kvetch
I remember 2016. I remember many saying they were voting (or had voted) for Trump to get
out of the endless/pointless Forever Wars, and as often as not they would mention Iran (the
need to not go to war with).
Steve Sailer's six-word summary of US guiding policy from ca. the 1990s to 2010s (and
2020s, so far), " Invade the World, Invite the World (to resettle in the US)," was the
core of DJT's campaign (opposition to them, of course); his core supporter base was motivated
by both, some more one than the other, others strongly by both together.
I'd propose the core Trump base in 2016 was:
– 20%: primarily against "Invade the World" (soft, or neutral, or otherwise on
"Invite")
– 40%: primary against "Invite the World" (soft, neutral, or even supportive of
"Invade")
– 40%: against both Invade and Invite, seeing them as a package deal
I count myself in the third category.
(The proprietor of the Unz Review himself has written that he was for Trump primarily
because of foreign policy, putting him in the first category.)
@freedom-cat "he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts
from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance."
To be fair, he was explicit about getting tough with Iran. That's basically the only
foreign pledge he has kept. All the dialing down of hostilities was a lie.
He has at least killed fewer people in drone strikes than Obama and Bush.
@Sean Sean, your propaganda is old and tired and boring.
You're still shopping at F W Woolworth.
After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would
stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage.
One major precipitant was the information revealed about how US embassy had been spying on
Iran, when Iranian weavers re-assembled massed of documents that embassy staff had
shredded.
the rest of your screed = hasbara boilerplate. skewing information
Larry Johnson posted this more balanced overview of The Whole Offense:
Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States has done a lot of killing of
terrorists, real and imagined. Yet, the threat of terrorism has not been erased.
I submit that " the threat of terrorism has not been erased " because the wrong
terrorists were being killed.
The real terrorists hive in TelAviv and Washington, DC.
@Mr. Allen BS. The Nazi generals were trying to save the western world and civilization
from the jews; the other generals, whether they knew it or not, were working for the jews to
destroy both. The jews won and have largely obtained their desired end. Just look at Europe
today
@Vaterland Do it. Complete Nordstream2. Withdraw from NATO. It was 1907 that Britain
turned Russia from focusing on Asia to Europe and kicked off the new 30-years war. German
organization and Russian spirit and resources would be a fearsome combination.
If you live in a GOLDen cage, eventually you may develop Stockman syndrome.
This Trump Iran policy seems like pure genius to me. He may be able to obliterate Israel,
Hezbollah and Iran, by goading them with one check-mark on the Obama er um Trump Disposition
Matrix.
When I was a young teen I used to like that song, "Storm the Embassy", by the Stray Cats,
before they had any fame in the states. Decades later the Offspring scored a hit called "The
Kid's Aren't Alright", written in a similar key and chord progression. Groovy
This is the all-encompassing delusion, the stickiest residual brainwashing of old big shots.
The Biggest Big Lie. And you old timers play along with it. Every time.
Stupidity. Stupid my ass.
Wartorn countries are ideal arms-trade entrepots. All the unauditable trillions of stuff
that falls off DoD trucks, it's flooding into Syria and Iraq. CIA sells it. And most of it
sits in safe caches until the next war. Then CIA sells it again. This is CIA's second biggest
profit center, after drugs. And you know this is CIA's war, Right? Right? This is dumb
jarheads dumped in there to hold the bag for TIMBER SYCAMORE. Trump has less workplace
discretion than a McDonald's fry cook. He's CIA's puppet ruler. Puppets are not stupid,
they're inert.
If you're CIA and you've got impunity in municipal law, this is not stupid, this is smart.
This is brilliant. Steal arms from the troops, start a war, sell em to wogs, steal em from
the wogs, sell to other wogs. Repeat. This is the policy and vital interest of the CIA
criminal enterprise that runs your country.
You know it. Say what you actually think ffs. What are they gonna do, send you to
Vietnam?
@Anon If I'm not mistaken, Stockman has been forecasting a market collapse since 2010 or
so. I just checked and in 2013 he recommended selling stocks with end-of-the-world fear
mongering. At some point he and the libertarians' advice will coincide with a major
adjustment or collapse and the scam perpetuates itself. I'm no expert in market timing
myself, but my conclusion is that these guys are basically shills for gold and silver trading
interests, using political scare tactics to drive sales, and in the process shamelessly
costing naive investors to miss the market time and again since it's low in late 2008.
@Carlton Meyer God, if there is one, please save us from such shrill, hysterical female
defenders of the military-industrial-complex as Maria Bartiromo and Degan McDowell. I wonder
how screechy-voiced Maria could say with a straight face that we were, prior to Trump,
"starving the military." Such women, and let's include the women of The View, make good
advertisements for why the 19th Amendment should never have been passed.
David Stockman, though I oppose his libertarianism, is worthy of much credit for going
into the den with such venomous vipers.
Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive
realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.
Still, America leads the world when it comes to killing civilians, POWs, and other war
crimes.
I am with Mr. Allen – we shouldn't lump them all together. American generals, and
the prostitute "statesmen" that give their orders, deserve a special place in hell –
with a guest room, of course, for the likes of Winston Churchill and Bomber Harris.
@Hail The earliest sign we were betrayed was when post-election, pre-Inauguration Trump
said he wouldn't go after Cankles. Most people didn't even notice, or still believed he was
playing 32-dimensional underwater quantum chess.
@Vaterland Germany still under American (see Jewish) occupation huh? I still here
Americans tell me that those European countries are begging for American defence. This is an
American trait of arrogance, they think Europeans actually want Americans occupying us and
that they are doing us a favour.
I bet they would hit our countries with sanctions and other punishment if we threatened to
kick them out just like is the case with Trump demanding billions from Iraq to pay for an air
force base that Yankeed built to launch terror raids against Iraqis.
I bet most Germans do not even know about the terrorist occupation of Deutschland by
America where they staved and raped with impunity. Americans are truly sickening and nobody
would care if they got nuked save for a few Anglos
Regardless of our opinion about General Qassem Soleimani, Trump targeted killing him was for
his own personal grudge against Soleimani -- that was independent of the official US policy
toward Iran.
Over the last couple of years, in the heat of twitter exchanges between Trump and
President Rouhani, Trump was using his usual colorful language – street mob style
– he was insulting Rouhani on twitter while president Rouhani kept his cool –
restraining himself to engage at the street level exchange with Trump -- meanwhile, Gen.
Soleimani seized on the occasion and replied to Trump's insults; he taunted Trump, called him
"Bartender, Casino manager, Mobster" etc. and threatened to go after his properties worldwide
-- you can check Online history of Soleimani's tweets about Donald Trump. Here is a sample
that New York Post had published;
As we all know Donald Trump does not appreciate threats, and if he gets the chance he
punch back harder, and that's what has really happened; Donald Trump's personal grudge
against Soleimani had led to his assassination; just the way Street Mobs eliminate their
opponents; surely, that seems trivial, but these days, the world is governed by fake leaders
who won't hesitate to use the power of their office to boost their own ego -- even at their
own nation's expense.
Regardless of our opinion; General Soleimani was a brave soldier, a principled man who has
dedicated his life to his nation, and that deserves respect -- just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara
and Neilson Manddala did.
@Miro23 To perhaps soon be replaced by an even older, and definitely more confused
successor come next January. The only saving grace would be if Biden doesn't know how to
tweet. But he's every much the Zionist as is Trump, and has said so in the past. With a
non-working brain, which is where Trump's lost brain is heading, Biden will believe whatever
bullshit his neoliberal advisors feed him. Who is there to save us?
You bet, I'm happy to see a Washington name on these pages, because I've been convinced
for years a lot of the stuff we talk about here is pretty much mainstream or mainstreamable
thought that's been shoved aside by high-motivation rent-seekers of all sorts.
" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did.
I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or
feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when
the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.
Foolish elitists like Stockman advocate for the failed policies of the past.
From 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early
80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.
Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.
Seems only Reagan learned from History how appeasement helped Hitler.
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama all used appeasement. Iran grew stronger and more
influential.
Obama foolishly tried to buy peace by releasing $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets,
Iran spent it on Missle, Nuclear technologies and funded terrorism.
President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's
mess.
I pray we reelect him in 2020 and give him 4 more years to save America from the deluded
academics.
From 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early
80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.
Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing
again.
Why not just save time and write Iran Delenda Est , maybe in all-caps, a few
times?
@TomSchmidt Yes he does. He was married to a German teacher and was stationed in Dresden.
He touched on many of the issues of trust and fear in this speech to the Bundestag. Years
before Merkel took office. Different times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NZQZQLV7tE
The other mandatory ritual incantation of US public Juche is to vilify the official enemy.
Even pseudo-gonzo mavericks like Taibbi find they must do this. Stockman's new tweak of the
government-issue boilerplate is admirable for its subtlety, by comparison with Taibbi's
abject obeisance to the war line.
"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which
resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the
long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious
shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and
incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."
As a founding member of the G-77 Iran brought together 80 per cent of the world's
population. When the US took to manifest aggression after the WTC fell down, who did the G-77
choose to lead it? Iran. Iran brokered the Tehran Consensus, which unites more countries and
people than NATO and doesn't blow shit up. The Non-Aligned Movement made Iran their
nuclear/chemical disarmament envoy for peaceful coexistence. Half the world's people and
two-thirds of its countries have made Iran a leader of the world. Why? Because they defend
the UN Charter. They actually know what's in Article 2(4) and Article 39 and Article 41. Do
you?
In objective human rights terms, Iran sucks about as much as the US in terms of three of
the highest-level human rights indicators, outperforms the US in terms of openness to
external human rights scrutiny, and falls short of US in terms of reporting compliance
(although the US got graded very leniently on its delinquent CAT reporting while it ran its
worldwide torture gulag.) So you don't have to do new vocal stylings on BAD BAD DOUBLEPLUSBAD
ENEMY BAD. You can actually consult the facts. Imagine that.
@Just passing through I have very ambivalent feelings towards the USA, in the past and
present. Complex topic. Simple analogy: George C. Marshall looks like the twin-brother of my
grandfather who served in the Wehrmacht. Sons of Europe, at war with Europe; now increasingly
no longer European and a threat to Europe as their empire degrades. I see no reason to hate
the American people as a whole, there's millions of good hearted, compassionate and
reasonable people living in America today. Just look at Tulsi Gabbard's events. But they,
too, are held hostage of this evil Empire. Separate peoples and governments; Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn too lived under the Soviet regime.
I do hate Mike Pompeo though. And I'm not ashamed of it.
President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up
Obama's mess.
You are correct. Trump inherited problems from the prior Obama and Bush administrations.
Fortunately, Trump is winning.
Khameni's "retaliation" caused no damage. The high visibility launch covered live by FARS
was a PR stunt to placate his domestic audience. (1)
"Optically Quite Dramatic" But Officials Confirm No US Casualties From Iranian
Missile Strike
[Iran launched] missiles and purposely miss their intended targets.
Iran has superior missile technology that can hit whatever they want – this could
be in an attempt to save face as a public relations event for its citizens while attempting
to de-escalate the situation and avoid war.
At time of writing, it is unclear if we're headed to open war with Iran, though it is seeming
more and more likely by the hour.
So, I feel the need to remind everyone that they need to be careful not to commit
sedition.
In wartime, sedition can be a very serious crime.
Largely, we have not had people in the United States going to jail for anti-war protests
since the World Wars, but a war with Iran will be the biggest war the US has been involved in
since World War Two, and there is going to be a lot of opposition to it, so it is probable
that there will be actions done to chill speech by making examples of people who protest the
war too hard.
Stockman is a curious gloom and doomer. He reliably rants about the permanent war economy and
the biggest defense budget in the world but that's as far as he goes. Like Paul Craig
Roberts, his propaganda delivering contemporary, he offers a childish oversimplification of
how things work.
When things fall apart the cops and the troops will shoot the citizens and protect the
rich. Meanwhile, before things fall completely apart, propaganda specialists like Stockman
shoot the unsuspecting citizens with propaganda to protect the rich.
The rich learned long ago to divide the lower classes into the obedient subservient voters
who love them and the rest of the poor who don't matter because their brothers and sisters
protect the rich. What better time to divide, conquer and stage more international tensions
than right now?
@A123 Another fine example of American exceptionalism.
There is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah.
It fits the classic Israeli false flag.
The US "retaliates" by killing Iraqis who are the Kata'ib Hezbollah.
It is inconceivable to you that Iraqis may be upset that the country who invaded Iraq in
2003, completely destroyed the infrastructure, built a massive fortified Embassy, and sold
off its assets to Jewish interests, primarily, just might be upset that that same country has
just massacred the Iraqis who saved the country from ISIS. It had to be Iran behind it,
because all Iraqis are grateful for the 2003 US invasion and all of the benefits of
occupation that flowed from that. The million Iraqis that died are irrelevant.
Even Stockman doesn't get the Baathists. They don't care about your religious beliefs.
They care that your religious beliefs become politicized. Sure Saddam and Assad were
minorities, but one was a Sunni, the other a Shi'ite, but both Ba'athists. Both kept the lid
on extremists irrespective of religious beliefs. Stockman's reference to Bush 41 incitement
and the subsequent backlash is held up as some sort of proof of bad Sunnis. If the Pope
successfully goaded German Roman Catholics to take up arms against Protestants, do you think
that it just may be, that a Protestant backlash might be severe in places where Protestants
were the majority? Nope, it's got to be Hitler's fault, or maybe even Iran's.
@SolontoCroesus The assassination of was Soleimani was a deliberately stupid and
counterproductive act by America because that is the way to send a message that you are a
force to be reckoned with and mean what you say. Costly signalling is honest signalling. In
this case the US is signalling they are beyond the rhetoric of the last thirty years and
willing to get kinetic .
Iran and their theology of suicide martyrs is the greatest thing that ever happened to the
Israeli right, influenced by Shia suicide bombing driving the US marines out of Lebanon the
Palestinian massacres of Israeli civilians non combatants got a wall built pening them up,
took Sharon to the premiership, and made Israelis turn their back on Ehud Barak. No Israeli
leader would now dream of offering what Barak did while he was PM.
Iran is to big to be occupied and that is a fact. What can they be so worried about except
ceasing to play independent great power in the Arab mainly Sunni Middle East. Well they are
not that powerful. I think the leadership of Iran is taking the free ride they have been
getting getting for granted. They did not overthrow Saddam, America did and Iran gained got a
windfall.
Saddam was overthrown because the threat he represented to Saudi Arabia had to be
neutralised so the US army could be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where its infidel presence
was causing outrage and resentment. John Bolton got sacked, and a few days later, Iran gets
the bright idea to not just threaten Saudi Arabia, but launch–or at least not forbid
their Houthie protégés to launch–blatant drone attacks on vital Saudi oil
facilities (Sept 2019) thus forcing Trump to send more and more troops there. Iran was
sending a message: we can and we will.
My reading of the American government is that their killing of Soleimani was a sign that
for them Iran has entered the danger zone where something more that rhetoric and sanctions
will be used. Iran can still turn back and be forgiven, but if they choose to go on and take
the consequences of ignoring the costly (and therefore sincere) signal that the US has sent,
so be it.
This was as stupid as it gets so far. Confidently expect even stupider actions of the Empire
in its impotent rage, now that it is losing its grip. Ever since Iraq invasion, the Empire
was undermining itself more efficiently than its worst enemies could have hoped for.
Since it's apparent that Israel is making our MENA foreign policy and that the foaming at the
mouth Zionists want to start a hot shooting war with Iran, using their American mercs, which
US city should be sacrificed to Moloch, the G-d of Israel, to start this war?
New York is the safest bet, since there are tens of thousands loyal Jew sayanim living
there who would gladly give all to start a war against Iran. Using the time-tested technique
of staging a false flag.
Hamid was only recently (2017) handed a (cheap) US-citizenship for services rendered to
the empire, along with a free pass to settle his family in the US (Sacramento).
War-nut, dump-refugees-on-Middle-America-advocate, and empire-pusher John McCain is, I am
sure, saluting the flag of Empire in his grave, a tear in his eye at the perfect alignment of
every aspect of this saga of Nawres Hamid.
@Mr. Allen What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of
German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?
@Alistair One thing you got right is that the dead Iranian general belongs with murderers
and terrorists like Mandela and Che. He was as much a piece of garbage as them.
Jun 18, 2019 4 Times the US Threatened to Stage an Attack and Blame it on Iran
The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last
few years. Don't let a war based on false pretenses happen again.
Mar 27, 2019 The MIC and Wall Street Rule The World: Period!
To dismiss Suleimani as yet another thug, then praise the Shiite militia for driving ISIS
from Iraq without acknowledging that it was Soleimani that organized and led that battle
(from the front) is a little unfair.
@A123 Says the warmonger. The US needs to get the hell out of the Mideast, period. We are
fighting (((someone else's))) war.
@Mark James
Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in
Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the
summer.
Ya think? The Kushner family from father to son have publicly declared themselves Israel's
most loyal sons. They couldn't have found a better man to be president, a stupid puppet goy
as part of the family so they can continue to pull the puppet strings in the background. It's
the way (((these people))) operate, for thousands of years. Never the front man, always
directing things from the shadow.
@Mike P This stance is very understandable but I believe common sense should tell us
otherwise. There can be little doubt that since its colonial war in the Philippines, the US
has led the pack in terms of numbers of people killed in what used to be called the Third
World.
However, I am quite certain the way many people look at the US today (based on all those
millions of poor devils killed in the colonies), wishing their leaders a special place in
hell, is no different from how one could look at the English a little over a century ago
(Sepoy Mutiny, Sudan, Opium War, etc.). Or, for that matter, how the inhabitants of the
Italian states might look at the French during the late 1400s and early 1500s. And what about
the German Order in the Baltic, the Byzantines, the Romans etc. etc.?
In other words the US can point to a venerable but sad number of precedents to their own
criminal operations abroad. It is impossible to define the worst offender among all those
included in the long list of evildoers.
Anyone who enters another country, carrying arms and without the permission of the local
inhabitants, deserves to be killed. It is that simple. Unfortunately, because since times
immemorial most who do that somehow escape their just fate, one sees the same thing happening
again and again.
As usual, this has been turned into an Israel and Jew demonizing circle jerk, save a few sane
commenters.
Let's examine the imbecility of this site:
A Jewish, gay, open borders advocate multimillionaire selects "chosen ones", the gold star
commenters who are posting wily nilly to dominate the discourse –
who all happen to be Muslim, Latino, foreign born or rabidly Anti- American?
As commenters rage about the take over of the world by Jews, who flood America with --
–
Muslims, Latinos, and foreign borns, and shove the Alphabet Mafia down our throats.
You couldn't sell this as a straight to DVD screenplay. It's that absurd.
Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish
its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not
concentrate on its own business?
Have you been living under a rock?
The US froze (stole) billions in Iranian assets post revolution. The complaints about Obama
"paying" Iran for the JCPOA, were nothing but a partial return of Iranian assets. So, the
Iranians were short billions for 30 years, which could have been used to rebuild. It's kind
of like building a house and finding out a big chunk of the cash in your bank account has
been frozen, illegally, by the bank. It's there, but you have no access to, or benefit of,
it.
Of course all of the sanctions have nothing to do with Iran's problems. In particular, any
country that bought oil from Iran would also be sanctioned, causing a massive drop in
revenue, plays no part in the economic difficulties. Additionally, Iran exercising its rights
under an international treaty – the NPT, which the US repudiates in Iran's case,
thereby removing another large source of revenue, is not a factor either. At least, not to
you.
The best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who
has been killing so many of them for 20 years? [irony]
That's exactly what is being done -- men most responsible for American soldiers being
killed are being kept alive:
David Petraeus -- still alive
Robert Kagan -- -still alive
Benjamin Netanyahu -- still alive
George Bush -- – still alive
A year or so ago Mike Morrell commented that "US needs to send maps and crayons to Iran,
to demonstrate to them where their borders are: 'Iran HERE, Iran, NOT there.' "
I couldn't get over the irony: USA circles Iran, 7000 miles from continental USA, and
somehow Iran is trespassing outside its borders?
Morrell:
"Have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. . . . They were supplying
weapons that killed Americans . . . kill them covertly . . . I want to scare Assad . . . I
want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night, I want to destroy his presidential
aircraft . . . I want to destroy his helicopter. . . . I am not advocating assassinating
him – I'm not advocating that: I'm advocating going after what he thinks is his power
base . . ."
@SteveK9 AL CIADA aka ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 and NATO aka
the ZUS and Israel and Britain.
This war in the mideast was brought on by the JOINT Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on
911, which was blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the mideast for
Israel.
just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.
Would that be the same "Che" Guevara that thought Negroes were inferior, and Nelson
Mandela who was convicted of attempting to blow up a power station that would have killed
dozens of innocent people?
Soleimani rarely targeted civilians. For those who would point to the suicide bombings in
Israel, I would remind you that all Israelis over the age of 18 will be, or have been, in the
armed forces, and are subject to call up even after discharge.
It's all about Israel. Netanyahu has been plotting scheming and demanding that we, that the
U.S. bomb Iran back to the stone ages for nigh onto twenty years. He has even issued coded
and veiled threats to nuke Iran himself.
Trump is a Zionist collaborator and he is Netanyahu's shabbos goy. He has willingly
co-operated in turning over the U.S. military to be Israel's running dog.
America is a Christian majority country, and Bret Stephens is absolutely correct. The Jews
are an intellectually superior people. Us mere Goyim, are by comparison, utterly stupid.
America does not genuinely and honestly support Israel. America has been hornswoggled by
the superior intelligence and guile of the Jewish people to support the Jew state.
When the Jews decided to set up their own country at the turn of the twentieth century,
they knew that they would need the support of Christendom. To that end they initiated a
psy-op, a psychological operation tasked with rewriting Christian theology.
Up until the turn of the twentieth century Christian theology had held that the coming of
Jesus Christ had negated all of God's covenants with the Jews. This was known as, replacement
theology. That, in essence, Christians had become God's chosen people.
As a consequence, down through the ages, Christians and Jews had been at odds. Christ
killer was a common epithet and there were many pogroms.
Jews would have been aware that there was an obscure Christian theology that held, that
God had not revoked his covenants with the Jews. That God's covenants with the Jews remained
intact and were still in force.
This obscure theology was being preached by a ne'er do well preacher named Cyrus Scofield.
What the Jews did, and surely this was, what is known as, "Jew genius", they financed Cyrus
on two trips to Europe.
What the Jews did, was to take this obscure dispensationalist christian theology and write
it into the King James version of the bible as study notes. When Scofield returned from
Europe, he had the manuscript of the Scofield study bible. It is presumed that Rabbi's and
yeshiva students produced it.
It was published, produced and distributed by the very Jewish Oxford University Press,
which still holds the patent on it, and periodically updates it to keep up with changing
times in the Middle East.
There is an ample historical trail that validates this thesis.
There is also an historical trail that reveals that today's Jews, Ashkenazim Jews, are not
descendants of the biblical era Jews, that they are Jewish converts from the land of
Khazar.
More, that the circumstances of their conversion to Judaism was a process that selected
for intelligence and drive and that is why today's Jews are an intellectually superior,
driven and successful, albeit, artificial people.
Artificial, as they are not a people that occurred naturally, over time and in a land of
their own.
" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I
did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked
down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've
patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude
to heart.
This is a product of American exceptionalism, and it is not confined to the Middle East.
The overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to accept that others may be just fine with
their own form of government, economic system, and culture.
@SolontoCroesus Note that it has been the white man, not the jew, not the nigger, and not
the tranny, who has been the principle architect of such death and destruction.
Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on
Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
@Rich In the super-liberal town where I live, garbage gets separated: plastics here,
paper there, banana peels there.
If Solemeini is "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che," then what category of
garbage were Churchill and Stallin?
FDR -- same piece of garbage as Churchill – Stalin, or more like Solemeini?
How about Arthur "Bomber" Harris -- same garbage, or different?
When Solemeini is coordinating military engagements with US military leaders, is he "as
much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che" or is he more like Kagan and Lady Lindsey?
@9/11 Inside job You are right, stupidity has nothing to do with it, its well thought out
and dictated by Israel. The 'tail actually wags the dog.' Americans (most) will never get it
as they are trapped in a bubble while the rest of the world has realized it. In Europe the
common folks have while the politicians still have to pretend.
When the hour of awakening arrives, I will have no sympathy for the common Jews as they
remain silent today. And Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself.
What "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I
might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or
something. The horror!
The Shah was notorious for encouraging young women to emulate the West and wear miniskirts
and such.
At first glance, it seemed like a positive change for the better. (who approves of burkas,
for instance). But as we all know by now, the ((cultural elites)) of the West, are feverishly
using liberalism to transform the societies they dominate into moral and spiritual
sewers.
[insert here photo of Madonna or Miley or some other gutter skank as role model for little
girls)
In a well-known case, the 'brutal' rapist of a ten year old Austrian boy, at a public
swimming pool, had his conviction set aside by the high court, because not enough sympathy
was shown to the rapist's cultural proclivities. This is a society that is spiritually dead.
Contrast that with Iran's equally well-known treatment of men who rape boys, by hanging them
by their necks from cranes, for all to witness.
Iran, clearly has a lot to teach the dying ((murdered)) West.
If headscarves are the price of female dignity and honor, then I suppose it really isn't
all that big of a deal, especially when you consider the alternative in the West.
[I'm not posting a photo of Kardashian or some other skank, because you all know what I
mean]
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn :"Beirut marine [barracks]bombing was Mossad false flag
operation "
'I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The
Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an accident to be blamed on
the Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help lead us into war '
Dr. Beter, a Pentagon analyst .
Not possibly as stupid as declaring openly that you want to deliberately commit war crimes on
public record.
Of course, when you have guys cheer leading you that couldn't find Iran on a map if their
life depended on it, you might not notice:
Fox host defends America committing war crimes: "I don't care about Iranian cultural
sites and I'll tell you why. If they could they would destroy every single one of our
cultural sites and build a mosque on top of it" pic.twitter.com/AJolDVtzJR
For everyone who wants a refresher on how this is defined as a war crime, the Red Cross
has a great section on the evolution of these particular protocols in history. I would highly
recommend the section titled:
"Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property"
Which starts:
"Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property defines
cultural property, for the purposes of the Convention, irrespective of origin or ownership,
as:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every
people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular;
archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic
interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or
archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books
or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above " https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule38
Note also that the US did not sign until 2009. The reasons given are outlined here –
main one being*:
"The objections raised by DoD at the time were based on the perceived inability to meet the
Convention's obligations in the event of nuclear warfare. With the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War, DoD removed its objection to ratification." http://usicomos.org/hague-convention-and-usicomos/
Peace.
*Note: This is actually a great starting point for those of us who want to prevent
preemptive use of nuclear weapons by our government. The DoD is fully aware that nuclear
strikes against population centers will be in violation of the very treaties that they have
signed onto in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German
women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?
I guess I opened a can of worms I didn't mean to I am an American and understand that
Americans are not as innocent or as magnanimous as our history books may make it.
But I had also assumed most people would agree that in general, American generals (and
Russian generals) would be seen as on the "right side of history" and hence morally
infinitely better as compared to Japanese or Nazi generals.
To the extent that is true, we shouldn't be lumping them morally together as the author
here is trying to lump American and Iranian generals together.
In my world view, Americans are aggressors in the Middle East today, Iranians are not. So
lumping them together is to refuse to see right and wrong .
Back to WWII: most people in the world today are probably happy they are not under
Japanese or German rule. So I assume my statements about Nazis and ally generals were
correct.
As for whether most people in the world today would be happy from American / Western
imperial rule, I would say yes to that. BUT does that REALLY make WWII just another evil war
where evil won and where Nazi generals and American and RAF and Russian generals are the same
as Japanese and Nazi generals???
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn:" Beirut Marine[barracks]bombing was a Mossad false flag
operation"
" I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The
Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an incident to be blamed on
Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help us lead into war " Dr.
Beter , a Pentagon analyst
Looks like the Empire decided not to escalate further the war it started with Iran. Optimists
would say that Trump at least shows some wisdom after utter stupidity of engaging in
terrorism. Pessimists would say that the Empire is simply afraid. I am on the fence.
@A123 Thanks for doing your part to introduce some sanity here.
Rather obviously, Iran needs to get it together. I get that it's unhappy that Trump was
elected, and wasn't removed from office as the Democrats promised them, so they could get
back to the Obama giveaway.
But, hands down, Iran wins the competition for the worst handling of relations with the
United States since Trump took the oath.
Now, the ayatollah's train wreck has resulted in the death of his beloved Soleimani.
It's very interesting to learn that Soleimani worked alongside US generals. So far none of
them have resigned their commissions; that tells me they have no balls and are fine with
following orders to go over the cliff with Trump, Pompous, and the rest of the DC Dunces.
The Axis of Resistance will be shouting "MAGA!" as they drive out US killers:
Make
America
Go
Away
I think Trump read the first few chapters of "Dune" and decided he wanted to play Emperor.
Too bad he didn't read to the end where the Emperor's landing party is captured and the
Empire gets kicked hard.
A military delegation from a group of Russian troops in Syria visited the Iranian embassy to
pay tribute and express condolences to the Iranians in connection with the death of General
Suleymani, commander of the Kods IRGC Iran, as a result of the American strike. Wreaths were
laid from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and directly from our group of
forces in Syria.
In the photo from the Iranian embassy as part of the delegation, the commander of the group
of forces (forces) of the Armed forces of the Russian Federation in the Syrian Arab Republic,
General Alexander Chayko.
Foreign Policy (FP): What will Iran do to retaliate?
DP: Right now they are probably doing what anyone does in this situation: considering
the menu of options. There could be actions in the gulf, in the Strait of Hormuz by proxies
in the regional countries, and in other continents where the Quds Force have activities.
There's a very considerable number of potential responses by Iran, and then there's any
number of potential U.S. responses to those actions
Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned
that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the
Iran-Iraq War.
FP: Will the Iraqi government kick the U.S. military out of Iraq?
DP: The prime minister has said that he would put forward legislation to do that,
although I don't think that the majority of Iraqi leaders want to see that given that ISIS is
still a significant threat. They are keenly aware that it was not the Iranian supported
militias that defeated the Islamic State, it was U.S.-enabled Iraqi armed forces and special
forces that really fought the decisive battles.
How credible is this line that Iran has a tottering economy and that the 'regime' is
clinging to power by a thread and so therefore cannot risk the further instability of a
war?
Well, David Petraeus does not seem the most reliable person in this world.
If you take into account that he supported all the lies of his admnistration to unlseashed
Iraqi invasion and alleged WOT when what it was the remodelation of rge ME and looting of its
resources. And I fear he made his fortune vand caree in Iraq...by looting and lying...
Twitter vid of Orthodox
service for Soleimani correlates his Mission with that Of Jesus's Mission. An amazing and
truthful one minute thank you from the Christians of Syria for his efforts:
"'All what Qassem Soleimani did was stand up for Christians against ISIS and Al Qaeda'
"A mass was held in the evangelical church of Aleppo, Syria to honor the martyrdom of
General Soleimani who had an essential role in the liberation battle of Aleppo against
US-backed Jihadists."
Compared to Soleimani, Trump is the town drunk lying in the gutter awaiting the police van
to take him to the drunk tank.
Several barflies have said it's beyond time for China and Russia to arise and collectively
put a stop to this madness. As reported today, China will likely delay the implementation of
the first phase of the Trade Deal and a high level delegation met with Iraq's president and
council today to discuss arms and economic assistance. Russia's already involved with Iraq
through the regional anti-terrorist command post in Baghdad. Putin's been very quiet; not
even the usual notice of condolences sent to Iran was noted or published by the Kremlin.
Tomorrow's Orthodox Christmas, so perhaps in Putin's message to Russia he'll say something
further. But you can be sure that behind the scenes much is happening.
...no coherent plan was behind the Trump administration's cold-blooded murder of Qassem
Soleimani.
It was an act of pure stupid. A dumb 'miscalculation'. Another example of the ignorant
hubris in the US State Department that almost brought them into direct conflict with Russia in
February 2014, when they failed to comprehend the strategic and cultural significance of Crimea
and tried to migrate the Kiev 'Maidan' coup to Sevastopol.
I can pretty much guarantee none of those who advised Trump to assassinate Qassem
Suleimani saw this coming. Suleimani has been elevated in status to a martyr on the level of
Hussein. https://t.co/xUl7Q5x4BG
-- Scott Ritter (@RealScottRitter) January 4, 2020
This one, while posing a less imminent risk of superpower confrontation, is potentially
disastrous for US interests in the region, and risks monumental loss of life in any resultant
conflict between Iranian and US military forces.
It seems many people are not yet grasping the seismic shifts going on, and are still
thinking in terms of this being the prelude to another imperial regime-change operation like
those in Iraq, Libya and the failed attempt in Syria.
It isn't. Not even slightly. It is a whole new and unknown situation, and where it ends is
currently anyone's guess.
Threats from the ever bombastic fool Trump, like these towards Iran's culture
.targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years
ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those
targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more
threats!
and towards Iraq , might
bolster the impression that the empire has the initiative and many cards to play, but does
it?
What actually can it do against a military far more well-funded and well-supported than
anything it has confronted in recent years? Especially now in a situation where almost the
entire Shia Middle East has become united in wanting US forces out of the region.
Folks, this is the beginning of the end for the Empire. Yes, I know, this sounds
incredible, yet this is exactly what we are seeing happening before our eyes. The very best
which the US can hope for now is a quick and complete withdrawal from the Middle-East.
This is pretty extreme, and I'm not entirely convinced he's correct here, but he shows his
reasoning, and it's fairly compelling, and I urge you to read this linked article and others in
his recent output for a point of view that goes beyond the less than adequate "bloody Americans
doing it again" narrative we are getting from some sources.
Iran must retaliate for this outrage perpetrated against them. The US is compelled by its
own rhetoric and self-perception as invincible to respond to this retaliation with
disproportionate force.
Conflict of some kind seems inevitable, and, as the Saker sees it, this will be a conflict
the US can't ultimately win:
So what next? A major war against Iran and against the entire "Shia crescent"? Not a good
option either. Not only will the US lose, but it would lose both politically and militarily.
Limited strikes? Not good either, since we know that Iran will retaliate massively. A
behind-the-scenes major concession to appease Iran? Nope, ain't gonna happen either since if
the Iranians let the murder of Soleimani go unpunished, then Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar
al-Assad and even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the next ones to be murdered. A massive air
campaign? Most likely, and initially this will feel good (lots of flagwaving in the USA), but
soon this will turn into a massive disaster.
Trump's threat, however, rings hollow. First, his tweet constitutes de facto evidence of a
war crime (Section 5.16.2 of the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual prohibits threats
to destroy cultural objects for the express purpose of deterring enemy operations), and as
such would likely not be implemented by US military commanders for whom niceties such as the
law of war, which forbids the execution of an unlawful order, are serious business.
Of more relevance, however, is the fact that Trump has been down this road before, when he
threatened massive military retaliation against Iran for shooting down an unarmed drone over
the Strait of Hormuz last May. At that time, he was informed by his military commanders that
the US lacked the military wherewithal to counter what was expected to be a full-spectrum
response by Iran if the US were to attack targets inside Iran.
In short, Iran was able to inflict massive harm on US and allied targets in the Middle
East region, and there was nothing the US could do to prevent this outcome.
Ritter thinks the recent announcement by Iran that it is committed to ending all
restrictions on uranium enrichment might give the US a pretext to attack using the one clear
advantage it has – nuclear weapons.
Trump has hinted that any future war with Iran would not be a drawn-out affair. And while
the law of war might curtail his commanders from executing any retaliation that includes
cultural sites, it does not prohibit the US from using a nuclear weapon against a known
nuclear facility deemed to pose a threat to national security.
This is the worst-case scenario of any tit-for-tat retaliation between Iran and the US, and
it is not as far-fetched as one might believe.
The Saker also considers it quite possible the US or Israel would resort to nuclear weapons,
but thinks this also would be ultimately self-defeating:
US/Israeli nukes: yes, unlike Iran, they have nukes. But what they lack are good targets.
Oh sure, then can (and will) strike at some symbolic, high-visibility, targets and they can
nuke cities. But "can" does not mean that this is a smart thing to do. The truth is that Iran
does not offer any good targets to hit with nukes so using nukes against Iran will only make
the determination of Iranians (and they allies) go from "formidable" to "infinite". Not
smart.
Whether or not we agree this is the beginning of the end of empire, a messy open-ended
conflict seems highly probable as things currently stand. Corporate war profiteers might rub
their hands at this, but if the chaos spreads will even they be able to reap real benefits?
Will this be the cue for them to up sticks from the foundering Exceptional Nation and re-locate
elsewhere in the unending quest for exploitation?
After all it can be argued the British Empire, like the Nazis, didn't die, but just had to
move – somewhere a little further west. Maybe, if we're cynical, the same thing is about
to happen again. Maybe China is about to inherit the earth with the help of some ex-pat
neocons.
But that's speculation for another day.
Another perspective worth reading is that of the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity, whose open
'Memorandum for the President' is published over at Consortium News.
Signed by numerous distinguished intelligence professionals, including Philip Giraldi and
Daniel Ellsberg, it urges the Trump admin to "avoid doubling down on catastrophe".
The drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani
evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to
World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe
revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty.
And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given
the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and
in nearby waters.
What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated. Quite
the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval exercises
with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the
region.
Interestingly the corporate media seem currently far from united, or even coherent, in their
response to this latest crisis. Threaded through the usual knee jerk demonising of the monster
du jour , are unusual elements of skepticism toward the pro-war narrative.
With its drone missile assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani and seven others at
Baghdad's international airport in the early morning hours of Friday, the Trump administration
has carried out a criminal act of state terrorism that has stunned the world.
Washington's cold-blooded murder of a general in the Iranian army and a man widely described
as the second most powerful figure in Tehran is unquestionably both a war crime and a direct
act of war against Iran.
President Donald Trump delivers remarks on Iran, at his Mar-a-Lago
property, Friday, Jan. 3, 2020, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
It may take some time before Iran responds to the killing. There is no question that Tehran
will, in fact, react, especially in the face of public outrage over the murder of a figure who
had a mass following.
But Iran will no doubt devote far more consideration to its response than Washington gave to
its criminal action. The country's National Security Council met on Friday, and in all
probability Iranian officials will discuss the murder of Suleimani with Moscow, Beijing and,
more likely than not, Europe. US officials and the corporate media seem almost to desire
immediate retaliation for their own purposes, but the Iranians have many options.
It is a political fact that the killing of Soleimani has effectively initiated a war by the
US against Iran, a country four times the size and with more than double the population of
Iraq. Such a war would threaten to spread armed conflict across the region and, indeed, the
entire world, with incalculable consequences.
This crime, driven by increasing US desperation over its position in the Middle East and the
mounting internal crisis within the Trump administration, is staggering in its degree of
recklessness and lawlessness. The resort by the United States to such a heinous act testifies
to the fact that it has failed to achieve any of the strategic objectives that led to the
invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003.
The murder of Soleimani is the culmination of a protracted process of the criminalization of
American foreign policy. "Targeted killings," a term introduced into the lexicon of world
imperialist politics by Israel, have been employed by US imperialism against alleged terrorists
in countries stretching from South Asia to the Middle East and Africa over the course of nearly
two decades. It is unprecedented, however, for the president of the United States to order and
then publicly claim responsibility for the killing of a senior government official who was
legally and openly visiting a third country.
Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's Quds Force, was not an
Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. On the contrary, he played a pivotal role in defeating
the forces of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which those two figures,
both assassinated by US special operations death squads, had led.
Hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Tehran and cities across Iran on
Friday in mourning and protest over the slaying of Soleimani, who was seen as an icon of
Iranian nationalism and resistance to US imperialism's decades-long attacks on the country.
In Iraq, the US drone strike has been roundly condemned as a violation of the country's
sovereignty and international law. Its victims included not only Soleimani, but also Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the
100,000-strong coalition of Shia militias that is considered part of the country's armed
forces.
This response makes a mockery of the ignorant and thuggish statements of Trump and his
advisors. The US president, speaking from his vacation resort of Mar-a-Lago in Florida, boasted
of having "killed the number one terrorist anywhere in the world." He went on to claim that
"Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military
personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him."
Trump charged that the Iranian general "has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize
the Middle East for the last 20 years." He declared, "What the United States did yesterday
should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved."
Who does the US president think he is fooling with his Mafia rhetoric? The last 20 years
have seen the Middle East devastated by a series of US imperialist interventions. The illegal
2003 US invasion of Iraq, based on lies about "weapons of mass destruction," claimed the lives
of over a million people, while decimating what had been among the most advanced societies in
the Arab world. Together with Washington's eighteen-year-long war in Afghanistan and the
regime-change wars launched in Libya and Syria, US imperialism has unleashed a regionwide
crisis that has killed millions and forced tens of millions to flee their homes.
Soleimani, whom Trump accused of having "made the death of innocent people his sick passion"
-- an apt self-description -- rose to the leadership of the Iranian military during the
eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war, which claimed the lives of some one million Iranians.
He became known to the US military, intelligence and diplomatic apparatus in 2001, when
Tehran provided intelligence to Washington to assist its invasion of Afghanistan. Over the
course of the US war in Iraq, American officials conducted back-channel negotiations with
Soleimani even as his Quds Force was providing aid to Shia militias resisting the American
occupation. He played a central role in picking the Iraqi Shia politicians who led the regimes
installed under the US occupation.
Soleimani went on to play a leading role in organizing the defeat of the Al Qaeda-linked
militias that were unleashed against the government of Bashar al-Assad in the CIA-orchestrated
war for regime change in Syria, and subsequently in rallying Shia militias to defeat Al Qaeda's
offspring, ISIS, after it had overrun roughly one-third of Iraq, routing US-trained security
forces.
To describe such a figure as a "terrorist" only means that any state official or military
commander anywhere in the world who cuts across the interests of Washington and US banks and
corporations can be labeled as such and targeted for murder. The attack at the Baghdad airport
signals that the rules of engagement have changed. All "red lines" have been crossed. In the
future, the target could be a general or even president in Russia, China or, indeed, any of the
capitals of Washington's erstwhile allies.
After this publicly celebrated assassination -- openly claimed by a US president without
even a pretense of deniability -- is there any head of state or prominent military figure in
the world who can meet with US officials without having in the back of his mind that if things
do not go well, he too might be murdered?
The killing of General Soleimani in Baghdad was compared by Die Zeit , one of
Germany's newspapers of record, to the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of
Austria. As in the prior case, it stated, "the whole world is holding its breath and anxiously
waiting for what may come."
This criminal act carries with it the threat of both world war and dictatorial repression
within the borders of the United States. There is no reason to believe that a government that
has adopted murder as an instrument of foreign policy will refrain from using the same methods
against its domestic enemies.
The assassination of Soleimani is an expression of the extreme crisis and desperation of a
capitalist system that threatens to hurl humanity into the abyss.
The answer to this danger lies in the international growth of the class struggle. The
beginning of the third decade of the 21st century is witnessing not only the drive to war, but
also the upsurge of millions of workers across the Middle East, Europe, the United States,
Latin America, Asia and every corner of the globe in struggle against social inequality and the
attacks on basic social and democratic rights.
This is the only social force upon which a genuine opposition to the war drive of the
capitalist ruling elites can be based. The necessary response to the imperialist war danger is
to unify these growing struggles of the working class through the construction of a united,
international and socialist antiwar movement.
To the silly trolls on this thread, no Iran is not the number one terrorist supporter in the
world. That would be Saudi Arabia, closely followed by Qatar. You know them don't you?
Murica's main regional allies. The same countries that have armed and funded terrorists to
over throw the Syrian state. The same terrorist groups given support by the murican
intelligence community and propaganda outlets like the White helmets. The US is not a knight
in shining armor. It is a vulgar, grasping, dying empire that will use any means at it's
disposal to harm perceived rivals. The US establishment has a long history of using
terrorists to further its goals, like in Afghanistan during the 80's, or in Chechnya...and of
course in Syria. The list is not exhaustive... You know, in fact, Iran should look to execute
the cult leader of the Mek. There is another bizzaro terrorist outfit beloved by fat ass
Pompeo. That would be an outstanding shatter point that the US couldn't even respond to. Let
him "suicide" himself like Le Mesurier...lol!
On the surface, it made not one iota of sense. The murder of a foreign military leader on his way
from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of
irresistible richness.
"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and
throughout the region."
The
words from the Pentagon
seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared
resist them.
"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all
necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."
The killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force in a drone
strike on January 3, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces, or
Hash a-Shaabi
and PMF Kata'ib Hezbollah, was packaged and ribboned as a matter of military necessity.
Soleimani had been, according to the Pentagon,
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and
coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more."
He was behind a series of attacks on coalition
forces in Iraq over the last several months including attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019.
US President Donald J. Trump had thrown caution to the wind,
suggesting in a briefing
at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that an option on the table would be the killing of
Soleimani. The Iran hawks seemed to have his ear; others were caught off guard, preferring to keep matters more
general.
A common thread running through the narrative was the certainty unshakable, it would seem that Soleimani was
on the warpath against US interests.
The increased danger posed by the Quds Force commander were merely presumed, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
was happy to do so
despite not
being able
to
"talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the
President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives."
(Pompeo goes on to insist that there was "active plotting" to "take big action" that would have endangered
"hundreds of lives".) How broadly one defines the battlefield becomes relevant; the US imperium has decided that
diplomatic niceties and sovereign protections for officials do not count. The battlefield is everywhere.
Trump was far from convincing in
reiterating the arguments
, insisting that the general had been responsible for killing or badly wounding
"thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill may more but got caught!"
From
his resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he claimed that the attack was executed
"to stop a war. We did not take action
to start a war."
Whatever the views of US officialdom, seismic shifts in the Middle East were being promised.
Iraq's prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi
demanded
an emergency parliamentary session with the aim of taking
"legislative steps and necessary
provisions to safeguard Iraq's dignity, security and sovereignty."
On Sunday, the parliament did something which, ironically enough, has been a cornerstone of Iran's policy in Iraq:
the removal of US troops from Iraq. While being a non-binding resolution, the parliament
urged
the prime minister to rescind the invitation extended to US forces when it was attacked by Islamic State forces in
2014.
Iranian Armed Forces' spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi
promised
setting
"up a plan, patiently, to respond to this terrorist act in a crushing and powerful manner"
.
He also reiterated that it was the US, not Iran, who had "occupied Iraq in violation of all international rules
and regulations without any coordination with the Iraqi government and without the Iraqi people's demands."
While the appeals to international law can seem feeble,
the observation
from the UN Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agns Callamard was hard to impeach.
"The targeted killings of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Humandis are most [likely] unlawful and violate
international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for
targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal."
To
be deemed lawful
, such targeting
with lethal effect
"can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life."
The balance sheet for this action, then, is not a good one.
As US presidential candidate Marianne Williamson
observed
with crisp accuracy, the attack
on Soleimani and his companions had little to do with
"whether [he] was a 'good man' any more than it was about
whether Saddam was a good man. It's about smart versus stupid use of military power."
An intelligent use of military power is not in the offing, with Trump
promising
the targeting of 52 Iranian
sites, each one representing an American hostage held in Iran at the US embassy in Tehran during November 1979.
But Twitter sprays and promises of this sort tend to lack substance and Trump is again proving to be the master of
disruptive distraction rather than tangible action.
Even Israeli outlets such as
Haaretz
, while doffing the cap off to the idea of Soleimani as a shadowy, dangerous figure behind the
slayings of Israelis
"in terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and others
dispatched by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force,"
showed concern.
Daniel B. Shapiro even went so far as to express admiration for the operation, an "impressive" feat of logistics
but found nothing of an evident strategy. Trump's own security advisers were caught off guard. A certain bloodlust
had taken hold.
Within Congress, the scent of a strategy did not seem to come through, despite some ghoulish cheers from the GOP.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and chairman of the House Intelligence panel,
failed to
notice
"some broad strategy at work".
Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin, previously acting assistant secretary of defence and CIA analyst,
explained
why neither Democratic or Republic
presidents had ventured onto the treacherous terrain of targeting Soleimani.
"Was the strike worth the likely
retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?"
The answer was always a resounding no.
By killing such a high ranking official of a sovereign power, the US has signalled a redrawing of accepted, and
acceptable lines of engagement.
The justification was spurious, suggesting that assassination and killing in combat are not distinctions with any
difference. But perhaps most significantly of all, the killing of Soleimani will usher in the very same attacks that
this decision was meant to avert even as it assists Iranian policy in expelling any vestige of US influence in Iraq
and the broader Middle East.
It also signalled to Iran that abiding by agreements of any sort, including the international nuclear deal of 2015
which the US has repudiated, will be paper tigers worth shredding without sorrow.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
wardropper
,
Today's Washington doesn't even have a grasp of common English usage:
"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans"
You don't deter plans. You deter
people from
making plans.
A deterrent is something which persuades
people
not to do something.
I know that "corporations are people today", but only in the sense that they are run by a bunch of
people, so you can't deter a corporation either, although you can deter its CEO from doing something.
It's always a question of
deterring people from
, and not deterring
things.
Washington should know better, but I don't know why I'm even addressing this issue concerning a rabid
US government of ignorant basket cases. It must be because I'm a teacher, and some sort of alternative
to chaos seems necessary
"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service
members in Iraq and throughout the region."
Allegedly. But with no substance provided. Less than with Iraqi WMDs.
But this article takes Pompeo's bait and runs with it.
I have read that Soleimani was invited to a meeting seeking resolution of hostilities in Yemen
and perhaps other things. If that is true it could be that the war is being protected under cover
story of averting war. That would make sense in the backwards mind of today's narrative identity.
(Doublethink).
If that invitation was set up with the Trump administration then that casts a darker light on the
USa's willingness to openly deceive and openly assassinate with apparent impunity. But there are
always consequences.
However, Once such an act is executed, it would be very rare to not receive open support from the
US establishment whatever any private misgivings. And so it leaves me wondering what and who is
involved in oversight and accountability. I don't have a sense of a real government so much as a
captured and corrupted or neutered shell of a government. Perhaps the act was a fait accompli by a
coterie who wanted to provoke open war and are willing to risk everything on getting one.
The 'globalist' idea uses the US as it uses everything. Does it 'use' Israel and the
International Jewish lobby? Or vice verse? Israeli policy is typical in pre-emptive de-personing and
execution and this pattern is spreading through the body politic
I don't know but a lot of apparently 'national' interest is anything but excepting for
corporate cartels of mutual interest that effectively call the shots in a progressive (sic)
deconstruction of the World order to an idea of global possession and control.
Insider dealing applies also to politics. We are not privy to decisions made that are then
'delivered' by all kinds of manipulative appearance.
When Trump threatened disproportionate retaliation linking to the Iran hostage situation the
Iranians could counter with disclosure as the the weapons deal struck by Reagan camp to delay release
until after Carter left office and lost it in no small part to the failure to get the hostages home.
But it just isn't done. Governing politicians as a rule do not bring out such dirty washing.
People might lose faith in them
Charlotte Russe
,
Washington denied Zarif a visa to attend a scheduled meeting of the United Nations Security
Council and Mike Pompeo mocked Zarif's statement that Suleimani had gone to Baghdad on a diplomatic
mission: "Is there any history that would indicate it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman,
this diplomat of great order, Qassem Suleimani, traveled to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace
mission?" he said."
Pompeo, the United States Secretary of State, conducts foreign policy by
humiliating, censoring, and promoting lies about sovereign leaders. What's the purpose of the United
Nations if leaders of nation-states are prohibited from speaking and stating their case. If the public
is only permitted to hear "one" side of an issue, isn't that the definition of propaganda. Of course,
Pompeo would deny that Suleimani was on a diplomatic mission, inasmuch, to admit otherwise would
reveal the assassination of Suleimani as an especially despicable war crime.
It's unfortunate, that if a nation-state challenges US imperialism they're characterized as not a
sovereign state but as a terrorist regime. And if military leaders from these nation-states ensure the
stability of their country by destroying ISIS and Al-Qaeda these generals are deemed terrorists. We
live in a world where reality has been turned on its end, and is upside down.
So far, the US is extremely lucky that Iran's retaliation for the murder of Sulaimani has been
limited. Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister stated:
"Iran took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter
targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched
Tuesday. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."
Now the ball is the Buffoon's court of neoconservative screwballslet's see if these warmongers can
refrain from escalating this crisis, or will they continue to lead the US down the road to another
military debacle. One that makes the Iraq War look like child's play.
Below is a link citing the anti-war demonstrations organized and held by Codepink On Thursday,
January 9, at 5 p.m.
https://www.codepink.org/01
Tallis Marsh
,
Some people have touched on this subject in other articles/website forums, but can I ask a
'controversial' question? How many dual-passport military bigwigs occupy
intelligence/foreign-policy/military positions in the USA/UK/France etc as well as Iran, Iraq etc? Is
it anti-semitic now to ask these questions? It is okay to ask about 'Russians' so-called infiltration
and subversion but not Israelis?
People here may have heard of Victor Ostrovsky and his books, By Way of Deception and The Other
side of Deception where he details on many aspects of subversion, co-option etc e.g.how the sayanim
network that aids mossad infiltrates top powerful positions in Embassies, intelligence agencies,
military policy-maker dept and even medicine/charity orgs etc?
David Macilwain
,
I think we may just be playing the Americans' game by discussing the legality of the assassination of
the hero of the Resistance; it's like discussing whether water-boarding is a legitimate interrogation
technique on a six-year old girl.
The point of the killing was nothing to do with what Soleimani had done or was about to do, but
evidently the one thing that Israel and the US knew Iran must respond to, so as to provide a pretext
for an attack on Iranian territory and of course it now has launched such an attack, before another
state does it for them.
We might imagine that the US and other forces illegally occupying bases in Iraq, and everywhere else
in the region, will now feel unable to operate without threat of attack from multiple unidentified
sources. The mere fact that the missiles actually hit the Ain al Asaad base could be a wake-up call,
particularly if there is evidence US forces were hit.
But of course the killing of Soleimani was
neither justifiable nor legitimate, so Iran's designation of the US army as a terrorist organisation
is, and it is now open season.
Leaving religious, organized delusions aside to which I count all major religions, especially
Hypochristianity Iran has excelled in reason and resolve.
Do not fuck around with Iran any longer.
Donald Trump and his sub-cogniscent advisers on the other hand need to go and fuck themselves.
Using the same methods on each other they have used to destroy a free and independent Iran since the
great People of Iran kicked the fascist western regimes out of Iran.
Like Lybia, Syria, Bolivia and Venezuela, the government is FOR the People, not against them.
Anybody, or anyone with better ideas than those Iran has utilized since 1979? Anybody? I thought so.
Because there are assholes among them corrupt, rich Iranian maggots that prefer the Trump model
who complain about how the revolution took away the freedom to exploit and to corrupt, while it is
them that have Julain Assange locked away like a Chimpanzee in a Nazi laboratory.
No, what happened oddly though in conjunction with a prophecy by Edgar Casey is, that the whole
sane world can see that America has become a drug addicted cheap whore who will do anything to get her
fix.
America needs mandatory psychoanalysis and not the reciting of the pledge of allegiance. In
Teheran, millions not one, or two, like in a 'Love Parade' no, five million real Iranian People
filling the streets. What a shame in the face of the fucking Trump regime assholes. Fuck them all.
Impeach the entire heap of shit and bring them before a court of justice. In Teheran.
Iran as the descendant of one of the greatest Empires ever to rule the region proved itself
worthy of its great history. It shlashed the Gordian knot today. The terroristic murder of Lt. General
Soleimani has indeed changed everything. Everything. It is now out in the open that ISIS/Daesh was
created and funded by wetsern fascist regimes under the lead of the U.S., Israel, SA et al. The people
that killed innocent civilians, cut heads off before cameras, putting women and children in cages,
destroying important cultural sites in the region were and still are paid for by the U.S. tax payer
and that makes every U.S. et al citizen an accomplice in the 'WAR OF TERROR'. You paid for the murder
of the one person that defeated the US TERROR GROUPS. He helped Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to fend
off the terroristic assault of the fascist western regimes.
ISIS'R'US.
So, leaving the general religious thing aside, Iran has torn down the wall of hypocrisy the west is
surrounding itself with. Alliances will now be made and others will crumble and vanish. Saudi Arabia
is looking at its last days. The Palestiniancaust and genocide in Yemen will not continue.
Iran has shown that it is capable of defending the truth against the fascist western regimes.
To those who do not want to stop killing innocent women, mothers and children, the elderly and
defenseless:
Cease and desist your murderous activities in order not to get killed.
Long live Iran.
Bless its People who have shown the pathetic public in the west what UNITY really means. (Not to
discredit the work of countless groups to change things to the better.) But the equivalent would be
300 million Americans weeping in the streets over the loss of their most beloved General.
Go Humanity! Now or never!
Frank Speaker
,
You touch on some valid points, but you ignore there's a huge difference between most Iranians and
the fundamentalist nutjobs who rule over them. Similar to the USA in many respects.
andyoldlabour
,
The thing is Frank, I know only too well (from my relatives in Iran) how a lot of ordinary
Iranians still feel about the Shah, about UK/US/French imperialism. They and Iraq have been
attacked quite a few times over the past hundred years by US/UK (along with Russia). There is
still raw evixdence of chemical weapons victims from the Iran Iraq war.
They area very proud people, 98% Shia, and will come together as one if attacked, just as they
did back in 1980, when Saddam Hussein backed by the USA attacked them.
nottheonly1
,
While I am certainly not a friend of any organized religion, to call them 'fundamental nutjobs'
gives away the brainwashing program that has achieved this result.
Pence, Pompeo et
evangelical al are the real 'fundamental nutjobs'. They kill Muslims by the thousands. And have
no regard at all for anybody that does not match their christojudeo-fascist world view.
TFS
,
SpartUSA and its friends in low places, Saudi Arabia, Israel and its Western Allies love giving names
to things when they 'Export Democracy ' around the World, like Operation Enduring Freedom.
Cannot
the alternative Blogosphere come up with a similar banner as a push back to the Rogue State of
SpartUSA?
How About:
1. Operation Jog On!
Harry Stotle
,
One of the avenues Iran could pursue is the legality of the assassination.
It is high time the question of whether or not the US is above international law was finally
confronted.
The extra-judicial murder of General Soleimani brings this issue to the heart of international
affairs: if there is no legal redress for Iran then it more or less makes a mockery of the idea that
justice is possible in a world dominated by terror states.
andyoldlabour
,
Whilst I agree with the core message of your post Harry, I would have to draw the conclusion that
the US has put themselves above and out of the reach of international law.
Drone attacks and civilian deaths all over the World, 80 years of coups, assassinations and wars,
shooting down civilian airliners (USS Vincennes and IranAir flight 655), torture.
Then you only have to Google "Hague Invasion Act"
Andy you're right, but it now needs to be legally formally addressed at the UN and other courts
every time the US violates international law. Time and again. Over years it might make an
impact, at least to isolate the them.
andyoldlabour
,
Frank, unfortunately I believe that the UN is merely a New York based vassal of the US. How
many sanctions have ever been placed on the US or it's little friend Israel for their obvious
war crimes?
I have been saying for many years that the HQ of the UN should not be in the US.
BigB
,
It's a war crime, Harry! I notice Binoy, the UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard, and you refrain from
calling it out. Pre-crime violates every judicial principle known. There has to be a crime for a
verdict let alone an execution. This is the enactment of "Minority Report" Phildickian criminal
injustice thinking.
Pre-emptive Justice has been American foreign policy since at least Bush the Lesser Evil. Along
with R2P which defecated on Westphalia Peace Treaty principles this violated the London
Agreement (Nuremberg Principles) which are supposedly the foundation of modern IHL.
So, let's take our pick for pre-emptive murder war crime, crime against the peace, or crime
against humanity?
So Trump gets a rap from the Rapporteur: where do we try this most obvious of crimes? The ICC,
ICJ, or a kangaroo UN Tribunal where precisely no American will ever show up because they are
legally exempt and immune. Agnes' rap is not worth waiting for, I'm sorry to say. The UN is
complicit and as toothless as the old imperialist League of Nations that carved up the Middle East
to cause these problems.
On the rare occasion the UN has produced a truthful report ie calling Israel an apartheid
state that report has been recalled and shredded before you can say "Try Netanyahu!". You know
the score.
Iran has exacted the only Justice it can in this lawless Wild West Justice of the Gun
international anti-diplomacy "free"market-power world. I'd love to share your sentiment, but that
world was eclipsed when America turned its back on the ICC circa Nicaragua. If Agnes can pull it
back, I'm with her all the way. Also, I'm not holding my breath!
Everything the Nazis did is now neoliberal foreign policy.
Guy
,
I hear you and I agree with the gist of what you are saying but let me suggest that even though
the UN is toothless and the rogue US establishment continue with their cowboy rampage over any
nation that does not kneel to it's demands ,it is especially important that the criminal actions
of this out of control regime be documented for historical purposes . Lets face it it ,right now
the United Nations is the best and only body of an international politic that we have to do so.
This is what they are so scared about .The truth .
TFS
,
I see two options:
1. Make the relevant International Organisations do their job, although the
UN, OPCW, ICC and the like are soemwhat neutered. And if not, stop paying for them, they are a PR
exercise.
2. Act like a Democracy, where the people hold those in account to power. Boycott SpartUSA would
be my choice.
As a Brexiteer, I partially understand why people jumped ship from Jeremy Corbyn, but Brexit was
never about Brexit, it was about killing Jeremy. The EU feared Jeremy more than anything, and when
we lost him, the country lost a counter to the Imperial machinations of SpartUSA, the EU and NATO
and their friends in low places in the MiddleEast.
I would suggest a third option, Operation Patriot Resolve.
In it, the alternative blogosphere works with ex members of the UK Armed Forces, and forces the
UK government to release all the supporting evidence of Article V (I think), which supported the
invasion of Afghanistan. We can ask Lord Robertson for his substantial input into the evidence he
held. It must be voluminous, given the Offical Report into 9/11; Offical Conspiracy Theory is so
highly regarded.
TFS
,
There is a term for different legal treatment based on status, called Affluenza.
Maybe a new term
needs to be used for the West selective interpreations of various laws. Maybe Rogue State/Regime
will suffice.
noseBag
,
Harry, whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with your sentiment, I fear the definition of being under
threat of 'imminent' attack is so broad and vague that the Yanks will be able to claim legality.
However, The Saker makes for some very interesting reading regarding likely/possible fallout from
this action, none of which looks good for the Yanks, or for that matter, anyone allied to them.
Harry Stotle
,
In answer to my own question, I think Iran has about as much chance of receiving justice for the
murder of Qasem Soleimani as Julian Assange does for revealing war crimes.
In answer to BB
apologies for not being clear yes, I think this is a war crime.
I was just alluding to the fact terror inflicted by Britain and the USA is never defined as such
(in a court of law) quite the opposite, many of the architects, such as Tony Blair grew rich on
the back of the misery they authored.
This profound legal failing is one of the reasons the neocons keep getting away with it.
In theory Iran has a strong case, one that has been already backed up by the UN rapporteur on
extra-judicial killings, but it will be hard for them to escape a sense of futility that pervades
any attempt to investigate the machinations of the US deep state.
For example, and as most of us on Off-G already know, the American authorities have steadfastly
refused to properly investigate what happened on 9/11, presumably because a meaningful
investigation would reveal a long list of uncomfortable truths?
While in Britain we had the long-winded and expensive charade of Chilcot many knew from the
outset that it was a waste of time and money, and that no actor would have be held to account for
the bloodbath that ensued in Iraq, even though the whole thing was built on a pack of lies and led
to the mysterious death of Britains foremost weapons inspector.
GEOFF
,
And these dumbfucks in this country can't wait to be part of the evil empire, I would never knowingly
buy anything from warmongering evil America, or Israel, I see hairy arse Johnson is making it illegal
for councils to boycott the other evil country, Israel , I only wish I was younger , I would get out
of this shithole tomorrow.
Francis Lee
,
The real dumbfucks are the Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Estonians who are pro-US and EU
fanatics. Oh and I forgot about another neoliberal EU basket case, Sweden. The US calls the shots
in the EU, primarily through corralling in the Petainist riff-raff into NATO.
Dungroanin
,
And by the way ss we move into a hot war where exactly is our LauraKoftheCIA?
Not a peep since her splurge on 19th December topped of with:
'Right then twitter, that's it from me
til next year Happy Christmas one and all see you on the other side (follow
@BBCPolitics
and
@BBCNews
if you want to keep up, or sit on your sofa and eat Quality Street and come back in 2020)
Laura Kuenssberg
19 Dec 2019
Hard time of year for a lot of folks. Suicide Hotline 116 123 (Samaritans) A simple copy and paste
might save someone's life.
Would 3 Twitter friends please copy this text and post under their own name? Pass it on
Laura Kuenssberg
19 Dec 2019
-- -- -- -
My guess is at the same site as bozo as they were briefed on the next phase.
Their role for the Pathocracy and getting their stories rehearsed I expect her to move into Downing
Street as the official press officer!
Presumably they will have been getting their inoculation flu jab which has just been unleashed as
zillions of chinese take to the air for their new year intermingling with the zillions of westerners
sun seeking crisscrossing the planet.
This world war will not be fought with the outdated nuclear weapons they have better plans to get
rid of us pesky revolters, and shiny multicoloured tellytubby suits as demo'd in Salisbury to clear
away the dead and take all our possessions.
How long before the internet shutdown?
Dungroanin
,
For these dumb yankee doodle yahoos and Brit donkeys who still don't understand the significance
imagine if General Washington had been assassinated by King George for having won in the revolution,
how would the proto yanks have taken that then and still now 200 years later.
US can't claim they couldn't have got to him without using drones.
.
A Ukrainian Boeing Jet appears to have dropped out of the sky on fire after leaving Tehran
.
A new flu type seems to have kicked off in China just as zillions are traveling for newyear.
-- --
As a large percentage of middleclass westerners travel to sunny paradises of SE Asia and Caribbean
at this time of year they may not be traveling back!
TFS
,
People need to be hit the general public with the OPCW chemical evidence whilst this is playing out as
another example of the West lying to bomb another soveriegn country, and make sure people know that
the impartiality of the OPCW and the UN has been neutered.
Of course, the next stage, a step on from
awareness is to hit SpartUSA where it hurts them the most. They are kinda of attached to The
Benjamins, and are fond of Sanctions, ask Madeliene Albright.
The people of Amerika need to remember that when they vote in the up-and-coming Presidential election
they are voting for democracy! Not the kind of democracy that other countries have, such as Iraq who
just voted for Amerika to leave their country. But the kind of democracy that has to be created by
force. The type of none representative democracy which furthers economic exploitation. It comes as no
surprise that Amerika has allies in waiting otherwise known as vassals. Just ask the Eaton Mess and
his Galfriend as Old Blighty soon to be renamed Cor-Blimey is about to be forced to nationalise the
railways (shurely a socialist concept ed?). Also ask Macron as a national strike grips France. "No",
you will hear the media shills shrill, "It's the international rules based democratic order".
MichaelK
,
I heard a journalist stating with some 'authority' that the US attack couldn't be defined as
'terrorism', because it was carried out by a democratic state. Apparently, the actions and leaders of
'democratic states' cannot be guilty of carrying out 'terrorism.'
Normally, after 'real terrorist'
attacks occur, that is, violence directed against us and our interests and allies, if members of the
public raise their fists and express joy and enthusiastic support for the 'evil terrorists', such
feelings and utterances land them in extremly hot water with the authorities as vocal support for
terrorist outrages is illegal and can easily lead to them being prosecuted under anti-terrorism
legislation.
But things are different when 'we' are the ones using 'terrorism' against our enemies, then,
suddenly, the laws are applied, or not applied, in a radicaly different way.
Dungroanin
,
Iran is a democratic state as much as any.
We have seen how our democracy is a sham with the postal vote rigging of the election and the
referendum.
It stopped Corbyn by direct self admitted foreign government gauntlet and is delivering the hard
brexit that ONLY benefits the ancient City and it's masters.
They are on the retreat and like the confederacy they are burning Atlanta
David Macilwain
,
While this is certainly true, it's difficult to think of a case where forces allied to the
Resistance have actually been responsible for a terrorist attack. One might need to return to the
time of the Palestinian Intifada, where suicide bombers certainly terrorised Israelis even for a
just cause. Any suggestions? Not only does the "war on terror" appear to be contrived and
concocted, but its evident acts seem always to be false flags, and always serving the interests of
those that the attacks are supposed to be against.
Guy
,
War on terror is an oxymoron. War is terror David as I am sure you already know . Leave it to
the CIA and or neocons to come up with such a stupid slogan .
Cheers.
Guy
,
The Western media pundits are using mental contortions to rationalize the impossible and looking
extremely foolish for doing so.It's kind of like digging your own grave .
richard le sarc
,
An awful lot of Judeofascists and other Zionist and Talmudic psychopaths seem very happy about this
cowardly murder. But they are, after all, the world champions of cowardly murders of any who dare 'get
in our way'. It is a religious observance, a mitzvah, after all.
George Mc
,
"Judeofascists"? Surely "Zionazis" is more appropriate?
MASTER OF UNIVE
,
Macroeconomic decoupling is occurring and Trump's gambit for irrational war management via threats &
intimidation on an international/geopolitical level is not only an outright act of war but it is
testament to the desperation that Trump finds himself in pre-election. Trump has already indicated
that he will do anything to keep the DOW inflated irrationally at ever increasing nosebleed levels he
can push it to even if it means meddling in Federal Reserve independence and undermining confidence in
the central bank authority.
Trump is a one man central banking Military Industrial Complex war
machine set on autopilot without vision outside of controlling everything from the interest rate
benchmark set by central banks to the G7 trade deals and Russian Federation gas deals, and everything
in between.
Trump has to be the center of attention every single day of the week & twice on Sundays. He
twitterbombed Greta the climate teen to appropriate her limelight as the Davos elite rolled her out
onstage.
Trump bombed strategically for the presidential plaudits that never materialized because he leapt
to an erroneous conclusion & misperceived that everyone else in the world is not viewing it from an
oval office desk like he is. Immediately following the outrage the rationalizations came forth from
the White House that their target was for the good of the nation when in fact everyone knows it was
for Trump's impression management.
Trump likely made the decision unilaterally and the world is just not being made aware of that.
Fortunately, the Democrats see his departure from protocol as a war crime also. Trump is not
experienced enough to stay the course any longer given that he must have acted unilaterally to cause
the bombing assassination without due diligence from his advisers taking place. When the Democrats
press the issue with Congress it will become an issue that Trump used the state to murder for purposes
of leveraged deal making.
MOU
Francis Lee
,
"Trump is a one man central banking Military Industrial Complex war machine set on autopilot."
Pretty good! I like it.
Martin Usher
,
Its interesting to speculate about why these people were murdered. Pompero's explanations have a
distinct yellowcake feel to them -- "We know what we're doing, trust us" sort of thing. The
Administration has zero credibility except among the faithful here in the US. I suspect the real
reason could be a combination of two factors. One is that whenever there's any danger of peace
breaking out in the Middle East it gets spoiled and invariably there something or someone Israeli at
the bottom of it. The leaders killed were particularly dangerous precisely because they're not hot
heads, they develop policies in a rational manner and are instrumental in keeping wayward elements
under control. This is the kind of ME leader that is feared by Israel -- they need a disorganized
rabble without the gates (one that's preferably fighting among itself) so that they can keep their
internal politics under control. The other factor is Trump is susceptible to anything that appeals to
his vanity, especially if its one-up against Obama. There's already been the claim that this was a
proper response, unlike Benghazi. (..and apparently ISIS is an Obama creation .) So I could see a
situation where a back channel suggestion is whispered into an ear, orders are given, people are
killed and we have to deal with the consequences.
I just hope that the Isranians and Iraqis are
sophisticated enough to provide a measured response. I thought the Iraqi lawmakers' response was
perfect -- the US has breached the terms of the agreement by which its supposed to be in that country
so it should leave. (Trump's response is more typical of his responses -- bluster about sanctions and
threaten the Iraqis with a bill for an airbase.)
lundiel
,
Strictly speaking, ISIS is a CIA creation under the Obama administration. I draw your attention to
the shiploads of Libyan weapons delivered to international jihadists in Syria by way of Turkey.
Along with John McCain's close association with Prince Bandar of KSA (Before he was chopped-up
because Saudi finance became common knowledge and the beast got out of control). It's interesting
to note that Obama, a democrat, used McCain, a neocon hawk as his middle east special envoy. Not
that Trump has changed much, he can't, he's not in control.
Antonym
,
Correction:
Strictly speaking, ISIS was a CIA creation under their
Obama fig leaf
Guy
,
You gotta hand it to Trump for coming up with such stupid shit as ,we will not leave until you pay
us for the costs of building a base in your country. LOL I almost busted a gut laughing at the
stupidity of the guy saying this .
Consider that I break into your house and make a mess of things , help myself to the food in the
fridge , not to mention your wife and daughters if I took a liking to them , leave all the dirty
laundry lying around after a week or so and will not leave .In order to accept leaving the premises
, you must pay me .Pay me whatever I ask .
This is how stupid and absurd this charade no minds is descending into .
Somebody stop the world ,I want to get off.
Antonym
,
Even JFK's assassination didn't upset the Anglo military industrial complex's apple cart, and he was
a good guy. QS wasn't and his death won't change much. Donald Trump's might turn out to be more
disrupting
Perp all the same: T-Rex CIA, NOT the mossad mosquito however much Zionphobes wish it
to.
richard le sarc
,
'QS' was a saint compared to the psychopathic butchers who run Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Israeli
colony known as the USA.
andyoldlabour
,
How many deaths were Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Bush x 2, Clinton, Obama and Trump responsible for
compared to QS?
Multiple United States targets hit by missiles in Iraq, including Ayn Asad Airbase and Al Taji
coalition base north of Baghdad.
No news on casualties yet. This response was expected, but the $64 million dollar question is how hard
will the nutters in Washington respond? And what of the 6 B-52 bombers that have just been sent to
Diego Garcia?
And news just in of a second wave of missiles directed at US targets.
Trump, Pompeo, Esper . You are reaping what You sowed. Total wackjobs.
This is deeply disturbing .
richard le sarc
,
Nothing would work better than closing Hormuz, and destroying Saudi oil installations. That would
be a seismic shock to US economic hegemony.
Very unconfirmed reports there may have been up to 80 United States personnel killed in the
missile attacks on Ayn Assad Airbase today.
This could be fake news tho?
That's appeared on Vanessa Beeley's Facebook page as well as a guy called Laith Marouf, and
Press TV has just been reported as 'breaking news' that "there were casualties".
Tellingly, no other independent sites have been reporting this (so far)
And Trumpf is tweeting 'all is well'.
Don't expect the truth from Team USA, or the retarded presstitutes.
Duh What a dumb thing to say. Of course not.
I still believe United States will respond to the Iranian missile strikes. Can you imagine
Pompeo or Esper going 'okay, all good, we're all even now' after today.
I can't.
If things do take off, closing the Straits Of Hormuz would be one of the very first options for
Iran. And then watch the panic in the 'civilised, democratic, freedom loving' West when the
economy starts imploding.
This was the first question of the day, mind you. When asked about specific threats,
they won't say, other to claim the threats were against "American diplomats, American military
personnel, and American – facilities that house Americans" in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria. When
asked if allies had been notified of these attacks, or what is meant by "imminent threats,"
officials said they couldn't elaborate because that would be revealing "sources and methods."
When asked why there had been no information about the dead American contractor in the Dec.27
militia strike on the Iraqi base
that touched this all off, one of the three state department officials said, "I haven't
asked, and I don't know."
Their real imperiousness comes when a reporter presses officials to explain their repeated
suggestions that the Jan. 3 strike against Soleimani was at once well-deserved after Iran's
"violent and expansionist foreign policy," a response to the breach of the U.S. embassy last
week, and a preemptive action to stop Soleimani's planned attacks, for which we still
have no detailed information.
QUESTION: The decision to take him out wasn't necessarily a way of removing this
– [Senior State Department Official One], the threat that you were talking about in
these different countries and these different facilities – but it's a way to mitigate
it in the future? I'm just --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: It slows it down. It makes it less --
QUESTION: Since we don't know what the threat is – okay, that's what I was
--
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: It slows it down. It makes it less likely.
It's shooting down Yamamoto in 1942. Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Ouch.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: Go look that up.
QUESTION: Yes, you do.
Most tellingly, the officials pushed back hard not only against the suggestion that this was
an "assassination" of a government official, but that Iran is a legitimate country at all,
protected by any international norms or laws:
We are, again, denying them the fiction that this is some Westphalian country that has,
like, a conventional defense ministry and a standard president and a foreign minister. It's a
regime with clerical and revolutionary oversight that seeks to dominate the Middle East and
beyond. You've heard me say this is a kleptocratic theocracy. And you look at the people of
Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, are all rejecting the Iranian model at the same time.
So if the U.S. does not recognize your form of government -- does this include the Communist
Party of China? -- you are fair game?
In its reporting this weekend, The Daily Beast found that the President was talking about a
"big" response to events on the ground in Iraq with his inner circle at Mar-a-Lago five days
before Soleimani's killing.
Those Mar-a-Lago guests received more warning about Thursday's attack than Senate staff
did, and about as much clarity. A classified briefing on Friday, the first the administration
gave to the Hill, featured broad claims about what the Iranians were planning and little
evidence of planning to bring about the "de-escalation" the administration says it wants.
According to three sources either in the room or told about the discussion, briefers from
the State Department, Pentagon, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
claimed that killing Soleimani was designed to block Iranian plans to kill "hundreds" or even
thousands of Americans in the Mideast. That would be a massive escalation from the recent
attack patterns of Iran and its regional proxies, who tend to kill Americans in small numbers
at a time.
After this display, it is clear that the "trust us" argument is going to prevail until
lawmakers start demanding more, including legal justification for the strikes. There was no
hint of an answer, of course, in the state department briefing:
QUESTION: The Secretary talked about this as being wholly legal. I wonder if you
can just explain the legal justification of the killing.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: You're going to have to talk to the
lawyers.
No one expects satisfaction from these briefings but getting slapped around as the rest
of the country is wondering if we are on the brink of war is the height of audacity, even for a
government that has proven over the last 18 years that it cares nothing about whether the
American people believe them or not.
So, Iran government is illegitimate, same as the Chinese government which is ruled by CCP.
They would all be legitimate targets. Russian government is rather just nationalist and
probably that is bad too.
It is likely that no direct attacks are carried against Chinese or Russian leaders
because of retaliation. It is good that the new hyper-sonic Russian missiles can strike US
in less than 30 minutes with great accuracy, being able to hit particular individuals. Let
us hope that those missiles and Russian defense systems will start flooding the market...
Will then US start using nukes?
Maybe as soon as deployed in Ukraine where they can strike Moscow with only six minutes'
warning, leaving no alternative but a retaliating revenge strike of "launch on warning."
That's the only reason the North Korean government is still in place, because they can
punch back. The Kim family learned that lesson from Iraq and Libya, and Syria has just
reinforced it.
I wonder how many Europeans now realize the folly, the sheer stupidity, of supporting or
just passively accepting US and NATO military intervention in the Middle East and North
Africa, and that whatever refugee crisis has hit Europe originates from those wars of
aggression? Probably the same proportion of Americans who realize that American policies in
Latin America help "push" millions of Latin Americans to migrate to the U.S. illegally: too
damn few.
Brad DeLong had the greatest and shortest comment about the Catholic scandals (and the same
for all other churches): "Don't these people believe in God?".
If the media wish to question the transparency and accountability of government, then they
need to be consistent in their efforts regardless of which party is in power. While
certainly, media political bias has always underlain its motivations and guided its
efforts, never has it so openly dominated their entire focus in the relentless pursuit of
one overarching objective. This, in turn, has led it to be viewed as simply an organ of
political propaganda for one particular political party and it is thereby no longer able to
muster the public support required to demand that government, particularly the federal
bureaucracy, be responsive to inquiries into policy development and implementation. It
should then come as no surprise that the mainstream media has become a tool of manipulation
and obfuscation for the government's continued campaign to dominate and figuratively
disenfranchise the will of the People. The only outlier here is the Trump Administration
and its failure to play the game. Once we have gotten past that, one way or another, it
will be back to business as usual.
I strongly suspect that you need to diversify your assortment of media sources.
If you don't recognize that If Trump had his way, all media everywhere would kiss his butt
and lie for him and sing his praises. That is what he demands of his associates and the
GOP, and they do. Just look objectively at Lindsay Graham's conduct in the perspective of
the past 20 years.
As a commenter on National Review posted yesterday. Be good to Trump, and he will be good
too you. Please remind Michael Cohen, Manafort and the other convects who were good to
Trump, and Trump was not so good to them in return.
The mainstream media has been pro-intervention under Democratic and Republican presidents,
and parrots the lies of the State Departments, no matter the party in the White House (see
Venezuela under Bush, Obama and Trump, Honduras under Obama, and Bolivia under Trump).
In economic policy, the mainstream media is relentlessly pro-establishment, liberal
pundits often as much or more so than conservative ones, from teachers unions (until
rank-and-file teachers fought back, and forced a change in the narrative) to privatization
and deregulation.
Social policy is the only area where the mainstream media is truly liberal, because that
hits many journalists where they live, so to speak. And even there, at least until
recently, they usually preach moderation and going slow, as veterans of the civil rights,
feminist and LGBT movements could recount from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's (and probably
later, too, but I am less in tune with the modern movements).
The Trump ADMINISTRATION plays the game. The fact that its leader is so...Trumpian is
the only reason his administration is an outlier.
The Yamamoto thing is funny, since he was actually against war with the US (he thought,
correctly, that they couldn't win) and only plotted the Pearl Harbor attack when forced to
by his superiors.
The Yamamoto thing is funny, since the US was actually in a declared state of war at the
time of his "targeted killing". What is not funny is a US "press corpse" constitutionally -
sic - unable to ask that simple question right away:
QUESTION: Are you saying the US is officially at war with Iran at this time?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: No.
QUESTION: You said: 'It's shooting down Yamamoto in 1942'. Is that just bullshit?
What's overriding is the huge profits to be made through expanding wars, along with the
policies being crafted for the United States in a highly influential Mideast country with
collusion by Americans whose loyalties are not primarily American.
What rubbish. It wasn't "our leaders" who launched this assassination -- it was *your* hero
in the endless War Against The Deep State. Before that he trashed the JCPOA, which very
much *was* the creation of some of "our leaders", and was a serious, adult attempt to steer
away from the disaster that we're looking at now.
But it's no fun to look at actual history, actual events. It's much more satisfying to
dabble in sweeping, vacuous claims, eh?
The reality, outside your TDS bubble, is that war with Iran is very much a bipartisan
project. You have to realize that the Deep State's neocons largely defected to the
Democrats last election when Trump was the only one who dared criticize the endless
unwinnable wars. There isn't a President since 1988 who didn't start or expand never ending
wars and who didn't lie knowingly about it. There is a small Mideast nation with outsized
influence over policy in this country, with political leaders here who have dual loyalties
or even primary loyalties to it, along with major billionaire donors to both parties. Both
parties removed any restraint on action against Iran in the recent monster military bill
they passed. All are beholden to the war industries which make unimaginable enormous
profits from never ending warfare. So it appears that whatever war is chosen this year to
be the "good war," as with Obama and Hillary about Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, and which
the "bad", that the trajectory of war profits must increase. It was our leader Obama who
extended the use of drones to execution from afar, "extrajudicial killing," creating the
assassination by drone policy no longer considered controversial or immoral, with his "Kill
Tuesday" sessions. Nor did he actually end torture or close Guantanamo.
Nothing conservative about war. Conservatives have lost every war. Big time. Not just
politically but culturally. There were all sorts of stories about women becoming tramps
during WWII. And look how it was used to advance feminism. We would not be in this
degenerate state if not for US involvement in WWII.
War mongers seem to universally believe that they know how the war that they instigate will
unfold. They are in fact delusional. Starting a war is rolling the dice in profoundly
dangerous and wicked ways. The Iraq invasion and occupation is a great example.
George Bush made the 1st roll of the dice at the neo-cons instigation (Only Buchanan
demurred) and then Barack Obama took his turn at the Middle East table. Now President Trump
has the dice.
The legitimate government argument is one that the Trump administration should maybe not
make. After all, it could be argued that he has not been elected in a democratic way, that
he, his family and associates as well as parts of his cabinet have financially profited
from being in power. Moreover, one could very well claim that the US are seeking to
dominate the Middle East.
"The legitimate government argument is one that the Trump administration should maybe not
make. After all, it could be argued that he has not been elected in a democratic way..."
Is the line of argumentation here to be that the election of a president into office by
the electoral college, without having won the popular vote, should be deemed "not
democratic?" Or, is it to be some allegation that the electoral college itself is "not
democratic," and that only direct consultation of the electorate can be considered "truly"
democratic?
The poor vulnerable US forces are not in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya or anywhere else to
help the populations, and are now targets for any Iranian or Iraqi retaliation.
Seventeen intelligence agencies and these guys can't come up with even one shred of
credible evidence in support of these "threats." Gawd help America.
We are, again, denying them the fiction that this is some Westphalian country that has,
like, a conventional defense ministry and a standard president and a foreign minister. It's
a regime with clerical and revolutionary oversight that seeks to dominate the Middle East
and beyond. You've heard me say this is a kleptocratic theocracy.
Ah, of course, you mean like Saudis and Israel, right?
Re PCR's latest linked article (post 133.
What PCR is insisting Putin do ("The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to
announce that Iran is under Russia's protection.")Putin has already done so in a landmark
speech last year when he unveiled five or six game-changing weapons, or was it 2018.
He declared back then to the evil empire that a nuclear attack on an ally would be considered
an attack upon Russia. He made this crystal clear. Of course it wouldn't hurt for him to
'gently' remind them of this.
I do have to say, the silence from the Russians is odd. Even when you read the Russian
Foreign Ministry's news releases.
For instance, there's this on January 4th:
" On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign
Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter's
initiative. " (italics mine).
So Lavrov talked to an Iranian official only on January 4th, and the call came from Iran
(Zarif), not the other way around. This is odd, and even the explicit
mentioning of Zarif initiating the call --to me-- seems odd.
Hmm...
On Monday, as the meeting ended, several ministers transmitted Netanyahu's declaration
distancing Israel from the Soleimani hit.
"The assassination of Soleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were
not involved and should not be dragged into it," he said, according to Israeli news
outlets.
Netanyahu backs away from Soleimani assassination, warns ministers to ' stay out' of
purely 'American event
.'
Does the word 'backpedaling' ring a bell, Bibi?
You'll reap what you sow, oh grand Master of Conception. I sincerely hope it'll be an
abundant and infinite harvest. And, of course, mazel tov, ol' boy. You're gonna need it by
the bushel
On the previous thread, jared | Jan 6 2020 12:32 utc | 230, posted:
"Iran is already proclaiming it will proceed with unconstrained uranium enrichment - a act
which is both pointless and counter productive."
A huge amount of Iran's nuclear waste from the years of enriching uranium has been used to
create depleted uranium warheads such as the U.S. uses on its Hellfire and other missiles.
These are typically one-ton warheads, about 99% uranium, and ignite on contact (uranium is
pyrophoric -- it burns) and burn at up to 6,000°C. They can penetrate a good thirty
meters of prestressed concrete in less than a second and incinerate everything in the
vicinity.
The (depleted) uranium anti-tank rounds used in the 1991 war against Iraq were five
kilograms (11 pounds) and could zip through two or three tanks. When the Americans went
inside the tanks later on, they found the Iraqis' bodies turned to black dust. Occasionally,
the bodies were intact, in position, but they crumbled to dust when touched. The American
troops called them "crispy critters".
ALL the American military who entered those tanks or worked on them afterward became sick
with all sorts of horrible illnesses triggered by radiation poisoning.
The one ton of uranium in a bunker buster results in one ton of powder, much of it
microscopic. Inhaled, a single microscopic particle of 2.5 microns deposited in an alveol
cavity of the lung contains come 210 billion uranium atoms. Uranium spits out alpha
particles, which don't travel far (an inch at most, usually), but they are the most powerful
force in our universe. That single particle irradiates, permanently, a sphere of up to 350
lung cells.
The military in Iraq were inhaling millions (billions!) of those particles. Those who
haven't died yet are deathly ill.
Israel's anti-missile defenses are not what they are claimed to be. Just a few of those
bunker busters delivered into Tel Aviv or West Jerusalem would contaminate it
permanently.
Israel cannot afford the loss of such territory. (In the United States, the Jefferson
Proving Ground where most of the testing was done, was offered to the National Park Service
as a wild-life refuge to be off limits in order to protect its biodiversity. The offer was
turned down. The site is now off limits, designated a national sacrifice zone...) And Iran
has the missiles with the accuracy necessary to make such hits.
Thus, every suspected Iranian missile storage location must be hit simultaneously. Israel
does not have the means to do that, hence the need to involve in United States in an all-out
colossal attack. This was openly discussed under the George Walker Bush administration until
the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 pulled the rung out from under the
warmongers by openly declaring that Iran had no nuclear program.
Israel used such missiles on south Lebanon in August 2006, so, they know all about this.
The bombing of south Lebanon stopped the day that the south-north wind reversed direction.
The United Nations Environment Program that investigated the missile craters in south Lebanon
found low enriched uranium, the result of mixing the depleted uranium with the enriched
uranium from decommissioned Soviet missiles removed from Ukraine, in a failed attempt to
restore the original isotopic ratio and make it pass for "natural" uranium that, if
discovered, could then be claimed to have been in the ground and turned up by the
bombing.
The entire assault on mountains and caves of Tora Bora in southeast Afghanistan in
2001-2002 was a bunker buster testing program. Canadian researchers found uranium-induced
radioactivity all over, but they were silenced by death threats and some roughing up.
So, Iran does not need a nuclear arsenal, for it has developed an equally good deterrent
on the cheap. Israel knows this, the various intelligence services know this, some people in
the corporate media know this, but if one mentions it, one is immediately told that there is
"no proof".
"Iran is warning that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched
their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai and Haifa," tweeted NBC News Tehran Bureau chief.
https://t.co/ydzIAfEpzk
thanks b.. it is really unfortunate about the loss of those on the plane.. it is a strange
coincidence of timing and a tie in with ukraine is also rather odd...
here is how i look at this.. usa-israel hasn't faked its squeeze on iran which has been
going on for what feels like forever.. usa-israel didn't fake taking out qassem s... the
sanctions on iran continue.. this war on iran will continue.. how could it stop after all
this time? what has changed? nothing has changed in the minds of these sick neo cons..
i share @ James j's comment which i quote here - "The missiles last night is not the
promised retribution ...rather, Iran is keeping focused on the primary goal ...to get the usa
out..." i don't see that it is going to work though...
It seems to me Iran works quite differently then US-Israel... they have provided a warning
so that action last night looked fake and trumps response 'all is well' was fake as he knew
they had been issued an advance warming... but the message is clear.. 'get the fuck
out'..
i also share @ cynica's position in her earlier posts.. the shit here is real.. the world
needs to find a way out of this mess and it won't come from western countries cowtowing to
usa-israels warmonger agenda either...
i don't know what the doofus in command has said today.. it doesn't matter what he says...
usa-israel will not back down.. they want war.. iran responded very diplomatically... i just
don't believe usa-israel are interested in diplomacy, as opposed to war and prep for war.. as
someone said last night - all that money to be made off prep for war, the MIC and etc. etc..
i wish this would end, but i can't see it..
The blowback from Trump's assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani and PMU leader
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is increasing. A scandal is developing as one consequence of Trump's
evil deed after Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi revealed the gangster methods U.S.
President Trump used in his attempts to steal Iraq's oil. ...and a very good essay by Michael
Hudson as appeared on the Saker blog, a fine compliment to this work being done here by
B.
"The initial Iranian response to the assassination of the martyred commander Soleimani has
happened. Now it is time for the initial response to the assassination of the martyred
commander Muhandis. And because Iraqis are brave and zealous, their response will not be
any less than that of Iran's. That is a promise", al-Khazali was quoted as saying.
I endorse this view from Shedlock: Trump is caught bluffing again-Fortunately. Iran's measured response puts Trump in a no
win Scenario
It is difficult to do perception management in a globalized world. Neither the US nor Iran
want full out war, but politically they have to convince their people that they "win", to
justify the cost (and unite, though Trump seems to be incapable of this). Actually, Iran has
an advantage here, because martyrdom or victory, psychologically they can win either way.
They have demonstrated this by the huge - unifying - funerals. They also don't have this
stupid Hollywood good guy bad guy thing or if you want to go into protestant religious
psychology that god will make the good guys win in this world. It is a huge problem as the
reverse perception is that if someone is successful he must be good.
Fact is that Iran has been the first country since WWII to challenge the US directly and not
via proxy. They were rational to do it in a way that leaves the US an off ramp. By warning
beforehand and not killing anybody (officially, I have my doubts about this Ukrainian plane),
they also have the moral high ground.
They managed to make the US stop the escalation. It is quite impressive.
La base de los Estados Unidos en Ayn al-Assad en Irak, bombardeada anoche por Irán,
es la base donde despegaron los drones que asesinaron a Qassem Soleimani y Abu Mahdi al
Muhandis. Así lo informó el corresponsal de guerra
MT> The US base at Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, bombed last night by Iran, is the base where
the drones that killed Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis took off. This was reported
by the war correspondent
I caution Netiyahoo not to crow. His prison time is on the horizon.
China's Global Times has a piece noting Israel gave assistance.
And this editorial: Has the US lost direction in Middle East?
"US national power is on the wane [;/]now considers China as its primary rival and wants
to use its resources from Europe and the Middle East to contain China. If it is so, its
presence in the Middle East will be surely diminished."[./]
After a US drone strike killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, it
was expected that Iran would retaliate. But the way it fought back - launching missiles
against US bases in Iraq - was unexpected. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried
out the mission.
Since Iran did not target US soil, the move cannot be viewed as a declaration of war.
Iran did aim at US troops, but the troops are stationed in Iraq. This showed Tehran is well
aware how far it should go and has left some ground. Iran doesn't want a fierce clash or a
war with the US. As Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif claimed on Wednesday morning after
the attack, the country was taking measures in self-defense. "We do not seek escalation or
war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression," he said. [.]
How should the US react, the White House must be deliberating, because what it does next
may directly determine whether Washington and Tehran would reduce tensions or storm into a
war. Currently, it is the lull before the storm.
US military killed Iran's most powerful military commander on Iraq's soil, which is an act
of state terrorism although the US itself does not think so. [.] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1176167.shtml
The U.S. collapse is not one event. It is a slow, slow process and then the $250 trillion
debt pile goes out with a bang.
/div> The reason the Qiam rocket, a derivation of the nazi A4, is built is
that it is cheap and has the capability to be modified such that the "pay-load" comes in very
fast and within 10 meters of zero-zero-zero. It's not an old rocket. But I assume the Persians
used the oldest first. Inventory managements is vital to logistics and ammunition reliability.
The cheap version is 500 meter accurate at range, but the range was not exteem, so probably
< 500
The reason the Qiam rocket, a derivation of the nazi A4, is built is that it is cheap and has
the capability to be modified such that the "pay-load" comes in very fast and within 10
meters of zero-zero-zero. It's not an old rocket. But I assume the Persians used the oldest
first. Inventory managements is vital to logistics and ammunition reliability. The cheap
version is 500 meter accurate at range, but the range was not exteem, so probably < 500
B, great article. You and Elijah Marnier and a few others are my first go to's for
information as to what is going on on the middle east.
One of my favorite reporters out of Syria said the US abandoned Deir Ezzor oil fields
yesterday leaving the SDF there alone and totally open for Russian and Syrian forces to go in
and to secure. If so this attack would have been well worth it. Obviously, I can't verify it
but do trust the source.
Hezbollah is also well within reach of Israhell and can launch ballistic missiles upon it
should the US attack Iran. People tend to forget that this was not just about Soleimani, but
an entire resistance. His death has just made that resistance much stronger and unified.
The US will have to leave. And soon.
walter@45,ghost_ship@47 believe Iran is using "old stocks".
I respectfully disagree. This is Iran's debut in showing off their technical prowess -
they are trying to scare off the US from escalating the conflict.
IMHO they would make sure the US got the message that they pulled their punches and could
have caused *much* more damage if they wanted to. Using older stock would make sense, but
only after you establish your cred - otherwise, you are sending exactly the wrong message,
the US could read the hit as "gosh, 500m is the best you can do?"
Following up on the end of #78, the point is that it seems very unlikely that the air
defenses would be shut down even if the bases were evacuated. In that case, the success of
the attack (however limited its objectives) shows Iran's ability to penetrate US air defenses
and disable or destroy US air-supremacy infrastructure.
@PavewayIV #75
The US will ALWAYS try to spin this against Iran no matter what. Even if we hear the
captain screaming that he can see the engine is tearing itself apart.
Indeed! If there's one thing the US does all the time, it's spin. But especially with last
night's attack, they're starting to resemble the Talosians of Star Trek, whose seemingly
incredible powers were all, well, illusory.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran's early Wednesday
missile attack on US bases in Iraq following the American assassination of a top general
was just "a slap".
"The talk of revenge and such debates are a different issue. For now, a slap was
delivered on their face last night," Ayatollah Khamenei said in remarks broadcast live on
national television Wednesday.
"What is important about confrontation is that the military action as such is not
sufficient. What is important is that the seditious American presence in the region must
end," he said to chants of "Death to America" by an audience in Tehran.
The threats on how to answer on new US attacks have been issued without a date of
expiry.
It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troups home
or will he run on another Middle East war.
„The Qiam missiles Iran launched are a derivative of the Soviet Scud type. They are
liquid fueled with a warhead of about 700 kilogram. They have a range of some 800 kilometer.
Iran has more capable and precise solid fueled missiles it could have used."
According to Fars news agency 2 of the missiles were of type Fateh313 (solid fueled
– 500km range) the rest were a modified version of Ghiyam (multiple warheads - 800km
range).
„No U.S. air or missile defense against the incoming projectiles was observed."
In spite of public and unofficial announcement by Iran about the attack even short time
ahead, Yankee was not able to repel and defend their modern and costy military base.
According to Fars news agency radar jamming technology were used in this attack.
The attack is over, Trump's reaction is published, but still no one is allowed to enter the
military base.
You are missing the point. An airbase is a huge target with mostly empty space. The fact
that the Iranians were able to target and hit specific buildings in it, is a truly
nightmarish scenario. They actually told US that they have the capability to hit whatever
they want. USA can send a drone and kill a general but US has generals too. It is easy to
find where a general's house in Qatar base is for example and hit it with the same accuracy.
How does that general sleeps at night from now on? How can you plan the typical US bombing
campaign, when your enemy has the ability to strike back at you where it hurts?
Magnier..
"#Iran informed #Iraq Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi of its intention to bomb #US military
bases in #Anbar and #Kurdistan before the attack.
Abdel Mahdi warned the Americans who took their precautions before the attack."
If this is true then there really is no hope for the Iraqi's. This is the clown that
writes letters to the US saying US has been naughty and resigned when Trump puts some
pressure on him, leaving Iraq gov parylized..
Iran was proving the reach and accuracy of their armaments, and the inadequacy of the US
Patriot etc. anti-air-attack systems. Trumps Tomahawks fired at Syria either went wrong
guidance-wise, were hacked or were shot down by Russian-made defenses. No comparison, Iran
wins the "rockets that don't kill anyone" competition. Iran also has Russian-made air defense
systems. Cheaper too... LOL!
I expect that the Iraqi gov't administration will quietly try to back-pedal from the
Parliamentary vote to evict the US. Then the various militias will band together (maybe even
Shia/Sunni alliances, the enemy of my enemy style) and keep US/ZATO troops mostly bottled up
in their bases until the US actually withdraws. The Iraq administration will be forced to
bend to the Parliament's and Iraqi peoples' will that the US/ZATO leaves. Pompeo and Trumpty
Dumbdy won't be able to tap dance around this scenario, even in front of the US/ZATO public.
Iran may not have to lift a finger in Iraq, but will find other ways to hurt the US AND ZATO
that don't meet the threshold for US military retaliation.
The US/ZATO deserves to suffer millions of cuts, hopefully one cut for each person
murdered by the US since 9/11.
MAGA Make America Go Away
omid , Jan 8 2020 18:01 utc |
154Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 18:01 utc |
155
"Iran misjudged Trump's response/speech, Trump talked about peace and not escalation (he is
lying of course), if Iran keep attacking US from now on, Iran will be framed as the threat
and that Trump have the right to retaliate.
Aslong as no one was killed on the american side apparently Trump see no reason to use
military means, meanwhile Iran is left with no kills which could make them more
desperate."
Posted by: Zanon | Jan 8 2020 17:12 utc | 125
I typical post that misses the point. The goal is to remove all the NATO trash from Syria
and Iraq. That has to be done by Iraqis, of which the bold ones are clobbered with air
strikes and the timid are intimidated. It is utterly pointless how Americans perceive the
situation, and even less germane what is the opinion of the vassals. The audience that
matters is in Iraq.
So what USA did? Dissed Iraqis quite serially, including the murder at the main airport
with no warning to the legal authorities of the place. Iran tries to be as un-American as
possible, so duly notifies Iraqi PM about the strike, an hour in advance, and perhaps follows
the suggestion to warn Americans directly. Giving the proper recognition of the rights of the
allies takes precedence over expedience, even in the moment of extreme pain and grief. Mind
you that Saudi, American or whoever has stooges in Iraq that villify it as a dominator taking
advantage etc., and that was a major theme in recent riots. It seems that one block of
rouble-risers is reconverted to anti-American solidarity, but those people have to be
humored, not taken for granted.
Taking opinions of others seriously even if there is no perfect agreement, especially if
the other party is not Israel, is the profound lack of Americans, and the rest of the West to
to a lesser degree.
The other aspect is how Shia view religious leaders and how those leaders view themselves.
There are rather high standards. This is not an operation under a local commander. Supreme
Leader is personally engaged. Taking proper account of host country prerogatives is also good
regard for Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other Iraqi marjah etc. Contrast with untrustworthy,
arrogant and cowardly infidels has to be maintained.
US have not been asked to leave by the iraqis so how are they supposed to leave?
Especially since they are not going to leave by themselves?
Esper: Iraqi government has not asked US troops to leave
Iraq's government has made no formal request that American forces leave its country,
despite a nonbinding vote Sunday to expel U.S. and other troops after the Pentagon killed a
top Iranian commander in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday.
Regarding warning the Swiss embassy of the attack. Also very strategic move. If there were
loss of American life due to no warning, it would have been near impossible for Trump to not
counter attack.
Furthermore, the US now thinks their enemy is weak or afraid. I feel kind of disappointed
by you guys who also think that, honestly? Did you see the reaction of the millions who came
to honor Souleimani? Do you really think the Iranian/Iraqi military and population are
wimps?
c'mon! take heart guys!
Iran was definitely involved in organizing, supplying, and even to some extent arming(with
small arms) various Iraqi militias. But the best way we know that it wasn't directly involved
in attacking US patrols, was that so few soldiers died. Iran has no need to improvise
explosive devices, it manufactures landmines on a mass scale which are much more reliable and
orders of magnitude more deadly, and operationally easier to use.
Most of the resistance to the US occupation in the Shia regions of Iraq were in the form
of non violent demonstrations spearheaded by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani(who btw is also
Iranian).
The nonviolent demonstrators were routinely massacred for their trouble, by both the
takfiri resistance and the occupation troops, but eventually succeeded in their demands for a
democratic vote wherein they elected a government that demanded the US leave.
And as Michael Flynn relates in his interview with Mehdi Hassan, once kicked out, the
Obama Administration took steps that they knew would lead to the creation of ISIS in the
region, and fired him as the head of the DIA after he had written them a memo warning them
about this.
Michael Flynn, who btw is rabidly anti Iranian, then became the first victim of the
Russiagaters when Trump was elected into office.
A war with Iran would see it use its Chinese-supplied anti-ship missiles, mines and coastal artillery to
shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world's oil supply. Oil prices would
double, perhaps triple, devastating the global economy. The retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well
as on American military installations in Iraq, would leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites
in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, would see an attack on Iran as a religious war against Shiism.
The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern province, the Shiite majority
in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey would turn in fury on us and our
dwindling allies.
There would be an increase in terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of
oil production in the Persian Gulf. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would renew attacks on northern Israel.
War with Iran would trigger a long and widening regional conflict that, by the time it was done, would
terminate the American Empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins. Let us hope for
a miracle to pull us back from this Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.
Iran, which has vowed "harsh retaliation," is already reeling under the crippling economic sanctions
imposed by the Trump administration when it unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the Iranian nuclear arms
deal. Tensions in Iraq between the U.S. and the Shiite majority, at the same time, have been escalating. On
Dec. 27 Katyusha rockets were fired at a military base in Kirkuk where U.S. forces are stationed. An
American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. military personnel were wounded.
The U.S. responded on Dec. 29 by bombing sites belonging to the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia.
Two days later Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, vandalizing and destroying
parts of the building and causing its closure. But this attack will soon look like child's play.
Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation has been destroyed as a unified country. Its once-modern
infrastructure is in ruins. Electrical and water services are, at best, erratic. There is high unemployment
and discontent over widespread government corruption that has led to bloody street protests. Warring
militias and ethnic factions have carved out competing and antagonistic enclaves. At the same time, the war
in Afghanistan is lost, as the Afghanistan Papers published by The Washington Post detail. Libya is a failed
state. Yemen after five years of unrelenting Saudi airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world's
worst humanitarian disasters. The "moderate" rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million,
after instigating a lawless reign of terror, have been beaten and driven out of the country. The monetary
cost for this military folly, the greatest strategic blunder in American history, is between $5 trillion and
$7 trillion.
So why go to war with Iran? Why walk away from a nuclear agreement that Iran did not violate? Why
demonize a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including
al-Qaida and Islamic State? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why
further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?
The generals and politicians who launched and prosecuted these wars are not about to take the blame for
the quagmires they created. They need a scapegoat. It is Iran. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed,
including at least 200,000 civilians, and the millions driven from their homes into displacement and refugee
camps cannot, they insist, be the result of our failed and misguided policies. The proliferation of radical
jihadist groups and militias, many of which we initially trained and armed, along with the continued
worldwide terrorist attacks, have to be someone else's fault. The generals, the CIA, the private contractors
and weapons manufacturers who have grown rich off these conflicts, the politicians such as George W. Bush,
Barack Obama and Donald Trump, along with all the "experts" and celebrity pundits who serve as cheerleaders
for endless war, have convinced themselves, and want to convince us, that Iran is responsible for our
catastrophe.
The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran
as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its
mistake other than to attack Iran.
A total of 22
missiles have hit two bases housing US
troops in
Iraq
but there were no Iraqi
casualties, according to Iraq's
military.
The online
statement came hours after Iranian
state television said
Iran
had launched missiles at US
targets in the early hours of Wednesday
in retaliation for the
United States
's killing last week
of top military commander
Qassem Soleimani
.
"Between 1:45am
and 2:15am [22:45 GMT and 23:15 GM]
Iraq was hit by 22 missiles, 17 on the
Ain al-Asad airbase and ... five on the
city of Erbil," the Iraqi military
said.
"There were no victims among the
Iraqi forces," it added, without
mentioning whether or not there were
casualties among foreign troops.
Following the strikes, US President
Donald Trump
said on Twitter that
an "assessment of casualties & damages
taking place now".
More than 5,000 US troops remain in
Iraq along with other foreign forces as
part of a coalition that has trained
and backed up Iraqi security forces in
the fight against the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)
armed group.
Some 115 German soldiers are
stationed in Erbil and all were fine, a
spokesman for Bundeswehr operations
said.
Denmark, which has about 130
soldiers in Iraq, said no Danish
soldiers were wounded or killed in the
attack on Ain al-Asad, the largest
airbase where US-led coalition troops
are based.
It was the first time Iran directly
hit a US installation with ballistic
missiles.
Soleimani, who headed Iran's Quds
Force, the overseas arm of the elite
Revolutionary Guards Corps, was buried
after the missile attacks, Iranian
state television said.
"His revenge was taken and now he
can rest in peace," it said.
The missiles were launched at the
same time of the day that Soleimani was
killed on Friday near the international
airport in Iraq's capital, Baghdad. He
was buried in the "martyrs section" of
a cemetery in his hometown of Kerman.
Brave but useless, and probably damaging action from Iran. Mullahs became way too exited about this insident.
Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi labeled the missile strike that killed Soleimani as a "brazen violation of Iraq's sovereignty
and a blatant attack on the nation's dignity".
At least two airbases housing US troops in Iraq have been hit
by more than a dozen ballistic missiles, according to the US Department of Defence.
Iranian state TV says the attack is a retaliation after the country's top commander Qasem
Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Baghdad, on the orders of US President Donald Trump.
The Pentagon says at least two sites were attacked, in Irbil and Al Asad.
It is unclear if there have been any casualties.
"We are aware of the reports of attacks on US facilities in Iraq. The president has been briefed
and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team," White
House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the attack was in retaliation for the death of Soleimani on
Friday.
"We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any
territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted," it said via
a statement carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif later issued a statement on Twitter, claiming the attack
was self-defence and denied seeking to escalate the situation into war.
Image
Copyright @JZarif
@JZarif
Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @JZarif: Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression." src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953~/news/world-middle-east-51028954" width="465" height="323"> <span>Image Copyright @JZarif</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@JZarif</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @JZarif">Report</a></div> </figure>
President Trump tweeted shortly afterwards, insisting "all is well", while adding that they had
not yet assessed possible casualties.
Image
Copyright @realDonaldTrump
@realDonaldTrump
Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning." src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693~/news/world-middle-east-51028954" width="465" height="279"> <span>Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@realDonaldTrump</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump">Report</a></div> </figure>
The attacks took place hours after the burial of Soleimani. The second attack occurred in Irbil
shortly after the first rockets hit Al Asad, Al Mayadeen TV said.
Earlier in the day, President Trump said a US withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be the worst
thing for the country.
The UK foreign office told the BBC: "We are urgently working to establish the facts on the
ground. Our first priority is the security of British personnel."
The assassination of Soleimani on January 3 was a major escalation in already deteriorating
relations between Iran and the US.
The general - who controlled Iran's proxy forces across the Middle East - was regarded as a
terrorist by the US government, which says he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
American troops and was plotting "imminent" attacks.
The "severe revenge" Iran promised for the death of Qassem Suleimani was heralded on
Wednesday morning by at least two waves of
short-range missile attacks on bases in Iraq hosting US and coalition personnel.
The attacks will provide an opportunity for hawks inside the Donald Trump administration to
ratchet up the conflict with Iran – but also potentially a pathway out of
the crisis.
The Iranian strikes were heavy on symbolism. The missiles were launched around 1.30am in
Iraq , roughly the same
time as the drone strike that killed Suleimani on Friday morning. Top Iranian advisers and
semi-official media outlets tweeted pictures of the country's flag during the attack, mirroring
Donald Trump's tweet as the first reports of Suleimani's death were emerging. The Revolutionary
Guards dubbed the operation "Martyr Suleimani". Videos of the missiles being launched were
released to Iranian media outlets.
ss="rich-link"> Iran attacks two US airbases in Iraq in wake of Suleimani killing
Read more
But in their immediate aftermath, the attacks appear to have been carefully calibrated to
avoid US casualties – fired at bases that were already on high alert.
Iran's foreign minister has said the strikes have concluded and characterised them as
self-defence within the boundaries of international law – not the first shots in a
war.
Trump, in his first comments after the strikes, also sought to play them down.
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment
of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and
well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow
morning.
If Trump's assessment of the damage holds, Wednesday's strikes might be an opportunity for
both sides to de-escalate without losing face. Iran will be able to say it took violent revenge
for Suleimani's death and pivot to a campaign of proxy warfare – with which it feels more
comfortable, against a vastly more powerful adversary – and diplomatic pressure to eject
American forces from Iraq.
The US can also step back, shrugging off the retaliation as being of no significant
consequence. That is the best-case scenario, but it rests on two risky premises: that more than
a dozen missiles struck bases hosting US military personnel without substantial
damage or casualties; and that the White House will resist any urge to respond.
Not sure whats true at this point. If Iran is indeed behind the missile attacks they will pay
the price. Hoped they could restrain themselves and make it harder on the US to escalate. But
then again, maybe they felt it was inevitable or militant factions from within demanded a
response. Anyways, lesson being if you commit an act of war don't be surprised there is
retaliation. Pretty sure Trump and Bibi are not unhappy about this since that's probably what
they hoped for.
They're Persians. They are the people that invented war. But you're right, the suits are
delusional. Reality can be a real bitxh when one awakens from a delusion. That's a dangerous
moment, when the suspension of disbelief goes "poof!"
Arab armies aren't very good at conducting warfare.
Iranians aren't Arabs, they are a branch of Indo-European/Aryan, who historically have
been very good at conducting warfare.
----------
This ignores history. For example, in recent decades Italians were much less militarily
minded than their Roman ancestors. Similarly, Danes today are not similar to folks who
conquered half of England 1100 years ago and the whole of England decades later, only to
loose it to Frenchified Danes afterwards.
To provide examples from the Syrian war, 100% Arab Lebanese Hezbollah were reputed to be
most effective, and getting less casualties that other units. By the way of contrast, units
of Afghan volunteers assembled by Iran were so-so. And ISIS was most effective if you count
their numbers, although with a lot of casualties. Syrian themselves had good elite units and
many more mediocre units.
a tweet (so not reliable)
#BREAKING: First video showing a Fateh-110 precision guided ballistic missile of #IRGC
hitting the Ain al-Asad Air Base in #Iraq during Operation #Soleimani of #IRGCASF.#IRGC
sources claim they have destroyed several #USArmy helicopters & drones & have killed
80 #US troops there!
Is expecting Iran to de-escalate realistic?
Iran has a number of possible retaliation options following the US killing of an Iranian
commander.
1h ago
Oh, well, whad'ya think.... In just an hour after this BBC masterpiece shit hit the fan.
--------------
NBC Ali Arouzi claims Iran demands USA not to retaliate, quoting Haifa and Dubai for "3rd
wave".
Delicious if true. "Sand niggas" returning the "sole hyperpower" the favour. Didn't Pompeo or
someone demanded "not to retaliate" just a day or two ago.
But i am not sure we can trust NBC or any other western propaganda office about what Iran did
and dis not say.
Intel would not like loosing Haifa, they already loosing market to AMD last year....
---------
Trump got himself his Pearl Harbor 2.0 and "wartime president" status. Maybe will make him
re-elected.
But also IRGC "pulled the hook". Due to American hubris they now just can not evacuate
USArmy Iraqi garrisons to, say, Kuwait. And would have to infringe upon Iraq sovereignty and
to be sitting ducks there. Wagging the dog.
--------
I still wonder about nukes.
I hope Russia and China would prohibit long-range and medium-range vehicles, citing M.A.D.
concerns and protocols, so USA would be limited to short-range nuclear-wielding weapons.
Which they shouls have much less.
I also hope Trump would get his re-election and stop short of using tactical nukes, but
see no rational reasons for such a restrain for today USA.
--------
There was no news yet, however, about US Navy fleeing away from Iran ASMs range. So
hopefully Pentagon does not see real threat of real war, not yet. And maybe it will still be
contained as one more run of the mill American warlette. Hopefully...
Launching a ballistic missile attack against a US base in al-Anbar is smart from a 'limited
escalation' perspective. It prevents the fight from expanding across the region unless
the United States loses its mind completely and unleashes a full out attack on Iran.
Additionally, targeting American occupation troops in Iraq plays well with ordinary Iraqis
sick of American aggression on their soil and such a strike, as opposed to a targeted
assassination or an attack outside of Iraq, gives Iran's enemies very little propaganda
material to work with. It serves the ball back into the US court and makes Washington 100%
responsible if it escalates this conflict into a regional war. Also, not waiting for weeks or
months before retaliating makes it much more difficult for Israel or a US proxy to launch a
false flag and try to blame it on Iran. Well played.
Well, if it was a limited strike that was designed to look big and make some serious material
damage, and not to kill a lot of US troops, then it's quite possible that Trump - assuming he
doesn't go the heavy retaliation way - can soon, and definitely before elections, be able to
order US to leave Iraq not because they don't want the US there but actually in a magnanimous
act, "to make sure that poor country won't be bombed again by evil Iranians" - arguably with
a mutual understanding with Iran that both will stick to a limited direct influence over
Iraq. But that would be the best-case scenario, where Iran boots the US, the US still got
hit, but no more deaths, cycle of reprisals ends, and Iraq is basically free at last.
I'll see how bad it actually is when I wake up...
I am sure the morning awaits us and our chants and meditations. But the morning also
brings a new sun upon the Saudis and if this process is planned as an extensive revenge (and
I believe it is) then the Saudis can awake expecting it to rain stones for some time.
If this struggle to evict the USA is serious then Iran and its Persian army will
emasculate the key arab pawn over the coming weeks and the Houthis will be given reprieve to
bring them to victory in Yemen. My guess is that this way will give stability and a framework
for peace in the region sufficient to counter the belligerence of the occupier of Palestine
lands.
The region is subject to endless provocations and the 'gift of Golan' to Israel is just
one the more recent grievous affronts that are unlikely to end unless there is a profound
military rebuff to the lunacy of western private finance capital scheming.
The illegal occupation of Syrian oilfields could collapse immediately as well if it has
not already commenced.
Each new day will tell but I will always wish for peace. Thank you your insights and may
you and your wife greet the sun in peace each day.
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of
UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens &
senior officials were launched.
And so, karlof1 , we shall if the red flag comes down. Perhaps this was enough of a
slap? But they must leave, that remains as an imperative that will smolder unceasingly
now.
If Russia has disallowed the use of nukes, then there's not much the US military can do,
no matter how bloodthirsty the Zionists are. As soon as the US hits Iran, Tel Aviv goes up in
smoke. That's all there is to it. It's been this way for months and months now. The Israeli
and US casualties required for a direct attack on Iran are just too high for Zionists to
stomach. The use of nukes was the only viable play from the beginning (and I realize this is
not really "viable" to any sane person, but Pompeo and Netanyahu are not sane.) If nukes are
out, then the US cannot establish dominance over the skies quickly enough to prevent
thousands upon thousands of Israeli and US casualties. It seems to me that everybody must
know this is true, deep down.
The unique, really exceptional feature of the USA is that it does not try to hide idiocy of
its leaders and lack of education and interest in knowing the truth of the majority of
population
A new poll has found that Americans doubt Donald Trump has a clear Iran policy, but
nonetheless they support the decision to kill Qassem Soleimani – who, remarkably, had
been an unknown entity for the majority of respondents.
Forty-three percent of Americans said they approved of the US drone strike that killed the
Iranian commander last week in Baghdad, while 38% disapproved and 19% said they were unsure,
according to the results
of a HuffPost/YouGov survey.
And while almost half the country backs Soleimani's assassination, 60% of Americans conceded
that they had never heard of the Quds Force commander before last week. An additional 14% said
they weren't sure if they had known about him before the strike.
Is there a chorus of politicians singing in there about how lazy they are, and how they
never bothered to verify Browder' story? The story is indeed remarkable, but not in the way
that first appears.
Stephen Fry / @stephenfry
You may or may not know the remarkable story of @Billbrowder and the #MagnitskyAct - find
out the startling truth by listening to
#MagnitskytheMusical by the wondrous @JohnnyFlynnHQ & @roberthudson - @BBCRadio3 7.30 Sun
12th Jan
Book and lyrics by Robert Hudson
Music and lyrics by Johnny Flynn
12 January 2020
О 1 hour, 34 minutes
Johnny Flynn and Robert Hudson bring us a musical based on the
incredible story of an American venture capitalist, a Russian tax
advisor, a crazy heist, the Trump Tower meeting and the very rule of
law.
Blending music and satire, the story explores the truths and fictions
surrounding the origins and aftershocks of the Magnitsky Act; global
legislation which allows governments to sanction those who they see
as offenders of human rights.
It tells the story of a tax adviser's struggle to uncover a huge tax
fraud, his imprisonment by the very authorities he is investigating,
and the American financier's crusade for justice.
Johnny Flynn, Paul Chahidi and members of the cast perform songs in
a epic story that explores democracy, corruption, and how we
undervalue the law at our peril.
Bill Paul Chahidi Sergei Johnny Flynn Jamie Fenella
Woolgar Natalia Ellie Kendrick Kuznetsov Gus Brown Guard Clive Hayward Silchenko Ian
Conningham Jared Will Kirk Fisherman Neil McCaul Judge Jessica Turner
Additional singing by Sinead Maclnnes, Laura Christy, Scarlett
Courtney and Lucy Reynolds.
The cellist is Joe Zeitlin. Sound is by Peter Ringrose.
Directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.
In an era of stress and anxiety, when the present seems unstable and the future unlikely, the natural response is
to retreat and withdraw from reality, taking recourse either in fantasies of the future or in modified visions of a
half-imagined past.
Unless you were catatonic this past couple of weeks, dead drunk from Sunday to Saturday, suffered a debilitating
brain injury or were living in Bognor Regis where the internet cannot reach, you heard about the west slapping a
four-year Olympic ban on Russia. Because it could, it did. And not really for any other reason, despite the indignation
and manufactured outrage. It's a pity now that I come to think on it that you can't use outrage to power a vehicle,
fill a sandwich or knit into socks: because the west has a bottomless supply, and it's just about as renewable a
resource as you could envision.
As I have reiterated elsewhere and often, the United States of America is the cheatingest nation on the planet where
professional sports is concerned, because winning matters to Americans like nowhere else. Successful Olympic
medal-winners and iconic sports figures in the USA are feted like victorious battlefield generals, because the sports
arena is just another battlefield to the United States, and there's no
it's-not-whether-you-win-or-lose-it's-how-you-play-the-game in wartime. Successful American sports figures foster an
appreciation of American culture and lifestyle, and promote an image of America as a purposeful and powerful nation.
Successful sports figures anywhere, really; not so very long ago Olympic gold medalists were merely given an
appreciative parade by a grateful nation, and featured in lucrative advertising contracts if they were photogenic. More
recently, some nations have simply
paid athletes by the medal
for
winning. This
includes most nations
, with the notable exceptions of the UK, Norway and Sweden. So the pressure is on to win, win,
win, by whatever means are necessary.
Since Russia is in second place only to Germany for all-time medal rankings in the Olympics, and since Russia
eventually made it back up to Public Enemy Number One in the USA after a brief hiatus during which it looked like a
combination of Boris Yeltsyn and teams of Harvard economists were going to make a respectful pauper of it while it
became a paradise for international investors the USA spares no effort to beat Russia at everything. On occasions
where it is not particularly successful, as it was not in the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi, it has turned to other
methods screaming that the Russians are all dopers who benefit from a state-sponsored doping scheme, and implementing
bans to prevent as many Russian athletes as possible from competing.
And that's my principal objection. In media matters in the world of sports, just as in other political venues, the
USA relies on a combination of lying and relentless repetition to drive its points home. Thus it is that the
English-speaking world still believes Russia was convicted of having had a state-sponsored doping plan, found guilty and
justly sentenced upon the discovery of mountains of evidence, its accusers vindicated and its dissident whistleblowers
heroes to a grateful world. Huzzah!!
"Russia operated a state-sponsored doping programme for four years across the
"vast majority" of summer and winter Olympic sports, claims a new report.
It was "planned and operated" from late 2011 including the build-up to London 2012 and continued through the
Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics until August 2015."
The BBC is Britain's state-funded broadcaster, financed by the British government, and the British government is
second only to the United States in its virulent hatred of Russia and Russians. But that was back then, when the 'doping
scheme' was newly 'discovered', and all the western reporters and government figures were nearly wetting their pants
with excitement. What about now?
"It's the latest twist in a long-running saga of investigations into widespread, state-sponsored doping by the
Kremlin."
My soul, if it isn't the USA's star witness, Doctor Grigory Rodchenkov, in
AFP
;
"Doped athletes do not work alone. There are medical doctors, coaches and managers who provided substances,
advised and protected them. In Russia's state-sponsored doping scheme, there is also a state-sponsored defense of many
cheaters including state officials, witnesses and apparatchiks who are lying under oath and have falsified evidence.
These individuals are clearly criminals," he said.
More about him later; for now, suffice it to say the western media still finds him a credible and compelling witness.
"In 2016, independent investigations confirmed that Russian officials had run a
massive state‑sponsored doping system during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, which fed illicit
performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of athletes and took outlandish measures to pervert national drug-testing
mechanisms.
The evidence was incontrovertible."
I was going to go on, listing examples in the popular press from around the world, published since the latest ban was
announced, all claiming investigation had proved the Russians had a massive state-sponsored doping scheme in place which
let them cheat their way to the podium. But I think you get the picture, and that last lead-in was my cue; it was just
too good to pass up.
Independent investigations confirmed. The evidence was incontrovertible.
Well,
let's take a look at that. Incontrovertible evidence ought to be able to withstand a bit of prying, what?
When the evidence of something being so is both massive and incontrovertible, beyond question and the result
of proof beyond a doubt, then that thing IS. Therefore, the western press is proceeding on the assumption
that western investigations proved the Russians had a doping program in which all or most Russian athletes
took prohibited performance-enhancing drugs, at the instruction of sports-organization officials, who were
in turn directed by state officials to use such methods to permit Russian athletes to win where they would
otherwise likely not have been capable of a winning performance. And there were such allegations by western
figures and officials, together with assurances that there was so much evidence that well, frankly, it was
embarrassing. But the western media and western sports organizations and officials apparently do not
understand what 'evidence' is.
The
Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS), established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and headquartered at Lausanne,
Switzerland, is recognized by all Olympic international organizations as the highest authority for
sports-related legal issues. An Investigative Commission consisting of Dr. Richard McLaren (Chair), Dick
Pound and Gunter Younger was appointed to look into allegations of widespread and state-supported doping of
athletes of the Russian Olympic team for the 2016 Winter Olympics at Sochi, Russia. The Commission's star
witness was Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, former head of the Moscow laboratory. According to what became known as
the McLaren Report,
more than 1000 Russian athletes across 30 sports
were involved in or benefited from "an institutional
conspiracy" of doping. The Investigative Commission settled on sanctioning 35 Olympic athletes with
Anti-Doping Rules Violations (ARDV), and they were banned from further international sports competitions;
those who had won medals had them confiscated. Nearly all the sanctioned athletes appealed their cases to
the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Sorry to keep hopping back and forth, but I'm trying to stay with two major themes at the same time for
the moment the accusations against the Russian Olympic athletes, which were entirely based on
the revelations of the 'doping mastermind'
, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, and Dr. Rodchenkov himself. Western
organizations and media were bowled over by the affable Rodchenkov, and eager to accept his jaw-dropping
revelations about widespread doping in Russian sport. Sites specializing in sports doping with steroids
feted him as the brilliant mind behind not only doping Russian athletes, but devising a test for common
steroids which increased their detection window from only days to in excess of months. This enabled the
retesting of previously-stored samples from international athletes which had already passed as clean. I
suspect not a lot of followers of the Russian doping scandal are aware of that, and any such results should
be viewed with the utmost suspicion in light of what a colossal fraud he turned out to be. I'd like you to
just keep that in mind as we go further. Dr. Rodchenkov also claimed to be behind the brilliant everything
he does is brilliant formulation of the now-notorious and, at the time of its alleged widespread use,
top-secret "Duchess Cocktail", a steroid-stacker mixed with alcohol which made the presence of the steroids
undetectable. Remember that word; undetectable, because we'll come back to it. Additionally, please keep in
mind that Dr. Rodchenkov's unique testing method was the one used to re-test stored samples from the 2008
Beijing Olympics and the 2012 London Olympics.
So, back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 39 Russian athletes who had been accused of doping in the
McLaren Report appealed their sentences of lifetime Olympic bans and forfeiture of medals won.
Of those 39 appeals,
28 of the
appeals were completely upheld
, the judgments against the athletes reversed, and any medals forfeited
were reinstated. A further 11 appeals were partially upheld, but the lifetime bans were reduced to have
effect only for the upcoming Olympic Games at Peyongchang, Korea. That makes 39 of 39. Not a single athlete
accused was found to have participated in a state-sponsored doping program administered by Russian sports
officials acting under orders of the Russian government. The appeals of a further 3 Russian athletes were
not heard by the date of release of the statement, and were stayed until a later date.
It is important to note, and was specifically addressed in the release, that the CAS did not examine the
matter of whether there was or was not a state-sponsored or controlled doping program; that was not within
the Court's mandate. So for evidence of evidence, I guess you might say, and for an overall feel for the
credibility of the witness whose revelations underpinned the entirety of the McLaren Report, we turn to Dr.
Rodchenkov's testimony before the CAS.
As we examine his performance on that occasion, I'd like to point out that this likely represents the
first time Rodchenkov was cross-examined by and on behalf of individuals who were not necessarily delighted
to believe everything he said without questioning it further, as the McLaren Commission apparently was.
Because his story fell apart, often in ways that would have been amusing in anything other than the serious
setting which prevailed. That's Rodchenkov in the balaclava, which his handlers evidently thought necessary
to conceal his appearance. Perhaps he's had extensive cosmetic surgery, because his face was all over the
news before that he is in the US Witness Protection Program, after all. In my opinion, it only lent to the
overall sense of unreality, but to each his own. I'll also be jumping back and forth between what Rodchenkov
or his backers confidently claimed prior to the hearing, and during testimony, when I think it is important
to highlight manifest umm inconsistencies. Ready? Let's do it.
Pre-CAS hearing:
"The latest WADA report suggests that Rodchenkov helped as many as 1,000 Russian
athletes get away with doping. Hundreds of those athletes were able to get away with the use of the "Duchess
steroid cocktail" while avoiding detection."
During testimony and under questioning by counsel for the defendants,
Rodchenkov admitted
(a) that he had never personally distributed the 'Duchess cocktail' to any Russian
athlete, (b) that he had never personally seen any Russian athlete take the mixture known as the Duchess
cocktail, (c) that he had never personally witnessed any Russian athlete being directed by a coach to take
the Duchess cocktail, or any coach being directed by any Russian state official to distribute it to his
athletes, and (d) that he had never personally seen any Russian athlete tamper with a doping sample.
Forgive me if I jump to the conclusion that the foregoing rules out a state-sponsored doping program
insofar as it was ever witnessed by the McLaren Report's star and principal witness; McLaren did not
interview any other Russian officials, he claimed he didn't have time.
But
it
gets better
. Or worse, if you are Rodchenkov, or one of those who gleefully relied on his testimony to
put those filthy Russians away forever.
Pre-CAS hearing:
"In 2016, independent investigations confirmed that Russian officials had run a
massive state‑sponsored doping system during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, which fed
illicit performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of athletes and took outlandish measures to pervert national
drug-testing mechanisms The evidence was incontrovertible."
When examined on his statements that he had swapped samples of positive-test athletes urine after 1:00
AM, passing them through a 'mousehole' in the laboratory wall to FSB agents outside and exchanging them for
clean samples, in light of the fact that his meticulously-maintained daily diary recorded him as being at
home in bed by midnight, he claimed he had lied in his diary. What a clever intelligence asset, to have
anticipated questioning years in advance, and added an extra layer of obfuscation! It was not specifically
addressed in testimony to my knowledge, but I would like to highlight here that Dr. Rodchenkov was allegedly
alone at the lab at these alleged times except, of course, for the secret agents waiting outside the
mousehole and could have driven a gurney with a squeaky wheel loaded with conspiratorial piss samples out
into the parking lot, and loaded it into the trunk of his car with nobody the wiser: why all the
John le Carr espionagery through the wall? Comes to that, why would you
contaminate a sample with salt, coffee granules and hilarious incompetence like accidentally getting male
DNA in female samples, when the doping compound only you knew was in the samples was undetectable by anyone
else, because you had specifically engineered it that way?
McLaren claimed in his report that he had seen a method demonstrated, which he presumed was the method
used by the FSB to open the sealed sample bottles and replace the sample inside with clean urine. He further
claimed that scratches found on the glass bottles were proof of tampering. Other analysts suggested the
scratches were probably made when the sample bottle was sealed in accordance with the instructions for its
proper use, and
the manufacturer claimed
the bottle had never successfully been opened, once sealed, without breaking
the cap, which is by design an indication of potential tampering. The alleged secret method of successfully
doing it was never demonstrated by McLaren or any of his operatives for independent verification. For
Rodchenkov's part, he claimed it had been done by 'magicians', and offered no clue as to the alleged method,
and it seems clear to me that McLaren simply proceeded with Rodchenkov's hearsay assurances that it had been
accomplished.
The controversial and pivotal claim by McLaren that Russian Minister for Sport Vitaly Mutko, "directed,
controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete's [
sic
] analytical results or sample swapping"
was not supported by anything other than Rodchenkov's diary. You remember the one he admitted to having
embellished with lies so that stories he told years later would make sense. This is absolutely critical,
because the claim to have proven the existence of a state-sponsored doping program rests only on this
Rodchenkov has admitted he never personally saw any Russian state official give orders to coaches or
athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren's bombshell allegation appears to have been extracted
from the diary of a proven and admitted liar, and is supported by no other evidence. Yet the western press
still maintains there was a Russian state-sponsored doping program, administered with the knowledge and
facilitation of the state government, and that this was proven. Rodchenkov is still accorded the respect of
a credible witness. Rodchenkov is still speaking authoritatively about the nature of cheating, and
astoundingly describing those who have lied under oath and falsified evidence as criminals, just as if he
had not done both himself. It is as if the CAS hearings which exonerated the majority of the accused Russian
athletes, and sharply reduced the punishments of the rest, had never happened. For all the mainstream media
coverage the event received, it might not have.
Before the CAS hearing, WADA and the IOC regularly dangled reinstatement of the Russian anti-doping
agency (RUSADA) in exchange for the Russian government openly and completely accepting the conclusions of
the McLaren Report, officially admitting to having cheated on a massive scale and with the full knowledge
and support of serving government officials. It never did. The Russian state acknowledged it has a doping
problem, and it has some athletes were found guilty of having taken banned substances, and there are a few
every Olympic competition. But Moscow has never accepted the conclusions of the McLaren Report. And after
the CAS Appeals decision, RUSADA was reinstated anyway.
Which brings us to here; now. The entire focus of the McLaren Report and the bullying by the IOC was
directed toward making Russia admit it was guilty of organized doping, with the drive for momentum seeking a
ban on further competition. Since it never did, the alternative was to prove it without an admission, so
that no doubt existed. Exonerating the few athletes ever charged among the thousand or so said to be guilty
looks like a hell of a funny way of doing that. The McLaren Team's star and main witness fell apart on the
stand and admitted he had either lied about everything or simply made it up. There is no reason at all
outside stubborn western prejudice to imagine Russian athletes are doping any more than any other national
teams.
But then, hackers Russians, of course, it goes without saying calling themselves "Fancy Bear" and
"Cozy Bear" (hint to Russians, do not call yourself "anything Bear" the Bear is synonymous with Russia.
Call yourself "Elon Tesla" or "Mo Money") began to publish stolen medical data revealing the scope of
western athletes who had been granted permission to use banned performance-enhancing drugs by their Olympic
Associations, for perceived medical reasons, through the TUE the Therapeutic Use Exemption. The western
sports industry was outraged that information was
private
, God damn it and it was just
grotesque that the cheating Russians would have the gall to allege
western
athletes were cheaters.
But after it had time to calm down, and after some revelations proved hard to defend, the industry had to
grudgingly
admit the TUE was a problem
.
Iconic American cyclist Lance Armstrong
doped for years
, but was revered by an entire generation of American kids and sports fans as the finest
example of a stoic and selfless sportsman the human race could provide. Teammates and his sports doctor
helped him avoid tests, and in one instance he dropped out of a race after receiving a text message from a
teammate that testers were waiting for him. When he actually tested positive for corticosteroid use in the
1999 Tour de France, his doctors claimed he had received the steroid in a cream used to treat a saddle sore,
and a back-dated prescription was provided.
Retroactive TUE's sound phony right out of the gate, and consequently their use is supposed to be very
rare, since the immediate perception is that the exemption was issued to protect the athlete from the
fallout of a positive test; what could be simpler? Just issue them a prescription to take a banned
substance, because they really, really needed it.
Most of the TUE's issued to tennis world champion Serena Williams were retroactive
, in some cases going
back two weeks or more. A TUE issued during a period that an athlete has withdrawn from competition sounds
understandable, because they cannot be using it to enhance their career or win medals. A retroactive TUE
issued during competition that allows an athlete to use a stimulant which increases drive, or a painkiller
which lets them power through without the limb failing, is hard to see as anything other than a cheat issued
to protect a national sports asset.
TUE's are the vehicle of choice in professional cycling, with both British cyclists who won the Tour de
France Scott Froome and Bradley Wiggins
revealed to have secured TUE's
allowing them to take steroids during the competitions. They claimed to
be suffering from 'sport-induced asthma', which is apparently a documented condition when you try to make
your body process air faster or more efficiently than it is capable of handling. USADA head Travis Tygart,
who is withering in his contempt of and hatred for Russia, loses no opportunity to defend the integrity of
American athletes who are allowed to dope because they have a form that says they need to. I find it hard to
believe Russian athletes who secured a TUE allowing them to take a performance-enhancer during competition
would meet with such hearty approval from him. It's because Americans are inherently honest and are
genetically incapable of cheating, while Russians are just natural-born cheats.
American gymnastics champion Simone Biles quickly became the national face of ADHD by proactively
defending her need for a banned substance. Tygart and American Olympics officials were maudlin in her
defense, like everyone is just picking on a little girl and trying to rob her of hard-earned success. What
effect does her permitted drug have? It permits an enhanced level of concentration and focus, so that no
energy is lost to distractions such a a shouting crowd, bright colours and rapid movements, and she sees
nothing but the target of her efforts. Is that helpful? What do you think?
The
jury seems to be out
on whether corticosteroids would help Biles focus on her routines, although there
seems to be a fairly well-established body of evidence that these are not anabolic steroids, and do not
increase muscle mass that's all her. But the zeal with which WADA went after meldonium just because,
apparently, eastern-European athletes used it extensively, although it has never been demonstrated to
enhance performance speaks volumes about the western bias in favour of therapeutic use of drugs by the
Good Guys. They're just looking after their health. Russians are cheating. How did WADA find out about
meldonium? I'm glad you asked USADA received a 'confidential tip' that east-European athletes were using
it to enhance performance. Despite expert advice that there is
no evidence at all that it enhances performance
, WADA banned it. Because, you know, east-European
athletes might
think
it helps them, and if they think that, then it is.
Just like Simone Biles and her TUE. But that's not only allowed, she's a hero for being so open about her
ADHD.
In the USA,
cheating seems to be focused on Track and Field
, because that's where the USA wins a lot of its medals.
Hence the effort to minimize the Russian participation, and thus cut down the opposition.
"The United States in fact has a lengthy history of doping at the Olympic Games and other
international events, and of turning a blind eye to its own cheating. That's especially true in track and
field, the front porch of the U.S. Olympic program because of track's ability to drive American medal
supremacy.
Nike's track-and-field training program, for example, has been dogged by doping allegations since at
least the 1970s, when its top officials were allegedly aware that athletes used steroids and other
performance enhancing drugs. Since the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games,
every single U.S.
Summer Olympic team has included at least one sprinter who either had previously failed a drug test or would
later do so.
And that's to say nothing of athletes in the other disciplines.
American drug cheats include some of the country's most notable Olympians. Carl Lewis admitted in
2003 that
he had failed three drug tests
prior to the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but
avoided a ban with the help
of the U.S. Olympic Committee and won two golds and a silver instead.
Justin Gatlin won the
100-meter dash at the 2004 Athens Games before later failing a drug test. Tyson Gay, the world's fastest man
entering the 2008 Beijing Games, later failed a drug test too.
Gay and Gatlin nevertheless formed
half of the American men's 4100 relay team in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.
"
American athletes routinely fail drug tests, but are waved ahead to compete anyway.
"
Eighty-four
American Olympians failed drug tests in the year prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Games but went on to compete
anyway
,
according to author Mark Johnson
. Carl Lewis claimed that "hundreds" of Americans failed tests while
remaining eligible to compete, with the assistance of the U.S. Olympic Committee, in Seoul. The USOC faced
allegations ahead the 2000 Sydney Games that it had
withheld information on 15 positive tests
from international officials; by 2003, it had been accused of
covering
up at least 114 positives
between 1988 and 2000."
Curiously, the latest Russia ban is attributed to allegations that Russia fiddled with the athletes
database it provided to WADA, covering up positive drug tests. But it appears the United States has a
well-known history of fudging and obscuring positive drug-test results, refusing to reveal them to
regulatory bodies, and pushing its doper athletes into international competition. Yet the United States has
a loudly self-awarded reputation as the Defender Of Clean Sport.
Russia's position is that the ubiquitous Grigory Rodchenkov a proven and self-confessed liar, remember,
who claimed to have lied in his diary where he was supposedly only talking to himself
modified the
database from abroad
, after he fled to the United States and made such a Godsend of himself in America's
drive to move up the medal rankings. He apparently retained administrator rights on the database, which was
accessible online, even after fleeing from Russia. His lawyer's defense, curiously, is that he did not and,
significantly, 'could not' access the database. To me, that sounds like he's going out a little bit on a
limb all the Russian side needs to do is prove that he could have to discredit Rodchenkov's story. It
looks like it is headed back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the spring the same venue which
exonerated the Russian athletes after Rodchenkov's previous epic thundering-in on full afterburner. Will it
happen again? We'll see. Until then the western press appears not to have noticed that Rodchenov lied his
charming face off last time. And still is, through his shyster lawyer
"If WADA or any other agency
needs Grigory to testify, Grigory will uphold his promise to co-operate fully to help atone for his role,"
Walden said.
You know the role he admitted he never played, in that he never saw any Russian athlete
take the Duchess Cocktail he claimed to have devised to make doping undetectable, never heard any Russian
sports official order his players to take it, and in fact could not remember exactly what was in it.
Stay tuned this should be interesting. Count on the Americans to press to the end for a full and
lasting ban, probably for life.
Washington (CNN) The increasingly chaotic
aftermath of the US strike against Iran has left President Donald Trump's team scrambling
to keep up with his unpredictable decisions and inflammatory pronouncements, and suggests
dysfunction at the heart of the nation's critical national security process.
"... It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss. There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western bus. ..."
"... As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to bear the full responsibility. ..."
The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump picked the 'wrong' item from a list of
possible courses of action that the military had presented him. That sounded like bullshit
invented to take blame away from Trump and to put it onto the military.
To me it looks more like the opposite: the Times's Pentagon sources pinning it
on loose cannon Trump's going with the extreme option that the military hadn't intended him
to. But whatever. The U.S. is facing the same harsh new reality regardless.
The Times in London ran with a front page "We Will Kill UK Troops, warns Iran" (
here's the Guardian summary ). Despite initial reports that the UK and EU were distancing
themselves from the assassination, the MSM have clearly been given their orders to begin
banging the drum for war. The scramble for a casus belli reminds me of WMD, so I think a war
of some scope is strongly desired and Boris Johnson has been brought on board. France will
stay out and Germany will look first at Russia's position.
It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of
Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss.
There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing
phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western
bus.
Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an
election year.
During his campaign Trump said he wanted the U.S. military out of the Middle East. Iran
and its allies will help him to keep that promise.
Hasnt Trump proved he is stupid enough by now? How much more evidence is needed to drop
him? Trump start wars to get another election win, I think that is obvious? And allies
keeping him back? Which allieshave even remotely criticized his threats and murder? People
need to realize that there is nothing stopping Trump, he and Israel will keep bombing and
unfortunately its not much Iran could do.
Dan: The guy fought the Talibans and ISIS, and has always been opposed to them; that's good
enough for me, and that's definitely more than any of the coward and treacherous Western
leaders that pussy-foot instead of calling out the US for what tantamounts to a declaration
of war on both Iraq and Iran.
As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird
options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as
another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to
bear the full responsibility.
Col. Lang is once again warning that Trump trying to keep the troops in Iraq would be a
terrible mistake with bad consequences, and that it's just not realistic. He probably prefers
not to say it that way when stating it's a long road from Kuwait to Baghdad, but if shit hits
the fan and Iraqis decide to go after the US troops, then those who can't evacuate fast
enough will end up in a position similar to that of the British in Kabul, in the very first
days of 1842.
Aghast at your words, dan. I am an aging homemaker from usa midwest and I have yet to stop
weeping for Qassem Soleimani, his poor widow, and the rest of his family. I feel I owe him a
personal debt for fighting zionists/terrorists/imperialists, for if they are not defeated
once and for all, my captive government will continue in perpetuity to serve their
horridmurderousthieving agenda, enslaving my every descendent and robbing humanity of any
chance for peace on this pretty garden harbor planet. May justice be done to give peace a
chance.
What I wonder is who is the genius in the chain of command who brought this "opportunity" to
Trump's attention and who vetted the decision? Trump made a large error when he surrounded
himself with neocons (Abrahams, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Esper). Anyway it's a tangle and it's
pretty clear he (Trump) is in over his head. When he paniks he talks tough and he's making
threats. It's also no wonder he has not received any support on his decision to murder
Soleimani. From anywhere. Not even Israel is publicly supporting the decision. I think that
surprised him. For 350 years there has been an unwritten rule that you don't go after
generals or ambassadors or visiting politicians unless they are actively engaged in a combat
zone. Remember the outrage when the barbarian Libyans killed a mere station chief? How
outraged we were? Well, Trump overtly and with malice of forethought broke the rule. If I
were the Iranian's and I could get to any U.S. generals or high ranking officials (working or
visiting overseas) that's what I would do. Create animus within his own military and cabinet
departments. Get them at the supermarket, speaking engagements, on vacation, at home,
wherever. Doesn't matter. Wherever you can get them. Shitty thing to do no doubt but he
started it and something the American and other populations would instinctively understand.
Blood for blood retribution. No need to explain it to people.
......." Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an
election year."
b,
you are assuming that you are dealing with someone with a full deck of cards. If He was
stupid enough to kill a sovereign nation's top general, he will be stupid enough to start a
war. In fact that is his biggest wish. Elections be damned. Maybe the military would put on
the breaks but not this stupid sick man.
Few points: (1) Thanks to Trump, Pompeo and Esper every American soldier everywhere now wears
a bulls eye;
(2) Any soldier -including Americans - might find a great deal to admire in Soliemani, a guy
with a humble background who accomplished an extraordinary track record, a legendary
strategist';
(3) Has the US military's 'faith' in the sanity and competence of the civilian authority
been stretched near to some breaking point?
Pence claimed on twitter that Suleimani assisted the 12 9/11 hijackers, for which
he was instantly ridiculed.
Trump wants billions payback for airbases in Iraq that were already fully transferred upon
American withdrawal in december 2011.
BTW, the trolls are obvious trolls. Could be from Tel Aviv, but perhaps from London, too
(Integrity Initiative) Brits must be banging their heads against the wall over orange utan
dropping a monkey wrench into the gears of the imperial machine that they too depend on. You
bet that they need to spin this hard.
"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of
dollars to build. Long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it,"
Trump said
Paying us back?
Just ask the Iraqis - here is a reminder of what the bitter reality of economic violence
looks like:
The Crimes of Neoliberal Rule in Occupied Iraq
The clearest statement of intent for the future of the Iraqi economy is contained in Order
39, which permitted full foreign ownership of Iraqi state-owned assets and decreed that
over 200 state-owned enterprises, including electricity, telecommunications and the
pharmaceuticals industry, could be dismantled. Order 39 also permitted 100 per cent foreign
ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move their
profits out of Iraq. It has been argued already in the British courts that Order 39
constitutes an act of ILLEGAL OCCUPATION under the terms of the Hague and Geneva treaties :
The effect of Article 55 is to outlaw privatization of a country's assets whilst it is
under occupation by a hostile military power."
The mandate of the CPA was clear: to meet the 'humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people', to
meet the costs of 'reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure', to meet the costs
of disarmament and the civil administration of the country and other purposes 'benefiting
the people of Iraq'. The terms of UNSCR 1483 are unequivocal in this regard. It was this
resolution that established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI)
• DFI revenue, was available to the CPA immediately, in the form of $100,000 bundles
of $100 bills, shrink-wrapped in $1.6 million 'cashpaks'. Pallets of cashpaks were flown
into Baghdad direct from the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Some of this cash was
held by the CPA in the basement of its premises in Baghdad Republican Palace. It has been
reported that Paul Bremer controlled a personal slush fund of $600 million (Harriman 2005).
One advantage of the use of cash payments and transfers was that the CPA transactions left
no paper trail and therefore they remained relatively invisible
• The disbursal of Iraqi oil revenue by the CPA also has had profound implications for
the future structure of the Iraqi economy. ..Spending (in excess of $20 billion, partly
based upon projected income) had to be underwritten by US government loans .. (which) has
effectively deepened the debt that was originally accumulated during the period of
UN-enforced sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War (Alexander 2005).
• The right to self-determination and sovereign decision making over economic, social
and cultural development is in international law a principle of jus cogens In this regard,
the CPA clearly acted beyond its remit in terms of both the spirit and the letter of the
international laws of conflict. It is the anti-democratic and pre-emptive nature of
Anglo-American economic restructuring that most clearly demonstrates that the CPA regime
was in violation of international law.
• Similar violations arise from the CPA's governance of Iraqi oil wealth. Article 49
of the Hague rules notes that 'money contributions' levied in the occupied territory 'shall
only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question'.
The political strategy was characteristically neo-liberal (evasion of 'red tape' and any
obstacles that might hinder or limit the reallocation of wealth to the growing armies of
private enterprises). This strategy was given momentum by the granting of formal LEGAL
IMMUNITY to US personnel for activities related to the reconstruction economy. On the same
day that the CPA was created by UNSCR 1483, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, 2
The terms of the exemption provide immunity from prosecution for the theft or embezzlement
of oil revenue, or incidentally, from any safety or environmental violations that might be
committed in the course of producing Iraqi oil. Executive Order 13303 is therefore a
guarantee of IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION for white-collar and corporate crimes that involve
Iraqi oil. Two months later, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued CPA Order 17. Bremer's decree
guaranteed that members of the coalition military forces, the CPA, foreign missions and
contractors -- and their personnel -- would remain immune from the Iraqi legal process.
This carte blanche provision of immunity was extended again in June 2004.
What we are beginning to trace out here is a US government policy of suspending the
normal rule of law in the US and Iraq (so much for respecting Iraqi sovereigntx...)
The three most important things for doing battle are logistics, logistics and logistics, and
as Pat lang explains, the US forces in Syria are essentially fucked:
We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in
logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are
something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat
forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army
National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever
devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.
4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major
airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from
there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country.
It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through
there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.
Unless it reinvades and reoccupies, the United States will be gone from Syria,
probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis.
"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters
defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis
would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if
the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act
of war without Congressional authorization.
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't
believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles
America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the
threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a
Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right
thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture
sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining
light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been
in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will
happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill
and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to
a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us
all.
You've sure got it right with "rapture-mad", and the most frightening thing is that the
religious zealotry of Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney and Barr, inoculates them against any
criticism, because they believe they are serving a "higher"power and any criticism is a
testimony to their faith. In fact, by turning themselves into martyrs, they get to advance in
line for the Rapture. It seems particularly ironic that Evangelicals who support Israel do so
because they see God's plan unfolding there. The Jews, just happen to be sacrificial lambs in
the grand scheme. so they must must be preserved until the time is ripe for their rightful
annihilation, heralding the Second Coming. So, the problem of Pompeo, et al, is not Iran
destroying Israel, it's just that they've determined the timing is off.
As for the "wag the dog" theory, sure, Trump sees no difference between his personal fortunes
and national interests. But worse, the impeachment rests upon evidence that points to a
personal criminality on an international scale, which is the landscape where we find
ourselves. The president pardons convicts like Gallagher and Arpaio because they are cruel or
bloodthirsty. He admires dictators and ignores the law whenever he can, both as a private
individual and a president, and has obstructed a legal investigation into his corruption.
Now, on the international stage, by bypassing Congress, he is ignoring the sovereignty of the
American people, while incoherently threatening war crimes. Trump is fully blossoming into a
man like those he admires, an unrestrained, unprincipled, heavy hitting international tyrant.
I'm so disgusted with those whose job it is to check this man, and have abdicated their
responsibility, because they want to be like him. Reply 230 Recommend Share
I was at a friend's house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton's victory. When the
networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international
relations who was with us ominously predicted, "we are going to war with Iran." And here we
are.
America has become a living nightmare. A global power perceived mostly as benevolent by the
world is now a danger to all, including itself. Already having killed the Paris Agreement,
and Iran Nuclear Treaty, not to mention walking away from a nuclear arms treaty with the
Russians, Trump is now ready to wreak real havoc on the world - start a war. Boy will they
forget about impeachment now!
We haven't authorized the assassination of a military leader since the daring mission to kill
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although he'd been the architect of the Pearl Harbor
attack, and we were at war with Japan, this was a departure so significant that it only
proceeded after lengthy deliberation. And now, this. Your article fills in precisely how this
was so very much not that. But one party is in so cult-deep into this president now that the
lies won't stop. Thousands of Iranian have lost their lives in the past month trying to rid
themselves of this regime. Not only were those deaths rendered in vain by the assassination
of Suleimani, but the Iranian people are also even more yoked to a government they hate. And
wasn't the idea of grassroots-driven change in regime a core strategy behind pulling out of
the nuclear deal? And it's not okay because Suleimani is "evil." That's both subjective and
never a justification for an assassination of a foreign military leader of a nation we're not
at war with. As I noted, it was questionable when it was a military leader of nation we were
at war with. But, most important, what did we gain from this? Following yet another
disasterous military and foreign policy snap decision it only makes the importance of
removing Trump from office more urgent. Come for the Constitutional crime but convict because
the defendant is also manifestly unfit for the office. People are dying because of it and
more will die if he stays. Reply 186 Recommend Share
What, then, for an effective response? Outrage is mere fuel: what is the engine? A full year
seems too long. The Senate seems hopeless. What does that leave? Must we take to the streets
to stop this disaster of a president? All this time spent wondering how this will end makes
me feel like a victim of domestic abuse. What a waste. 1 Reply 180 Recommend Share
After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment
Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most
important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible
deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in
the Middle East.
We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But
already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to
fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian
objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in
response, only to then claim that it was a
draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining
restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that
Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's
cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify
Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.
The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent
threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American
official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but
"a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were
unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting
Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace"
-- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.
Rather than self-defense, the Suleimani killing seems like the dreadful result of several
intersecting dynamics. There's the influence of rapture-mad Iran hawks like Pompeo and Vice
President Mike Pence. Defense officials who might have stood up to Trump have all left the
administration. According to Peter Bergen's book "Trump and His Generals," James Mattis,
Trump's former secretary of defense, instructed his subordinates not to provide the president
with options for a military showdown with Iran. But with Mattis gone, military officials, The
Times reported, presented Trump with the possibility of killing Suleimani as the "most extreme"
option on a menu of choices, and were "flabbergasted" when he picked it.
Trump likely had mixed motives. He was reportedly upset over TV images of militia supporters
storming the American Embassy in Iraq. According to The Post, he also was frustrated by
"negative coverage" of his decision last year to order and then call off strikes on Iran.
Beyond that, Trump, now impeached and facing trial in the Senate, has laid out his rationale
over years of tweets. The president is a master of projection, and his accusations against
others are a decent guide to howhe
himself will behave . He told us,
over and over again , that he believed Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to "save
face" and because his "poll numbers are in a tailspin" and he needed to "get re-elected." To
Trump, a wag-the-dog war with Iran evidently seemed like a natural move for a president in
trouble.
... ... ...
Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it's still
ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to
negotiations. "His maximum pressure policy has failed," Nasr said of Trump. "He has only
produced a more dangerous Iran."
... ... ... Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the
author of several books about politics, religion and women's rights, and was part of a team
that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual
harassment issues. @michelleinbklyn
The Ukraine wants to do the 737 accident investigation. Why? To delegate it to the Dutch, get
Bellingcat involved and blame it on Russia?
I am sure Bellingcat will find some shitty video online of a Russian Buk that backed up
all the way from Kursk to Tehran without nobody else noticing it. Putin's niece was driving
it by direct order from the Kremlin!
Mike Pence will blame Iran for MH17 and Iraq will be sanctioned for it. Don't you just love the rule based order?
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Netanyahu: The killing of Soleimani is a U.S. event, not an Israeli event, and we
should stay out of it.
-- -- -- --
If Netanyahu got cold feet, that would be very naive of him, completely out of character.
No.
My pov re. Israel is that the US-uk and Isr. are in a symbiotic dependency relationship,
with the US as the controlling party.
Pov. bashed by USA stalwarts who love to blame Israel, Zionazis, Jews, the Mossad, etc..
for "bad stuff" that the US does.
The most powerful country in the world is controlled by some evil hateful figures in a
minuscule, depressing postage-stamp outpost (not..) plus and/or by infiltrating US Gvmt./
Media (more realistic..but was allowed, etc.)
Isr. only exists because of the support, international protection, huge stipends, offered
by the Hegemon.
-- -- -- --
No war with Iran. I have said this for years (and hope I continue to be right) see also
Petri at 21, others.
For the USDoS minion who has asked if the world would be a more secure place were Iran to
have nuclear weapons...
Absolutely yes, if Iran would have nuclear weapons right now, all this mamoneo would
end asap. Definitely it will act as the best deterrent, but that will not happen because that
is anti-Islamic and is forbidden by Ayatollah Khamenei.
I for one do not feel safe at all with the US and Israel having nuclear weapons, all
the more when both countries have currently at the helms both mafia bosses of the caliber of
Trump and Netanyahu.
On the contrary, that DPRK have nuclear weapons, as soon as I know very well that is for
deterrence against US bullying, allows me to sleep a pierna suelta...the same for Russia and
China..
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the
biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American,
we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without
hesitation!
shoe 9:18 PM - 4 Jan 2020
fuck healthcare, fuck our veterans, fuck our crumbling infrastructure, fuck the homless
MOMMY MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEEDS MORE MONEY HELL YEAH
"U.S.
Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses" provides numerous methods besides simply
the cessation of dollar use for international commercial transactions. Along with watching
the "Debt Wish 2020" vid linked above, I also suggest reading/watching this program . And lastly, I
suggest reading this analysis
here , although it only tangentially deals with your question.
Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most
fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer
military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy
old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that
his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he
avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and
fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive
military engagements.
Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the
head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has
brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too
shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game.
My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive
protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.
They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of
Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior
military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the
Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has
48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime
minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.
The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in
Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into
account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the
embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.
Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad,
Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to
the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths,
since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to
corruption.
Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites
who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq
from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need
all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for
direct crowd action.
You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the
absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation
of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either
the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having
to leave Iraq.
Although Trump justified the murder of Soleimani by calling him a terrorist, that is
nonsense in the terms of international law. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the
equivalent of the US National Guard. What Trump did is the equivalent of some foreign country
declaring the US military a terrorist organization (some have) and then assassinating General
Joseph L. Lengyel, the 28th Chief of the National Guard Bureau (God forbid and may he have a
long healthy life).
Yesterday,
Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel foreign troops from the country during an emergency
parliamentary session. Interim Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi, stressed during the
session, that while the US government notified the Iraqi military of the planned strike on
Soleimani, his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
In a meeting Monday, Mahdi, a caretaker prime minister who said in November he would resign,
told US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller that the US and Iraq needed to cooperate "to implement
the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with the decision of the Iraqi parliament,"
according to a statement from the PM's office that was cited by
the Washington Post .
Though the Iraq war 'officially' ended in 2011, thousands of coalition troops stuck around.
Their numbers increased following the rise of ISIS in the region.
Ending the US troop presence in Iraq has been a longtime goal of non-interventionists like
Ron Paul and his son, Rand.
That said, even without troops in Iraq, the US will still have plenty of capacity to bully
Iran, and other other regional powers.
Finally, in a scenario such as this, chaos is the starring player across the entire region.
The strike on Soleimani makes even more fraught the position of U.S. troops in Iraq, where the
parliament has now voted in favor of a non-binding resolution for the eviction of U.S. forces.
The loss of U.S. presence in Iraq would strengthen Iran's hand there and compound the damage to
our fight against the Islamic State from our abandonment of Kurdish partners last fall. While
the Islamic State has been pushed out of much of the territory it once held, it has melted back
into the population and seeks to capitalize on ungoverned space with insurgent attacks.
Ungoverned space was oxygen for the Islamic State's rise in 2014. Whatever else Soleimani's
death means, it is sure to add to chaos within Iraq and Syria, and that benefits the Islamic
State.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777
Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death
by
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/06/2020 - 20:45
0
SHARES
It was not the US decision to fire missiles against the IRGC commander Brigadier General
Qassem Soleimani that killed the Iranian officer and his companions in Baghdad.
Yes, of
course, the order that was given to launch missiles from the two drones (which destroyed the two cars
carrying Sardar Soleimani and his companion the Iraqi commander in al-Hashd al-Shaabi Jamal Jaafar
Al-Tamimi aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and burned their bodies in the vehicle) came from US command and
control.
However, the reason President Donald Trump made this decision derives from the weakness of
the "axis of resistance", which has completely retreated from the level of performance that Iran
believed it was capable of
after decades of work to strengthen this "axis".
A close companion of Major General Qassim Soleimani, to whom he spoke hours before boarding the
plane that took him from Damascus to Baghdad, told me:
"The nobleman died. Palestine above all has lost Hajj Qassem (Soleimani).
He was the
"King" of the Axis of the Resistance and its leader.
He was assassinated and this is
exactly what he was hoping to reach in this life (Martyrdom). However, this axis will live and will
not die.
No doubt, the Axis of the Resistance needs to review its policy and regenerate
itself to correct its path.
This was what Hajj Qassim was complaining about and planning
to work on and strategizing about in his last hours."
The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But
the
"axis of the Resistance" killed him before that. This is how:
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assassinated the deputy head of the Military Council
(the highest authority in the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is headed by its Secretary-General, Hassan
Nasrallah), Hajj
Imad Mughniyah
in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah could not avenge him
until today.
When Trump gave Netanyahu
Jerusalem
as the "capital of Israel", the "Axis of the
Resistance" did not move except by holding television symposia and conferences verbally rejecting the
decision.
When President Trump offered the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights
to Israel and the
"Axis of Resistance" did not react, the US President Donald Trump and his team understood that they
were opposed by no effective deterrent. The inaction of the Resistance axis emboldened Trump to do
what he wants.
And when Israel bombed
hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria
, the "Axis
of the Resistance" justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: "We do not want to be
dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy," as a senior official in this axis
told me.
In Iraq shortly before his death, Major General Soleimani was complaining about
the
weakening of the Iraqi ranks
within this "Axis of the Resistance", represented by the
Al-Bina' (Construction) Alliance and other groups close to this alliance like Al-Hikma of Ammar
al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi, formerly close to Iran, that have gone over to the US side.
In Iraq, Major General Soleimani was very patient and never lost his temper. He was trying to
reconcile the Iraqis, both his allies and those who had chosen the US camp and disagreed with him. He
used to hug those who shouted at him to lower tensions and continue dialogue to avoid spoiling the
meeting. Anyone who raised his voice during discussions soon found that it was Soleimani who calmed
everyone down.
Hajj Qassem Soleimani was unable to reach a consensus on the new Prime Minister's name among those
he deemed to be allies in the same coalition. He asked Iraqi leaders to select the names and went
through all of these asking questions about the acceptability of these names to the political groups,
to the Marjaiya, to protestors in the street and whether the suggested names were not provocative or
challenging to the US.
Notwithstanding the animosity between Iran and the US, Soleimani
encouraged the selection of a personality that would not be boycotted by the US. Soleimani believed
the US capable of damaging Iraq and understood the importance of maintaining a good relationship with
the US for the stability of the country.
Soleimani was shocked by the dissension among Iraqi Shia and believed that the "axis of resistance"
needed a new vision as it was faltering. In the final hours before his death, Major General Soleimani
was ruminating on the profound antagonisms between Iraqis of the same camp.
When the Iraqi street began to move against the government, the line rejecting American hegemony
was fragmented because it was part of the authority that ruled and governed Iraq. To make matters
worse, Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr directed his arrows against his partners in government, as though the
street demonstrations did not target him, the politician controlling the largest number of Iraqi
deputies, ministers and state officials, who had participated in the government for more than ten
years.
Major General Soleimani admonished Moqtada Al-Sadr for his stances, which contributed to
undermining the Iraqi ranks because the Sadrist leader did not offer an alternative solution or
practical project other than the chaos. Moqtada has his own men, the feared Saraya al-Salam, present
in the street.
When US Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on December 28
and informed him of America's intentions of hitting Iraqi security targets inside Iraq, including the
PMU, Soleimani was very disappointed by Abdul-Mahdi's failure to effectively oppose Esper. Abdul-Mahdi
merely told Esper that the proposed US action was dangerous. Soleimani knew that the US would not have
hit Iraqi targets had Abdul-Mahdi dared to oppose the US decision.
The targeted areas were a
common Iranian-Iraqi operational stage to monitor and control ISIS movements on the borders with Syria
and Iraq.
The US would have reversed its decision had the Iraqi Prime Minister threatened the
US with retaliation in the event that Iraqi forces were bombed and killed. After all, the US had no
legal right to attack any objective in Iraq without the agreement of the Iraqi government.
This
decision was the moment when Iraq has lost its sovereignty and the US took control of the country.
This effective US control is another reason why President Trump gave the green light to kill Major
General Soleimani. The Iraqi front had demonstrated its weakness and also, it was necessary to select
a strong Iraqi leader with the guts to stand to the US arrogance and unlawful actions.
Iran has never controlled Iraq, as most analysts mistakenly believe and speculate. For years, the
US has worked hard in the corridors of the Iraqi political leadership lobby for its own interests. The
most energetic of its agents was US Presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who clearly realised the
difficulties of navigating inside Iraqi leaders' corridors during the search for a prime minister of
Iraq before the appointment of Adel Abdel Mahdi, the selection of President Barham Saleh and other
governments in the past. Major General Soleimani and McGurk shared an understanding of these
difficulties. Both understood the nature of the Iraqi political quagmire.
Soleimani did not give orders to fire missiles at US bases or attack the US Embassy. If it was in
his hands to destroy them with accurate missiles and to remove the entire embassy from its place
without repercussions, he would not have hesitated. But the Iraqis have their own opinions, methods,
modus operandi and selection of targets and missile calibres; they never relied on Soleimani for such
decisions.
Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs was never welcomed by the Marjaiya in Najaf, even if it agreed
to receive Soleimani on a few occasions. They clashed over the reelection of Nuri al-Maliki,
Soleimani's preferred candidate, to the point that the Marjaiya wrote a letter making its refusal of
al-Maliki explicit. This led to the selection of Abadi as prime minister.
Soleimani's views contradicted the perception of the Marjaiya, that had to write a clear message,
firstly, to reject the re-election of Nori al-Maliki to a third session, despite Soleimani's
insistence.
All of the above is related to the stage that followed the 2011 departure of US forces from Iraq
under President Obama. Prior to that, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis was the link between the Iraqis and Iran:
he had the decision-making power, the vision, the support of various groups, and effectively served as
the representative of Soleimani, who did not interfere in the details. These Iraqi groups met with
Soleimani often in Iran; Soleimani rarely travelled to Iraq during the period of heavy US military
presence.
Soleimani, although he was the leader of the "Axis of the Resistance", was sometimes called "the
king" in some circles because his name evokes Solomon. According to sources within the "Axis of the
Resistance", he "never dictated his own policy but left a margin of movement and decision to all
leaders of the axis without exception. Therefore, he was considered the link between this axis and the
supreme leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was able to contact Sayyed Khamenei at any time and
directly without mediation. The Leader of the revolution considered Soleimani as his son.
According to sources, in Syria, Soleimani "never hesitated to jump inside a truck, ride an ordinary
car, take the first helicopter, or travel on a transport or cargo plane as needed. He did not take any
security precautions but used his phone (which he called a companion spy) freely because he believed
that when the decision came to assassinate him, he would follow his destiny. He looked forward to
becoming a martyr because he had already lived long."
Was the leader of the "resistance axis" managing and running it?
Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: "You are an Arab and the Arabs accept you more
than they accept Iran". Sayyed Nasrallah directed and managed the axis of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen and
had an important role in Iraq. Hajj Soleimani was the liaison between the axis of the resistance and
Iran and he was the financial and logistical officer. According to my source, "He was a friend of all
leaders and officials of all ranks. He was humble and looked after everyone he had to deal with".
The "Axis of Resistance" indirectly allowed the killing of Qassem Soleimani. If Israel and the US
could know Sayyed Nasrallah's whereabouts, they would not hesitate a moment to assassinate him. They
may be aware: the reaction may be limited to burning flags and holding conferences and manifesting in
front of an embassy. Of course, this kind of reaction does not deter President Trump who wants to be
re-elected with the support of Israel and US public opinion. He wants to present himself as a warrior
and determined leader who loves battle and killing.
Iran invested 40 years building the "Axis of the Resistance". It cannot remain idle, faced
with the assassination of the Leader of this axis.
Would a suitable price be the US exit from
Iraq and condemnation in the Security Council? Would that, together with withdrawal from the nuclear
deal, be enough for Iran to avenge its General? Will the ensuing battle be confined to the Iraqi
stage? Will it be used for the victory of certain Iraqi political players?
The assassination of its leader represents the supreme test for the Axis of Resistance. All
sides, friend and foe, are awaiting its response.
Tags
Politics
Notice on Racial Discrimination
.
Copyright 2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD
Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else?
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right
to your inbox.
Please enter a valid email
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
Is Trump yet ruing the day he lent his ear to the siren songs of the Iran-obsessed neocons?
One can almost imagine the president, sitting in the makeshift situation room at Mar-a-Lago
just a few days ago surrounded with the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence,
Defense Secretary Esper, and his Pentagon advisors who breathlessly present him an
"opportunity" to kick the Iranian leadership in the face and also dismantle an operation in the
works to attack US military and civilian personnel in the region.
All he had to do was sign off on the assassination of Gen. Qassim Soleimani, a man he likely
had never heard of a couple of years ago but who, he was told, was "responsible for killing
hundreds of Americans" in Iraq.
"Soleimani did 9/11!" - Pence helpfully yet insanely chimed in.
"You're not a wimp like Obama, who refused to assassinate this terrorist," he was probably
told. "You're decisive, a real leader. This one blow will change the entire calculus of the
Middle East," they likely told him. "If you take out Soleimani, I guarantee you that it will
have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
(Actually, that last one was from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to
Congress in 2002 where he promised the US that "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I
guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." Brilliant
forecasting, Bibi.)
As could be expected, the cover story cooked up by the neocons and signed off on by Trump
started taking water the moment it was put to sea.
Soleimani was not traveling like a man plotting a complicated, multi-country assault on US
troops in the region. No false mustaches or James Bond maneuvers - he was flying commercial and
openly disembarked at the terminal of Baghdad International Airport. He was publicly met and
greeted by an Iraqi delegation and traveled relatively unguarded from the airport.
Until a US drone vaporized him and his entire entourage - which included a senior Iraqi
military officer.
The furious Iraqi acting-Prime Minister Mahdi immediately condemned the attack in the
strongest terms, openly calling for the expulsion of the US forces - who remain in Iraq
ostensibly to fight an ISIS that has long been defeated but, de facto , to keep the
beachhead clear for a US attack on Iran.
Arguing for the expulsion of the US in a special parliamentary session held on January 5th,
Mahdi spilled the truth about Soleimani's mission in Iraq: It was not to plot the killing of US
troops: it was to deliver a response from Iran to a peace overture from the Saudis, the result
of talks that were being facilitated by Iraq.
And the US side knew about the mission and had, according to press reports, encouraged Iraq
to facilitate the Iran/Saudi talks.
Did the US neocons and Pentagon warhawks like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.
Mike Milley knowingly exploit what they anticipated would be relatively lax security for a
peace mission between Iran and Saudi Arabia to assassinate Gen. Soleimani (with collateral
damage being Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization
Units)?
And, to drill a little deeper, which US "allies" would want to blow up any chance of peace
between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Factions within Saudi Arabia, where a fierce power struggle
rages below the surface? No doubt. In Israel, where Netanyahu continues fighting for his
political life (and freedom) with his entire political career built around mayhem and
destruction? Sure. It's not like Trump has ever been able to say "no" to the endless demands of
either Bibi or his Saudi counterpart in crime MBS.
Who knows, maybe Trump knew all along and was in on it. Make war on a peace mission.
Whatever the case, as always happens the neocons have steered things completely off the
rails. The cover story is in tatters, and the Iraqi democracy - for which we've been ostensibly
fighting for 16 years with a loss of US life in the thousands and of Iraqi life in the millions
- voted on Sunday that US forces must leave Iraq.
We destroyed Iraq to "give them democracy," but they had the nerve to exercise that
democracy to ask us to leave!
Iran could not believe its luck in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, when it
soon became clear that Iraq would fall into their hands. Likewise, it appears that the
longstanding fervent wish of the Iranian leadership - the end of the US occupation of Iraq (and
Syria) - will soon be fulfilled thanks to Trump's listening to the always toxic advice of the
neocon warmongers.
Can Trump recover from this near-fatal mistake? It is possible. But with Trump's Twitter
finger threatening Iraq with "big big" sanctions and an even bigger bill to cover the cost of
our invasion and destruction of their country, it appears that his ability to learn from his
mistakes is limited. A bit less time on Twitter and a lot less time with the people who hate
his guts - Pompeo, Pence, Graham, etc. - might help.
Meanwhile...will Iran avenge Soleimani's murder directly, or using asymmetrical means?
Trump said of his decision to assassinate a top official from a country with which we are
not technically at war, "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to
start a war." But it doesn't work that way. When you kill another country's top military
leadership you have definitely started a war.
What remains to be seen is how it will play out.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
I agree with the first part. Disproportionate and barbarous threat of instant retaliation is
prt of terrorising and unsettling and even freezing the capacity to 'think'.
All thinking proceeds from presumptions, and one of the ways 'power' works deceit is in the
ability to set it up so that the 'controlled' or 'leveraged' believe that their thinking is
free while setting the fame of their perceived self-interest.
I just watched Corbett and Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond on this issue,
that touches on a little of the military political context – a key part of which is the
'Israeli' agenda – and its style of 'politics' by pre-emptive strike under aggressively
defended narrative assertion.
As for what the US(a) CAN execute as all-out war is linked to the will to do so –
along with the costs or consequences of doing so. Meanwhile broad spectrum dominance operates
transnationally by stealth and deceit. The US(a) is wagged by its Corporate tails.
A significant part of masking tyranny under terror is the aggressively defended protection
racket. For some this means believing the narrative they are given and for others it means they
have to be seen to comply and conform to signal 'virtue' of allegiance under an enforced
narrative dictate or lose their jobs, and reputation and incur penalties of social exclusion
for the rest of their lives.
The act of state-endorsed murder without trial or evidences – that also kills others
in the vicinity – aimed anywhere in the world – based in classified 'intelligence'
that is without any oversight, accountability or challenge – is seeking to be as 'gods
over men' – indeed a 'god' jealous of any and all rival as monopoly over life on earth
– such as will survive under such a parasitic and destructive deceit. 7 0 Reply
Soleimani was not feared by U.S. (and Israeli and Saudi) policymakers because primarily he
was a terrorist (though he sometimes used terror tactics) but mostly because he successful.
According to journalist Yossi Mellman, Israeli intelligence assessed him as "a
daring and talented commander , despite the considerable number of mistakes in his
assessments and failed operations in the course of his career."
First, Soleimani played a key role in driving U.S. occupation forces out of Iraq. As Al-Quds
commander he presided over the creation of anti-American militias in 2003 that mounted deadly
attacks on the U.S. forces seeking to establish a pro-American government. One Iraqi militia
leader, Qais
al-Khazali , who debriefed U.S. intelligence officers in 2008, said he had "a few meetings"
with Soleimani and other Iranian officials of similar rank.
According to Khazali, Soleimani did not take part in the operational
activities–providing weapons, training or cash. He left those tasks to deputies or
intermediaries. Under Iranian tutelage, these militias specialized in using improvised
explosive devices (IEDs) to kill upwards of
600 soldiers in the U.S. occupation forces, according to general David Petraeus.
Soleimani's attacks–along with the manifest failure of U.S. goals to reduce terrorism
and spread democracy–contributed to President Obama's politically popular decision to
withdraw of most U.S. troops in 2011. Forcing the U.S. out of Iraq was a priority for the
government in Tehran, and Soleimani helped achieve it.
Nemesis of ISIS
Second, Soleimani played a key role in driving ISIS out of Iraq–a victory in which the
United States ironically helped boost his reputation.
In this battle, Soleimani took advantage of U.S. vulnerability, not hubris. When ISIS leader
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed an Islamic State in western Iraq six years ago, Tehran was just
as alarmed as Washington. The Sunni fundamentalists of ISIS regard the Shia Muslims of Iran and
Iraq as infidels, almost as contemptible as Americans and Israelis.
After the regular Iraqi armed forces collapsed, Iraqi Ayotollah Ali Sistani blessed the
creation of Shia militias to save the country.
Sistani's fatwa empowered Iran to mobilize and expanded Soleimani's militia network. The
Iranian-sponsored fighters, along with the Kurdish pesh merga, proceeded to do most of the
bloody street fighting that drove ISIS out of Mosul, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities.
As Soleimani moved about openly in Iraq, U.S. commanders did not attack him because he did
not attack them. Sometimes, pro-American and pro-Iranian soldiers even fought side by
side. Thanks to this tacit U.S.-Iranian cooperation that neither country cared to publicly
acknowledge, ISIS was expelled from Iraq into Syria by 2017.
In Iran, Soleimani emerged as a hero in the fight against the deadliest religious fanatics
on the planet, especially after ISIS had carried out a terror attack in Tehran on June 2017
that killed
12 people.
In Iraq, the rout of ISIS enhanced the prestige of Soleimani and the Iranian-backed
militias. Some of their leaders entered politics and business, drawing complaints
about–and
demonstrations against -- heavy-handed Iranian influence. Many Iraqis grew unhappy about
Iran's new influence, but success made Soleimani an indispensable security partner for the
embattled government in Baghdad. That's why he visited Iraq last week.
Besting the CIA
Third, Soleimani helped defeat ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria's civil war. In 2015, President
Bashar al-Assad's armed forces were losing ground to Sunni fundamentalist forces funded by the
CIA and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies. The CIA wanted to overthrow Assad. Iran feared losing
its ally in Damascus to a hostile anti-Shia regime controlled by al-Qaeda. Obama feared another
Iraq and refused to commit U.S. forces.
Soleimani brought in Iranian advisers and fighters from Hezbollah, the Shia militia of
Lebanon which Iran has supported since the 1980s. With help from merciless Russian bombing and
Syrian chemical attacks , the Iranian-trained ground forces helped Syria turn the tide on
the jihadists. The CIA, under directors Leon Panetta, John Brennan and Mike Pompeo, spent
$1
billion dollars to overthrow Assad. They had less influence on the outcome than
Soleimani.
The net effect of Soleimani's three victories -- abetted by U.S. crimes and blunders -- was,
for better or worse, to bolster Iranian influence across the region. From Afghanistan in the
east to the Mediterranean in the West, Iran gained political ground, thanks to Soleimani. He
perfected the art of asymmetric warfare, using local proxies, political alliances, deniable
attacks, and selective terrorism to achieve the government's political goals.
(Soleimani, it is worth noting, had no record of attacking non-uniformed Americans. While
Pompeo said that Soleimani "had inflicted so much suffering on Americans," it is a fact that
not a single
American civilian was killed in an Iranian-backed terror attack between 2001 to 2019.)
Iran's cumulative successes provoked dismay Washington (and Tel Aviv and Riyadh). In the
course of the 21st century, Iran overcome international isolation and to actually gain, not
lose, advantage to its regional rivals. He also became a media personality in the regime using
selfies from the battlefield to promote an image of an accessible general who liked to rub
shoulders with his men.
Along the way, Iran maintained a terrible record on human rights at home, persecuting
journalists, bloggers, and women who spurn the hijab. Iran's
Ministry of Intelligence and Security didn't kill Americans but it did take a number of
hostages, including
Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian . Across the region, Iran's ambitions stirred up
widespread opposition from secular, feminist, and nationalist movements that reject the theory
and practice of Iranian theocracy.
These non-violent movements, however, never advocated that the United States attack their
country. They are not welcoming Soleimani's death, and they are unlikely to support the U.S.
(or Israeli) attacks in the coming conflict. Quite the contrary. The anti-Iranian
demonstrations in Iran and Iraq are over for the foreseeable future. Iranians and Iraqis who
publicly supported the United States and opposed the mullahs, have been silenced. In death as
in life, Soleimani had diminished the U.S. influence in the Middle East.
This article first appeared on Jefferson Morley's TheDeepStateBlog .
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing
out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S.
officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with
claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught
in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly
exposed as a complete falsehood.
CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj
It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity
within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about
Syrian chemical attacks and
the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some
clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.
When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was
planning, the State Dept. responds with:
"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"
Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as
part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to
Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth
get in the way of a good story.
Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate
Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get
Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP
As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who
genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:
Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American
action last night as giving them freedom."
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were
among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the
crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow
Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future
role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important
things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a
resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and
actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.
WOW,
Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the
American strike that killed Suleimani.
Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the
group in 2008.
Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been
a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either
country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him
to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more
dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.
Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already
transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are
cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly
nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic
blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran
having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an
enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the
ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time
being.
Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1
Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and
will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total
focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far
easier to achieve now.
If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation
of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American
stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of
consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That
said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will
be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the
region.
This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either.
Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he
was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely
inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way
Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost
skepticism.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has offered Iraq Tuesday the option to
purchase the world's most advanced missile defense system to protect its airspace, reported
RIA Novosti .
According to the report, the Iraqi Armed Forces could purchase the Russian S-400 Triumf air
defense system, which RIA points out, can "ensure the country's sovereignty and reliable
airspace protection."
"Iraq is a partner of Russia in the field of military-technical cooperation, and the Russian
Federation can supply the necessary funds to ensure the sovereignty of the country and reliable
protection of airspace, including the supply of S-400 missiles and other components of the air
defense system, such as Buk-M3, Tor -M2 "and so on," said Igor Korotchenko, Russian Defense
Ministry's Public Council member.
For the last several months, Iraq has considered purchasing Russian air defense and missile
systems, including the S-400, however, it has been met with fierce pressure from the US.
But with a political crisis between the US and Iraq underway, thanks partly to the US
assassination of Iran's Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Russia could profit as Iraq attempts to
decouple from the US.
Wow! I just suggested it yesterday! 😀 After Iraq kicks the US out, it would need
protection from American/Israeli warplanes. And Russian S-400 can do the job https://t.co/KCz3v705l1
Russia signaling Iraq to continue pushing out foreign troops from their territory with
less fear they gonna be targeted just like exemplified Sulemani when they took out like that
since Iraq can have S-400 and Russian protection if they wanted etc
well well this pesky Russian understands protections will boast their push of the great
satan?
First things first. There are NO legal/formal obligations between
Russia and Iran and last time I checked, no Iranians have volunteered to die for Russia. Next, yes, Iran is an
important ally for Russia. But what most folks are missing is that Iran does not need (or want) a direct Russian
intervention. There are lots of reasons (including historical ones) to this. But what most folks are completely
misunderstanding is that
the Iranians are confident that they can win without any Russian (or other) help
.
I am in touch with a lot of folks from the Middle-East (including Iran) and I can tell you that their mood is one
of not only total determination, but one of quiet confidence. Nobody in the region doubts that it's now over for
Uncle Shmuel. I know, this sounds incredible for folks living in the West, but that is the reality in the
Middle-East.
From 'The Charge of the Light Brigade'
Besides, you can be sure that Russia will help Iran, but behind the scenes. First and foremost with
intelligence: while the Iranian have an extremely sophisticated intelligence community, it is dwarfed by the much
larger Russian one which, on top of being much bigger, also has technical means which Iran can only dream about.
Russia can also help with early warning and targeting. We can't know what is really going behind the scenes, but I
am getting reports that the Russians are on full alert (as they were during the first Gulf war, alas Saddam
Hussein did not listen to the Russian warnings).
6)
Should Russia declare that Iran is now under Russian protection
? Absolutely not! Why? Think
of what is taking place as if you were sitting in the Kremlin: the Empire is about to embark on its last war (yes,
I mean that, see further below) and the Russian specialists all KNOW that the US will lose, and badly. Why in the
world would you intervene when your "main foe" (KGB/SVR/FSB expression for "USA") is about to do something
terminally stupid?
Besides, this is a cultural issue too. In the West, threats are constantly used. Not only to scare the enemy,
but also to feel less terrified yourself. In Asia (and Russia is far more culturally Asian than European) threats
are seen as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve. In this entire career, Putin used a threat only ONCE: to
convince the Urkonazis that attacking during the World Cup would have "severe consequences for the Ukrainian
statehood".
But you have to understand that from a Russian point of view, the Ukraine is militarily so weak as to be
laughable as an enemy and nobody in his right mind will ever doubt the outcome of a Ukie war with Russia. This is
an extreme and exceptional case. But look at the case of the Russian intervention in Syria: unlike their western
counterparts, the Russians did not first spend weeks threatening ISIS or anybody else in Syria. When Putin took
the decision, they simply moved in, so quietly that THE BEST military in the galaxy never detected the Russian
move.
So, IF, and I don't think that this will happen, Russia ever decided to move in to protect Iran, the US will
find out about it when US servicemen will die in large numbers. Until then, Russia will not be issuing threats.
Again, in the West threats are a daily occurrence. In the East, they are a sign of weakness.
Now you know why US threats are totally ineffective.
7)
US force levels in the Middle-East.
The US maintains a large network of bases all around
Iran and throughout the entire planet, really. The real numbers are secret, of course, but let us assume, for
argument sake, that the US has about 100'000 soldiers more or less near Iran. The actual figure does not matter
(and the Iranians know it anyway). What is crucial is this: this does NOT mean that the US has 100'000 soldiers
ready to attack Iran. A lot of that personnel is not really combat capable (the ratio of combat ready vs support
ranges from country to country and from war to war, but let's just say that most of these 100'000 are NOT combat
soldiers). Not only that, but there is a big difference between, say, many companies and battalions in a region
and a real armored division. For example, the 82nd AB is an INFANTRY force, not really mechanized, not capable of
engaging say, an armored brigade.
Here is a historical sidebar: during the first Gulf war, the US also sent in the 82nd AB as the central force
of the operation "Desert Shield". And here is where Saddam Hussein committed his WORST blunder of all. If he had
sent in his armored divisions across the Saudi border he would have made minced meat of the 82nd. The US knew
that. In fact, Cheney was once asked what the US would have done if the Iraqis has destroyed the 82nd. He replied
that the first line of defense was airpower on USN aircraft carriers and cruise missiles. And if that failed, the
US would have had to use tactical nukes to stop the Iraqi divisions. That would be one of those instances were
using nukes WOULD make sense from a purely military point of view (nukes are great to deal with armor!), but from
a political point of view it would have been a PR disaster (
vide supra
). The same is true today.
For the US to engage in any serious ground operation it would need many months to get the force levels high
enough and you can be darn sure that Iran would NEVER allow that. Should Uncle Shmuel try to send in a real, big,
force into the KSA you can be sure that the Iranians will strike with everything they have!
The bottom line is this:
the US has more than enough assets in the region to strike/bomb Iran. The US
has nowhere near the kind of force levels to envision a major ground operation even in Iraq, nevermind Iran!
8)
What about the Strait of Hormuz?
There is no doubt in my mind that Iran can close the
Strait of Hormuz. In fact, all the Iranians need to do to close it is say that they reserve the right to destroy
(by whatever means) any ship attempting passage. That will be enough to stop all traffic. Of course, if that
happens the US will have no other option than to attack the southern cost of Iran and try to deal with that
threat. And yes, I am sorry of I disappoint my Iranian friends, I do believe that the US could probably re-open
the Strait of Hormuz, but that will require "boots on the ground" in southern Iran and that is something which
might yield an initial success, but that will turn into a massive military disaster in the medium to long run
because the Iranians will have not only have time on their side, but they will have a dream come true: finally the
US GIs will be within reach, literally. So, typically, the US will prevail coming in, only to find itself in a
trap.
9)
Do the Iranians seek death?
This is an important one (thanks to Larchmonter 445 for
suggesting this!). The short answer is no. Not at all. Iranians want to live and they do not seek death. HOWEVER,
they also know that death in defense of Islam or in defense of the oppressed is an act of "witness to God", which
is what the Arabic word "
shahid
" is (and why the Greek work μάρτυς "martis" means). What does that mean?
That means that while Muslim soldiers should not seek their death, and while they ought to do everything in their
power to remain alive, they are NOT afraid of death in the least. To fully understand this mindset, you need only
become aware of the most famous and crucial Shia slogan "
Every Day Is Ashura and Every Land Is Karbala
"
(see explanation
here
).
If I had to translate this into a Christian frame of reference I would suggest this "every day is Good/Passion
Friday and every land is the Golgotha". That is to say, "
no matter were you are and no matter what time it is,
you have to be willing to sacrifice your life for God and for the defense of the oppressed
". So no, Iranians
are a joyful people (as are Arabs), and they don't seek death. But neither do they fear it and they accept, with
gratitude, the possibility of having to sacrifice their lives in defense of justice and truth. This is one more
reason why threats by terminal imbeciles like Pompeo or Trump have no effect whatsoever on Muslims.
10)
So what is really happening now?
Folks,
this is the beginning of the end for the
Empire
. Yes, I know, this sounds incredible, yet this is exactly what we are seeing happening before our
eyes. The very best which the US can hope for now is a quick and complete withdrawal from the Middle-East. For a
long list of political reason, that does not seem a realistic scenario right now. So what next? A major war
against Iran and against the entire "Shia crescent" ? Not a good option either. Not only will the US lose, but it
would lose both politically and militarily. Limited strikes? Not good either, since we know that Iran will
retaliate massively. A behind the scenes major concession to appease Iran? Nope, ain't gonna happen either since
if the Iranians let the murder of Soleimani go unpunished, then Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar al-Assad and even
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the next ones to be murdered. A massive air campaign? Most likely, and initially
this will feel good (lots of flagwaving in the USA), but soon this will turn into a massive disaster. Use nukes?
Sure, and destroy your political image forever and not only in the Middle-East but worldwide.
As a perfect illustration, just check
the
latest stupid threat made by Trump
: "
If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly
basis, we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look
somewhat tame"
. Folk, this is exactly the kind of stupid language which will deeply offend any Iraqi patriot.
This is the kind of language which comes out of an empire in the late stages of agony.
Trump will go down in history as the man who thought he could scare the Iranian and Iraqi people with "tweets".
Pathetic indeed.
CONCLUSION
I hope that these pointers will be useful, especially when you are going to be hit with a massive Tsunami of US
flagwaving propaganda (Trump "we are THE BEST"). Simply put: this is bullshit. Modern wars are first and foremost
propaganda wars, and what you see as the output of US ruling elites are just that "information operations". Let
them wave their (Chinese made) flags, let them declare "United we stand" (for what exactly they stand is never
specified) and let them repeat that the US military is the MOST FORMIDABLE FORCE IN THE GALAXY. These are nothing
but desperate attempts to control the narrative, nothing else.
Oh, and one more irony: while the GOP controlled Senate is most unlikely to ever impeach Trump, is it not
pathetically hilarious that Trump has now, indeed, committed acts ought to have him removed from office? Of
course, in the real world, the US Neocon deep-state controls BOTH parties and BOTH parties fully support a war
against Iran. Still, this is one of those ironies of history which should be mentioned.
I will resume my work tomorrow morning.
Until then, I wish you call a good nite/morning/day.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate
Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens.
I don't believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about
Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the
phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming
Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of
lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied
ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the
list goes on.
At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a
"threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must
assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have
provided nothing. So I don't believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important
to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the
assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States,
Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials
stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that
will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is
absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased
risk of death for nothing.
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior
Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government
– would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it
has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been
a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and
they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression
– and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong
defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from
the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It
makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the
bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US
interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed
overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy
brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that
for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from
The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters
defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis
would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if
the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act
of war without Congressional authorization.
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't
believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles
America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the
threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a
Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right
thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture
sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining
light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been
in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will
happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill
and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to
a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us
all.
After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment
Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most
important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible
deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in
the Middle East.
We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But
already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to
fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian
objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in
response, only to then claim that it was a
draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining
restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that
Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's
cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify
Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.
The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent
threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American
official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but
"a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were
unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting
Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace"
-- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.
MASTER OF UNIVE American corporations will start falling into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Q1 if
the USA MIC cannot find new contracts to profit from via kinetic war. The USA's last war was
Iraq post-911 and the USA MIC made good money & profit from that war. Without forever wars
the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy will deflate. If the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy deflates due to
recession it means the end of USA Imperialism.
If the hawks can generate forever wars the MIC suppliers may have a chance to stay in business,
but if they don't get new contracts for new forever wars they all know implicitly that that is
a Zero Sum game for the entire USA population.
BIG Chief Trump little penis has only one chance to stay in power at this juncture. He has
ordered troupes to Iraq and approximately 2000 marines are on the way right now. In brief, 2000
marines were not ordered to Iraq to escort the base troupes out of Iraq safely. They were sent
on a mission.
Impeachment, DOW Share Price, and no Trade Deal with China will put Trump on the defensive
and he will start threatening everyone in the world if he does not get his way.
Trump is the kind of child leader that will throw temper tantrums in front of the world.
Temper tantrums worked with his parents, and the Real Estate community in New York shitty.
Trump is a child of roughly 6 or 7 mentally & socially. Id impulses are running the
world here and when id impulses run the world from the White House we are certain that whatever
manifests will be destructive beyond imagination for most adults in the world.
Children with anger management issues & rage issues will understand Trump best.
The United States, like Israel, has become a pariah that shreds, violates or absents itself
from international law. We launch preemptive wars, which under international law is defined as
a "crime of aggression," based on fabricated evidence. We, as citizens, must hold our
government accountable for these crimes. If we do not, we will be complicit in the codification
of a new world order, one that would have terrifying consequences. It would be a world without
treaties, statutes and laws. It would be a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state
to a great imperial power, would be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations
to others. Such a new order would undo five decades of international cooperation -- largely put
in place by the United States -- and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. Diplomacy, broad
cooperation, treaties and law, all the mechanisms designed to civilize the global community,
would be replaced by savagery.
Chris Hedges, an Arabic speaker, is a former Middle East bureau chief for The New York
Times. He spent seven years covering the region, including Iran.
It's all about the level of geopolitical control of oil-rich regions. In other words Carter
doctrine.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces. ..."
"... Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood ..."
"... Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra). ..."
"... But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over. ..."
I personally do not think that the strike was a typically
capricious move by Trump. I am more inclined to believe that it has been in the works for a
long time and his advisers might well have offered it to him as a preferable retaliation option
against the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone in June of last year – where Trump floundered
and finally held back from launching a conventional military attack on Iranian forces, through
fear of civilians being killed, or so he claims.
What we are witnessing is unprecedented in the region. It has caught everyone off guard,
even the democrats in the U.S., who can barely believe the stupidity of the move, which
arguably, is a measured one. Trump believes that he can come out the winner of a pseudo war
– or a proxy one – in the region, even though the Iranians have demonstrated that
they easily have the capability of shutting down Saudi Arabia's oil exports with a relatively
minor salvo of ordinance.
In fact, Saudi Arabia might well, in my view, be part of this latest move. Much has been
made of the petulant twitter goading of Tehran's Supreme leader to Trump directly, which may
well have pushed him over a line. But in reality, there is something much deeper and nefarious
at play which may well be the true basis of why the decision was taken for the assassination:
to destroy any possibilities of Iran and Saudi Arabia patching up their differences and
continuing in dialogue, to avoid further tensions.
There is ample evidence to show that since the oilfield attacks carried out by Iran, Saudi
crown prince Mohamed bin Salman has softened his stance on Iran and was looking at ways,
through intermediaries, to build a working relation. It was early days and progress was
slow.
But the Soleimani hit will blow that idea right out of the water. In one fell swoop, the
strike galvanises and polarises an anti-Iran front from Saudi Arabia and Israel, which, whilst
doing wonders for U.S. arms procurement will cause more tension in the region as it places
countries like Qatar, UAE, Turkey and Oman in a really awkward spot with regards to how it
should continue to work with Tehran. It may well put back the Qatar blockade to its earlier
position as 'rogue state' in the region, prompting it to possibly even go rogue and get more
involved in the battle to take Tripoli (supporting Turkish forces, obviously, who are with the
UN-recognised government).
In fact, there is an entire gamut of consequences to the move, beyond merely Iran seeking to
take revenge against America's allies in the region. It is less about a declaration of war
against Iran but more a declaration of anti-peace towards the entire Arab world, which was
starting to unfold in the last six months since Trump stepped back from the region and stood
down from a retaliation strike against Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Trump is gambling that he
can sustain Saudi Arabia's oil being disrupted and even body bags of U.S. soldiers in Syria and
Iraq in return for a fresh wave of popularity from people too ignorant to understand or wish to
comprehend the nuances of the Middle East and how so many U.S. presidents use the pretext of a
war, or heightened tensions, as part of their chest-beating, shallow popularity campaign.
Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's
achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to
do that in cooperation with U.S. forces.
Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know
that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their
bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the
White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that
year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie
actor from Hollywood .
Reagan, in turn, carried on the great tradition of Middle East histrionics by his notably
'mad dog' Libya campaign, which ran concurrent to two devastating attacks on U.S. soldiers and
embassy staff in Lebanon, while two different CIA teams worked against each other in trying to
secure the release of U.S. hostages in Beirut – while all along he was selling illegal
arms to the Iranians and using the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua.
Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining
momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him,
like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra).
But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the
U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the
Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if
Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region
boils over.
Martin Jay is an award -winning freelance journalist and political
commentator
Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most
fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer
military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy
old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that
his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he
avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and
fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive
military engagements.
Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the
head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has
brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too
shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game.
My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive
protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.
They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of
Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior
military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the
Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has
48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime
minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.
The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in
Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into
account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the
embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.
Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad,
Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to
the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths,
since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to
corruption.
Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites
who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq
from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need
all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for
direct crowd action.
You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the
absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation
of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either
the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having
to leave Iraq.
To some extent it is not relevant if Trump was lying during his campaign, or has been
corrupted/coopted/fooled/pressured/played for a chump by the establishment. He said one thing
and is doing another: that's the bottom line.
However: I note that after Barack Obama got elected, he immediately fired all of his
populist advisors and hired Wall Streeters even before being sworn in. Obama was clearly
lying up front.
Trump, however, initially did start moving in the direction he said he would, he kept his
populist/nationalist advisors, and really did make actual moves to carry out his campaign
promises. And the establishment went total nut job, he was a Russian agent, his populist
advisers were targeted for legal actions, they were replaced with establishment advisors who
hate him Trump was strong on stage berating a political opponent, but against establishment
pressure he has turned out to be weak, caving in to "the Blob" at every turn.
Had she been elected, Hillary would already have started the neocon wet dream of a war
with Iran.
While that may be true, I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would
have been worse. Being relatively less evil, or a different incarnation of evil, is still
evil.
Frankly, impeachment was just a distraction to divert attention from the real play. The
dagger at his throat is from far more malevolent foes who can wield both blackmail or death
as the circumstances demand to get their way. The jewish mafia is far more dangerous than the
Sicilian boys could ever hope to be. The latter learned from the former.
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle
East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente,
one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions
against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump's no-new-war
pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship
with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the
expressed needs of Israel's belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump bears full responsibility for what comes next. The neoconservatives and Israelis are
predictably cheering the result, with Mark Dubowitz of the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of
Democracies
enthusing that it is "bigger than bin Laden a massive blow to the [Iranian] regime."
Dubowitz, whose credentials as an "Iran expert" are dubious at best, is at least somewhat right
in this case. Qassem Suleimani is, to be sure, charismatic and also very popular in Iran. He is
Iran's most powerful military figure in the entire region, being the principal contact for
proxies and allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. But what Dubowitz does not understand is that no
one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Suleimani's aides and high officials in the
intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing
his policies.
In reality, the series of foolish attacks initiated by the United States over the past week
will only hasten the departure of much of the U.S. military from the region. The Pentagon and
White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a
U.S. installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on claimed militia targets in
Syria and also inside Iraq. Even though the U.S. military presence is as a guest of the Iraqi
government, Washington went ahead with its attack even after the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil
Abdul-Mahdi said "no."
To justify its actions, Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, went so far as to insist that
"Iran is at war with the whole world," a clear demonstration of just how ignorant the White
House team actually is. The U.S. government characteristically has not provided any evidence
demonstrating either Iranian or Kata'ib involvement in recent developments, but after the
counter-strike killed 26 Iraqi soldiers, the mass demonstrations against the Embassy in Baghdad
became inevitable. The demonstrations were also attributed to Iran by Washington even though
the people in the street were undoubtedly Iraqis.
Now that the U.S. has also killed Suleimani and Muhandis in a drone strike at Baghdad
Airport, clearly accomplished without the approval of the Iraqi government, it is inevitable
that the prime minister will ask American forces to leave. That will in turn make the situation
for the remaining U.S. troops in neighboring Syria untenable. And it will also force other Arab
states in the region to rethink their hosting of U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen due
to the law of unanticipated consequences as it is now clear that Washington has foolishly begun
a war that serves no one's interests.
The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is
clearly on Donald Trump's hands as this war was never inevitable and served no U.S. national
interest. It will surely turn out to be a debacle, as well as devastating for all parties
involved. And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited
beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions. Let us hope so!
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence
officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA
Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter
Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests
The question – who benefits? – has not been raised.
There was no benefit to Kata'ib Hezbollah or the Iranians to attack an American
installation.
There was no benefit to the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Iraq.
There was no benefit to anyone in Iraq or Iran in the shooting of "peaceful demonstrators" in
Iraq.
There is only one beneficiary to all of the above – Israel.
Mr. Giraldi is quite correct in laying this at Trump's feet and referring to his
incestuous relationship regarding Israel. After all, it it Trump that pulled out of the
JCPOA, and ultimately gave the order to strike. A previous strike was called off, what has
changed? I understand Mr. Giraldi is a never Trumper, and that is his right. Often it is not
what he says, but what he doesn't say, that is problematic. In this article, two things not
expanded stand out to me. The author proclaims his support for the JCPOA.
What is never explained is that the JCPOA was a voluntary restriction, by Iran, on its rights
as a signatory under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Former Reagan nuclear advisor Dr.
Gordon Prather was writing about the illegality of forcing restrictions on Iran back in the
days when "Bonkers" Bolton was foaming at the mouth for Bush 43 at the UN. Trump cancelling
the deal was not the problem. The problem was maintaining the US's illegal position on Iran's
rights under the NPT. Mr. Giraldi's opposition to the cancelling, without context, means he
finds the US's illegal position on Iran's rights under an international treaty as
acceptable.
The second issue is the intelligence surrounding the "alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a
U.S. installation". This is an operation straight out of the I sraeli S ecret
I ntelligence S ervice manual. It was acknowledged, by the military, 20 years
ago Israel had the capability to stage an attack and blame it on "Arabs". Who were those
involved in providing the "intelligence to Trump? How many of those people know/knew the
intelligence to be questionable or outright false, but allowed it to pass on anyway without
caveat? It is unknown whether Trump "asked the right questions" about the intelligence, and
if it came from military sources, I suspect none at all, of substance, were asked. Again, yes
Trump will, and should, be blamed, but how much of it involves the traitors within who will
continue with the internal rot?
@Bragadocious
You are one of the supreme a-holes on this site and I wish you would go somewhere else to
spread your pollution. But I will answer your question: Soleimani was not near the embassy.
He had flown into to town to attend the funerals of the 26 Iraqi militiamen that we Americans
had killed earlier in the week!
This is a watershed moment in our enslaved country, and the net is rife with speculations as
to where this will lead to.
Personally, I don't believe that this will erupt in WW3, but the days of casual travel by
high-ranking US officials is probably over in the near term. What follows will be millions of
paper cuts and constant stress for our sons and daughters relegated to foreign lands in the
war for Israel. Did you sign up your children to die for Israel? I didn't.
So what can we expect? A lot of our children are going to come back in body bags in the
weeks ahead. The murder of the Iranian general with no proof of his hand in the recent death
of an American mercenary in Iraq, is a war crime – but who's looking? We have become
imitators of our BFF, Israel. Not only have we militarized our police force under their
auspices, we flout International law and civil rights without even blinking once. Sure, many
Iranians (and Iraqi) innocents will die in the process, but the silver lining is that this
will start the dominoes falling and lead to our Vietnam-like exit from the ME with our tail
between our legs, as we repeat the helicopter exits from the roofs of our embassies.
From all indications, the Iranian general was a revered man inside and outside Iran. He
appears to have arrived in Baghdad to attend the funeral of the people killed in the
airstrike by US/Israel. Killing people headed to funerals and weddings seems to have become
our MO in recent years. No US president in the last few decades has had his hands clean. Out
damned spot!
Meanwhile, who was that "killed" contractor? Is there a name attached to that
speculatively fictitious soul whose alleged death was the rationale for the murder? It is a
sign of the times that our first reaction to anything we hear from the PTB is one of
skepticism and disbelief. This does not bode well for our rulers when the slaves reject
whatever claims they make.
Sadly, the revolution will not begin in Pretoria, but in distant lands, far from the
prying eyes of the sleeping citizenry of this land. As Allison Weir would say, if Americans
knew what is being perpetrated in our name, they would realize that we are all
Palestinians.
Trump has been compromised. Whether you believe that he is or isn't behind this, is
irrelevant. Frankly, it doesn't really matter who the president is – he is a powerless
puppet. I suspect that the deep state initiated this and then informed Trump post-facto. The
absence of an immediate tweets (tweet with a US flag suggests speechlessness), followed by an
announcement from the Pentagon that Trump had personally ordered the attack, instead of Trump
boasting about it, does not fit his usual pattern. My guess is that he knows that going
against the will of the deep state would result in his being JFK'ed.
I expect the following in the days ahead:
– There will be outrage in Iraq and demands for us to go home – which we
won't
– Our children/cannon fodder will be targeted across the ME
– One or more US high officials or Military leaders will be assassinated, perhaps
Graham or Pompeo or Adelson
– Israel will use the distraction to annex more Palestinian territory.
– Every US politician will blame the victims
– Israel and KSA will be walking around in adult diapers for the next shoe to drop
Take heart, the end is nigh. It is the witching hour. It is a replay of history as the
empire shoots itself in the foot. Remember which country invented the game of Chess –
it wasn't us or our European cousins.
I read somewhere that the order for this assassination came from Trump himself. I read this
as meaning that the order came from Israel and Trump's staff advised against it. I hope Iran
takes this into account as they plan their retaliation.
The other interesting dynamic is that common folk are waking up to the ZOG on the one hand,
and the government/media is doing their level best to slow this awakening. I wonder how this
assassination and its aftermath fit into all of it.
The one big fear I have in the near-term is that, with the expected retaliation from Iran, it
is the perfect opportunity for Israel to launch a false flag somewhere and blame it on Iran,
further turning up the heat.
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses
diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him
and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."
Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the
end of The Godfather.
Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader,
Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian
reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and
various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular
Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north
of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said
late on Friday.
Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't even
have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the
Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for
days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.
I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good
Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the
Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their
hearts' content.
"I think there should be open hearings on this subject," Schiff told the
Washington Post in an interview published Monday. "The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That
requires the Congress to fully engage."
Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates
the California Democrat said: "None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely no way."
... ... ...
Schiff 's comments to the Post come after he suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating
that killing Soleimani saved American lives.
"It was a reckless decision that increased the risk to America all around the world, not decreased it. When Secretary Pompeo says
that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani saved American lives, saved European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not
an intelligence conclusion," he
told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper. "I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I have
not seen the intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that is going on or decrease other risks
to the United States."
Now we know the composition of the neocon gang that fooled malleable, jingoistic and incompetent Trump: "Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security
Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley".
Notable quotes:
"... The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials. ..."
"... Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and said "nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran." ..."
"... Van Hollen went on to say: "While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans." ..."
Washington (CNN) Top US national security officials continue to defend the Trump administration's claim that it
killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence
provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.
President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting
Soleimani, citing an "imminent" threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a "significant
campaign of violence" against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks, this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN's Jake Tapper on
"State of the Union" Sunday, dodging a question on the imminence of such Iranian attacks. "We have to prepare, we have to be ready,
and we took a bad guy off the battlefield."
But questions have continued to swirl in recent days over the timing, whether the administration fully considered the fallout from
such a strike against Soleimani, and if an
appropriate
legal basis was established for the presidential authorization of lethal force.
... ... ...
When Trump finally gets ready to act, they added, "you can't out escalate him." CNN has previously reported that there was
internal
debate over the decision and work behind the scenes to develop a legal argument before the operation was carried out.
After a meeting Sunday in Mar-a-Lago where President Donald Trump was briefed by senior members of his national security team
on options regarding Iran, some officials emerged surprised the President chose to target Soleimani, according to a source familiar
with the briefing.
The officials who briefed Trump included Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley.
The source said that some aides expected Trump to pick a less risky option, but once presented with the choice of targeting Soleimani
he remained intent on going forward.
...The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that
argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials.
Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and
said "nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and
Iran."
Van Hollen went on to say: "While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to
support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans."
Re PCR's latest linked article (post 133.
What PCR is insisting Putin do ("The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to
announce that Iran is under Russia's protection.")Putin has already done so in a landmark
speech last year when he unveiled five or six game-changing weapons, or was it 2018.
He declared back then to the evil empire that a nuclear attack on an ally would be considered
an attack upon Russia. He made this crystal clear. Of course it wouldn't hurt for him to
'gently' remind them of this.
I do have to say, the silence from the Russians is odd. Even when you read the Russian
Foreign Ministry's news releases.
For instance, there's this on January 4th:
" On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign
Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter's
initiative. " (italics mine).
So Lavrov talked to an Iranian official only on January 4th, and the call came from Iran
(Zarif), not the other way around. This is odd, and even the explicit
mentioning of Zarif initiating the call --to me-- seems odd.
Hmm...
On Sunday's broadcast of CNN's "State of the Union," 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned
if President Donald Trump's reasons for the Qasem Soleimani assassination was to distract from impeachment.
Warren said, "I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago, and why not a month from now?
And the answer from the administration seems to be that they can't keep their story straight on this. They pointed in all different
directions. And you know, the last time that we watched them do this was the summer over Ukraine. As soon as people started asking
about the conversations between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine and why aid had been held up to Ukraine, the administration
did the same thing. They pointed in all directions of what was going on. And of course, what emerged then is that this is Donald
Trump just trying to advance Donald Trump's own political agenda. Not the agenda of the United States of America. So what happens
right now? Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know that he is deeply
upset about that. I think that people are reasonably asking why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory,
highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war? We have been at war for 20 years in the Middle East, and we need to stop the
war this the Middle East and not expand it."
Tapper asked, "Are you suggesting that President Trump pulled the trigger and had Qasem Soleimani killed as a distraction from
impeachment?"
Warren said, "Look, I think that people are reasonably asking about the timing and why it is that the administration seems to
have all kinds of different answers. In the first 48 hours after this attack, what did we hear? Well, we heard it was for an imminent
attack, and then we heard, no, no, it is to prevent any future attack, and then we heard that it is from the vice president himself
and no, it is related to 9/11, and then we heard from president reports of people in the intelligence community saying that the whole,
that the threat was overblown. You know, when the administration doesn't seem to have a coherent answer for taking a step like this.
They have taken a step that moves us closer to war, a step that puts everyone at risk, and step that puts the military at risk and
puts the diplomats in the region at risk. And we have already paid a huge price for this war. Thousands of American lives lost, and
a cost that we have paid domestically and around the world. At the same time, look at what it has done in the Middle East, millions
of people who have been killed, who have been injured, who have been displaced. So this is not a moment when the president should
be escalating tensions and moving us to war. The job of the president is to keep us safe, and that means move back from the edge."
Tapper pressed, "Do you believe that President Trump pulled the trigger on this operation as a way to distract from impeachment?
Is that what you think?"
Warren said, "I think it is a reasonable question to ask, particularly when the administration immediately after having taken
this decision offers a bunch of contradictory explanations for what is going on."
She continued, "I think it is the right question to ask. We will get more information as we go forward but look at the timing
on this. Look at what Donald Trump has said afterward and his administration. They have pointed in multiple directions. There is
a reason that he chose this moment, not a month ago and not a month from now, not a less aggressive and less dangerous response.
He had a whole range of responses that were presented to him. He didn't pick one of the other ones. He picked the most aggressive
and the one that moves us closer to war. So what does everybody talk about today? Are we going to war? Are we going to have another
five years, tens, ten years of war in the Middle East, and dragged in once again. Are we bringing another generation of young people
into war? That is every bit of the conversation right now. Donald Trump has taken an extraordinarily reckless step, and we have seen
it before, he is using foreign policy and uses whatever he can to advance the interests of Donald Trump."
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
A spiritual father kisses his beloved son
◄
►
Bookmark
◄
►
▲
▼
Toggle All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Remove from
Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected
comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
First, a quick recap of the
situation
We need to begin by quickly summarizing
what just happened:
General Soleimani was in Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by
the US on the 29th
The US has now officially claimed responsibility for this murder
The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
has officially declared
that "
However, a severe retaliation awaits the criminals who painted
their corrupt hands with his and his martyred companions' blood last night
"
The US paints itself and Iran
into a corner
The Iranians simply had no other choice
than to declare that there will be a retaliation. There are a few core problems with what happens next.
Let's look at them one by one:
First, it is quite obvious from the flagwaving claptrap in the US that Uncle Shmuel is "locked and
loaded" for even more macho actions and reaction. In fact,
Secretary Esper has basically painted
the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by
declaring that
"
the game has changed
" and that the US will take "
preemptive action
"
whenever it feels threatened
. Thus, the Iranians have to assume that the US will over-react to
anything even remotely looking like an Iranian retaliation.
No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely
perfect conditions for a false flag la
"
USS
Liberty
"
. Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and
facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a
missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political
elites will do what they did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs
(read up on the USS Liberty if you don't know about it)
There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous retaliations" by
other
parties (not
Iran or Iranian allies)
. In fact, in his message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has specifically
declared that "
Martyr Suleimani is an international face to the Resistance and all lovers of the
Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his blood. All friends as well as all enemies must know
the path of Fighting and Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly
waiting for those who fight in this path.
" He is right, Soleimani was loved and revered by many
people all over the globe, some of whom might decided to avenge his death. This means that we might well
see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not be the result
of any Iranian actions at all.
Finally,
should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that
Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to
engage in even more provocative actions.
A spiritual father kisses his beloved son
If we look at these four factors together
we would have to come to the conclusion that
Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly
.
Why?
Because whether the Iranian do
retaliate or not, they are almost guaranteed another US attack in retaliation for anything looking like a
retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not
.
The dynamics of internal US
politics
Next, let's look at the internal
political dynamics in the US:
I have always claimed that
Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons
. What do I mean by that? I mean that the
Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy
decisions towards Israel and/or Syria) for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and
dangerous, he will either get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail
or the consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison him and
replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other words,
for the
Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and fantastically stupid is a win-win
situation
!
Right now, the Dems (still the party
favored by the Neocons) seem to be dead-set into committing political suicide with that ridiculous (and
treacherous!) impeachment nonsense. Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able
to get the US goyim to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. I suppose that their thinking will go something
like this:
Trump looks set to win 2020. We
don't want that. However, we have been doing everything in our power to trigger a US attack on Iran since
pretty much 1979. Let's have Trump do that. If he "wins" (by whatever definition more about that
further below), we win. If he loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and we can always
jettison him like a used condom (used to supposedly safely screw somebody with no risks to yourself).
Furthermore, if the region explodes, this will help our beloved Bibi and unite US Jewry behind Israel.
Finally, if Israel gets attacked, we will immediately demand (and, of course, obtain) a massive US attack
on Iran, supported by the entire US political establishment and media. And, lastly, should Israel be hit
hard, then we can always use our nukes and tell the
goyim
that "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews
and wipe the only democracy in the Middle-East off the face of the earth" or something equally insipid.
Ever since Trump made it into the White
House, we saw him brown-nose the Israel Lobby with a delectation which is extreme even by US standards. I
suppose that this calculation goes something along the lines of "with the Israel Lobby behind me, I am safe
in the White House". He is obviously too stupidly narcissistic to realize that he has been used all along.
To his (or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against
Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. However, Iran is a totally different case as it is
the "number one" target the Neocons and Israel wanted strike and destroy. The Neocons even had
this motto
"
boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran
". Now that Uncle Shmuel has lost all this
wars of choice, now that the US armed forces have no credibility left, now is the time to restore the
"macho" self-image of Uncle Shmuel and, indeed, "go to Tehran" so to speak.
The
Dems (Biden) are already saying
that Trump just "
tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox
",
as if they cared about anything except their own, petty, political goals and power. Still, I have to admit
that Biden's metaphor is correct that is exactly what Trump (and his real bosses) have done.
If we assume that I am correct in my
evaluation that Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", then we also have to accept the fact
that the US armed forces the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" and that the US as a nation is
also the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable nation". This is very bad news indeed, as this means that
from the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with Iran
.
In truth, the position of the Dems is a
masterpiece of hypocrisy which can be summed up as follows:
the assassination of Soleimani is a
wonderful event, but Trump is a monster for making it happen
.
A winner, no?
What would the likely outcome of
a US war on Iran be?
I have written so often about this topic
that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I will say is the following:
For the US, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy.
For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.
This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically
means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.
And, not, the Iranians don't have to
defeat CENTCOM/NATO! They don't need to engage in large scale military operations. All they need to do is:
remain "standing" once the dust settles down.
ORDER IT NOW
Ho Chi Minh once told the French "
You
can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win
".
This is exactly why Iran will eventually prevail, maybe at a huge cost (Amalek must be destroyed, right?),
but that will still be a victory.
Now let's look at the two most
basic types of war scenarios: outside Iran and inside Iran.
The Iranians, including General
Soleimani himself, have publicly declared many times that by trying to surround Iran and the Middle-East
with numerous forces and facilities the US have given Iran a long list of lucrative targets. The most
obvious battlefield for a proxy war is clearly Iraq where there are plenty of pro and anti Iranian forces to
provide the conditions for a long, bloody and protracted conflict (Moqtada al-Sadr has just declared that
the Mahdi Army will be remobilized). But Iraq is far from being the only place where an explosion of
violence can take place: the ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST is well within Iranian "reach", be it by direct attack or by
attack by sympathetic/allied forces. Next to Iraq, there is also Afghanistan and, potentially, Pakistan. In
terms of a choice of instruments, the Iranian options range from missile attacks, to special forces direct
action strikes, to sabotage and many, many more options. The only limitation here is the imagination of the
Iranians and, believe me, they have plenty of that!
If such a retaliation happens, the US
will have two basic options: strike at Iranian friends and allies outside Iran or, as Esper has now
suggested, strike inside Iran. In the latter case, we can safely assume that any such attack will result in
a massive Iranian retaliation on US forces and facilities all over the region and a closure of the Strait of
Hormuz.
Keep in mind that the Neocon motto "
boys
go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran
" implicitly recognizes the fact that a war against Iran would be
qualitatively (and even quantitatively) different war than a war against Iraq. And, this is true, if the US
seriously plans to strike inside Iran they would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars
since WWII look minor in comparison. But the temptation to prove to the world that Trump and his minions are
"real men" as opposed to "boys" might be too strong, especially for a president who does not understand that
he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons.
Now, let's quickly look at what
will NOT happen
Russia and/or China will not get
militarily involved in this one. Neither will the US use this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or
China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither
does Russia have any desire for a war against the US. The same goes for China. However, it is important to
remember that Russia and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt the US and help
Iran. There is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Yes, I know,
Uncle Shmuel does not give a damn about the UN or international law, but most of the rest of the world very
much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by Uncle Shmuel's attention span (weeks at most) with the
one of Russia and China (decades). Does that matter?
Absolutely!
If the Iraqis officially declare that
the US is an occupation force (which it is), an occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq
(which it does) and that the Iraqi people want Uncle Shmuel and his hypocritical talking points about
"democracy" to pack and leave, what can our Uncle Shmuel do? He will try to resist it, of course, but once
the tiny figleaf of "nation building" is gone, replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation, the
political pressure on the US to get the hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both outside and even
inside the US.
In fact,
Iranian state television
called Trump's order to kill Soleimani "
the biggest miscalculation by the
U.S." since World War II. "The people of the region will no longer allow Americans to stay,"
it said.
Next, both Russia and China can help
Iran militarily with intelligence, weapons systems, advisors and economically, in overt and covert ways.
Finally, both Russia and China have the
means to, shall we say, "strongly suggest" to other targets on the US "country hit list" that now is the
perfect time to strike at US interests (say, in Far East Asia).
So Russia and China can and will help,
but they will do so with what the CIA likes to call "plausible deniability".
Back The Big Question: what
can/will Iran do next?
The Iranians are far most sophisticated
players than the mostly clueless Americans. So the first thing I would suggest is that the Iranians are
unlikely to do something the US is expecting them to do. Either they will do something totally different, or
they will act much later, once the US lowers its guard (as it always does after declaring "victory").
I asked a well-informed Iranian friend
whether it was still possible to avoid war. Here is what he replied:
Yes I do believe fullscale war can be
avoided. I believe that Iran can try to use its political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to
officially ask for the removal of US troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can
no longer occupy eastern Syria either as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If
the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a
single shot.
I have to say that I concur with this
idea: one of the most painful things Iran could do next would be to use this truly fantastically reckless
event to kick the US out of Iraq first, and Syria next. That option, if it can be exercised, might also
protect Iranian lives and the Iranian society from a direct US attack. Finally, such an outcome would give
the murder of General Soleimani a very different and beautiful meaning: this martyr's blood liberated the
Middle-East!
Finally, if that is indeed the strategy
chosen by Iran, this does not at all mean that on a tactical level the Iranians will not extract a price
from US forces in the region or even elsewhere on the planet. For example, there are some rather credible
rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct
retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am
not
saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that
Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East.
Conclusion: we wait for Iran's
next move
The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to
debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. I will just say that while I do not
believe that the US will gentlemanly agree to any such demands, it will place the conflict in the political
realm. That is by definition much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might
seem. So I strongly suggest to those who want peace that they pray that the Iraqi MPs show some honor and
spine and tell Uncle Shmuel what every country out there always wanted from the US: Yankees, go home!
If that happens this will be a total
victory for Iran and yet another abject defeat (self-defeat, really) by Uncle Shmuel. This is the best of
all possible scenarios.
But if that does not happen, then all
bets are off and the momentum triggered by this latest act of US terrorism will result in many more deaths.
As of right now (19:24 UTC) I still
think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of
"unexpected events" (hopefully good ones).
PS: this is a text I wrote under great
time pressure and it has not be edited for typos or other mistakes. I ask the self-appointed Grammar Gestapo
to take a break and not protest again. Thank you
Scenarios 3 and 4 look the most likely in this no-win scenario for Iran at the moment. It would probably be
advantageous to Iran to let proxies retaliate, although that would further provoke the blatant US aggression
of scenario 4.
The best we can hope for, aside from Russia and China covertly assisting Iran with intelligence and
materiel, is for the latter to possibly trigger a Suez Crisis-style scenario by threatening to dump its
holdings of US sovereign debt. (The former country used to hold something like $160 billion in US bonds, but
has since 2013 sold off all but approximately $15 billion.) However, I doubt the Chinese have the appetite
for that -- they still depend vitally on the US market for their goods. And Japan, which holds about as much of
that debt as China, will never follow suit. They willingly tanked their own economy to prop up the US with
the Plaza Accord; and will likely continue to be a bootlick to American power to the bitter end.
The Iranians could not defeat the ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein, but they can defeat the United States?
Preposterous. The Iranians will do nothing. Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate
target. If they are foolish enough to attack the US, or its interests, they will suffer enormous losses. I
understand that reality can sometimes conflict with a person's wishes, but the reality here is that as long
as the US doesn't try to occupy Iran, they can cripple their military and destroy their infrastructure. Iran
will do nothing,.
I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I
will say is the following:
-- For the US, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian
economy.
-- For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.
This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.
Apparently the author has forgotten what happened a couple months ago. The economic situation is so bad
in Iran, people are rioting against the corrupt Ayatollah. (1). Thousands arrested and over a hundred dead.
All the U.S. has to do to win is hold the line. The situation is indeed assymetrical:
-- By refusing to put boots on the ground in Iran, there are few options open to Iran that will hurt the
U.S.
-- The U.S. can freely strike against government elites like Soleimani if the Ayatollah tries to escalate.
Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not
only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.
How long will the IRGC remain willing to die for a sociopathic Ayatollah?
One has to believe at some point, elements of the IRGC will dispatch Khameni to save their own lives.
Iran under military rule is unlikely to become friendly with the U.S. However, for their own personal goals
they will bring troops home and suspend funding to groups like al'Hezbollah and al'Hamas. These steps would
do much to improve regional stability.
@Rich
The Iranians were not trying to
defeat
the Iraqis, nor will they the US. They aim to survive the
violent onslaught of aggressors, and damage them enough so they won't think to try again.
Soleimani was a
legitimate target if Iran and the US were in a state of declared war. They are not.
Here, I know this is UK law, but it strikes the right tone: this action was pure terrorism.
@Rich
ragtag forces in Afghanistan ( even more rag tag than Iraq) have defeated the US.
The US must bomb and
kill apart from actually encountering another irregular war that they keep losing.
I can think of some Iranian responses. Hostage taking by allied but deniable groups of US personnel.
Build out intercontinental missiles in quantity and shield them. Buy Russian weapons like S-400 in a few
months.
There's a lot of meaningful content in this article. The only problem is that it is one-sided with more of a
dislike of Israel and USA individually than Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen, UAE, Qatar combined.
Where
Saker would lead us is to the same inaction of Ben Rhodes.
The problem is that Ben Rhodes would want to collaborate with Suleimani more than Republicans and
conservatives or allies such as Israel, UK, Poland.
This leaves the Obama galaxy of superstar stateswomen and statesmen with an unrealistic vision of the
world.
This turns into Gaddafi being killed because he is easy to kill, triggering a vacuum and pulling in ISIS
and Iran, as well as turning loose 1M people to run try to sneak into Europe.
This same myopic worldview leads to pushing Russia to the breaking point by working with similar minded
EU leaders to "flip" Ukraine. That turned out badly and now Obama's statesmen want to hide it.
Don't forget that Kerry is married into Iranian diplomats at the top level.
@Rich
Wishful thinking
Thre are many other scenarios and players to consider. America will not be allowed to arbitrarily mass
forces and engage their enemy at free will.
My take is that the timing of death of General Soleimani and the fact that President Trump is pending
impeachment in the US Senate is not a mere coincidence. Part of me thinks that TPTB set Trump up to be
impeached and gave him an ultimatum to facilitate a military conflict with Iran or lose his presidency by
way of impeachment.
What seems more bogus, the pretense for impeachment or the pretense for war with Iran?
There will be a war with Iran if Trump wants a war with Iran.
But its not clear that Trump wants a full-on
war. He could have had one by now if he wanted it. He is more of a business man than a warlord at heart, and
lacks the insecurity of a W. He doesn't need to pose in uniform on an aircraft carrier to feel virile, he
can just bang Melania.
On the other hand, he won't allow himself to look weak, and he will retaliate. In addition, there is lots
of evidence in the public record that Trump has a long-standing antipathy to Iran and its government. And
Trump has many "friends" that would be thrilled by an Iran expedition.
Iran would be crazy to provoke Trump in a way that would likely lead to war. Iraq showed the U.S. can
take down a government and leave the country wrecked. Sure, the U.S. won't "win" in Iraq, but that doesn't
mean Saddam won or the Iraqi people. Iran would be messier, but I lack the Saker's "optimism". The Iranian
government will want to survive, not gamble. [Ho Chi Mihn didn't actively seek an American invasion.] The
question is whether Iran can de-escalate while saving face (and while other forces, who would love to see
the U.S. invade Iran, do everything to escalate affairs).
Leaving aside "winning the war", it would look great on T.V. heading into the 2020 election even if it
ends in disaster, and permit cheap attacks on the Democrats in the climate of jingoism sure to follow the
first bombs. If Trump is any politician worth his salt, he is more interested in winning the next election
than in America winning some long-term ME war.
Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11, Iran gets blamed (of course), and Trump
responds by nuking Iran, killing half of the population within a few hours, and 95% within a year.
@Harbinger
Zionism, not Judaism. Two entirely separate things. Compare Romans 2:28-29 versus Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
Research the reader survey "Defense of True Israel" to identify today's true Israel.
It doesn't matter whether Iran decides to retaliate Israel will retaliate for them. Netanyahu will have
his president-for-life, get-out-of-jail war. This could have been an Israeli strike that Trump was forced,
or manipulated, into taking credit for. Nothing would be surprising, so long as that shabby little grifter
controls U.S. foreign policy.
If Russia and China had any itch to go in, they would have done so in Afghanistan at next to no cost to
themselves (of course this only emboldened the Empire of Evil).
And with the exception of Mohammed Reza Shah (installed by coup in 1941 because his daddy, an old-school
Kurdish brigand, was way too reasonable something that is conveniently forgotten) Iran has always taken
pains to hold both the Anglos and the Russians at arms length.
Not only was the joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the USS Liberty a false flag, but even worse than that was
the false flag joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911 , and since they have gotten away with these
false flags, no doubt, they will do another to get the excuse to finish off Iran.
The only nation standing
in the way of the attack on Iran is Russia, and Russia is not going to let Iran be destroyed as Russia threw
down the gauntlet in Syria and Russia's top generals ie Gerasimov and Shoygu know that Russia is next and
will not stand by and let Iran go down, even if Putin is reluctant to save Iran, which I believe Putin will
also know Russia is next on the list.
Israel and the ZUS want a nuclear war with Russia and I believe they will cause a false flag to have it
and they believe they can ride out a nuclear exchange in their DUMBS ie deep underground military bases
which they have throughout the ZUS and ZEurope and Israel.
Israel and the ZUS are not content with destroying the middle east, they now want to destroy the world.
@Rich
"Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target."
-- Let's name all Israeli
generals, one by one, and call them legitimate targets.
Your puny theocratic state of Israel has been the cause of the ongoing mass slaughter in the Middle East.
Each of Israeli citizens took a bath full of blood of innocent civilians of all ages, figuratively speaking.
Iran has not attacked any country. Israel has. It was the perfidious AIPAC of Israel-firsters that has
been working non-stop on promoting the wars of aggression in the name of Eretz Israel. Iraq, Syria, Libya
have been destroyed in accordance with Oded Yinon subhuman plan. Iran is the next.
The hapless Europeans and Americans are finally learning about the viciousness of Jewish sadists. Instead
of "almost truthful" holobiz stories forged by Eli Wiesel and Anne Frank' dad, the schools should have been
teaching the biographies of Jewish mega-criminals such as Lazar Kaganovich (Stalin's right hand and
organizer of Holodomor in Ukraine), Naftali Frenkel (an inventor of "industrialized" death in the GULAG),
and the despicable mass-murderess Rozalia Zalkind.
The economic situation is so bad in Iran, people are rioting against the corrupt Ayatollah.
The rapists strangle their victim and blame them for their lack of oxygen.
Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home.
Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much
weaker.
Judaism is a cult, not a religion. It's the self worship of Jews, hatred of non Jews (racism) and
supremacist beliefs over all other peoples on this earth. In effect, Judaism is the Jewish KKK/Black
Panthers. It's perfectly ok to go around saying
"we're god's chosen"
(blatant supremacism and racism)
and yet they go crazy when some white person puts up a poster saying
"it's ok to be white"
? The
former is ignored and worse, accepted by many idiots while the latter is vehemently attacked. Think about
that for a moment?
Don't let the red herrings of "It's not Judaism, it's Zionism" or "it's not the real Jews, but the fake
Ashkenazis" crap lead you astray from the situation. The problem IS what it always has been and always will
be until people wake up and do something about it. That problem is Judaism. It's never changed.
If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a
single shot
Correct.
And that is precisely the real objective of Trump. Trump is greatly underestimated. He gives the Zionists
everything they want which results in outcomes that are very much against their interests.
As imperial forces are defeated in the region but economic war continues, economic integration between
Iran, Iraq and Syria becomes even more necessary, for a decent future.
Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned Seven Countries In Five Years
"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with
Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?"
He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You
remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"
@Nicols Palacios Navarro
You missed the boat .! This is about Israel and its control of Trump. Israel wants eternal war..they care
not how many are killed because it will be Americans not Jews. The scenarios presented here are limited and
simplistic. The real scenarios present much greater challenges for the US Intelligence Agencies. These
include false flags by Israel and the Jewish controlled Congress for excuses to bomb Iran. But even a
greater risk would be splinter Muslim groups around the world and especially in the US that will retaliate
against Americans. The estimate of at least 20% of Muslims in the US are terrorists waiting to happen may
come to fruition. Trump the idiot has just thrown a cigar into the punch bowl. Michael Scheuer former CIA
put it this way:
"The crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that
it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist
foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is
motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is
unqualified U.S. support for Israel."
In his second book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat
to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six
U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:
U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants
The US will experience the wrath of these people over and over again because we keep doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting a different result.
Trump is nothing more than figure head president under complete control of Israel. Civilization is doomed
if Israel continues complete control of most the US government and most of the world. The American citizenry
are nothing more than blind little animals waiting to be slaughter by Israel.
The gerbils of feeble minds are out in force to show their arrogance and illiteracy t seems. Throughout
time, Iran has emboldened the oppressed to fight the imperialists. Just like the support they show the
people of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and to an extent Yemen.. They wont destroy all that they have built unless
the US uses some excuse to attack inside iran at which point all bets are off and so are all places in the
ME with US military.. This blatant act of terrorism is the worst a civilised nation can do and the ultimate
hypocrisy of calling itself run by the rule of law.. Almost all rules and laws were violated and so is the
rules of war itself which is mostly non existent but even in war there are some things you do not do like
taking out the leadership because the men will then have no choice but to keep fighting without anyone to
order them to stand down.. Only imbeciles will do unthinkable things like this and such blatant violations
of international laws in front of the entire world and then take credit for it..
Its pretty clear that the dem's impeachment scam was a collaboration with the neocons to corner Trump into
having to obey McConnell, Graham and the rest of the criminals.
A few months back the great Orange King was going to pull out of Syria, right?
It is almost patently obvious Trump was handed the option of starting war with Iran or having the senate
slowly turn against him (through a well orchestrated media campaign, of course), ending up with him in
prison or worse.
Can't have that. Donny boy serves only Donny boy, and the country's arse isn't worth choosing over his own.
@Harbinger
NPR now : Israel has been pushing America to confront Iran . But Israel doesn't want to be seen as the power
behind the American aggression against Iran .
there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan
action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655
Airbus over the Persian Gulf
This was obviously the case. All the accusations against Libya were
patently false. The Scottish court case was a scam from A to Z. All the "evidence" against Libya could have
been concocted by a 12 year old. "Finding" a bit of clockwork in a field and claiming that someone bought a
certain "suitcase" in Malta is a piece of cake.
Despite the destruction of Libya and access to all their files and bureaucrats, no effort was ever made
to search their records and to substantiate the accusations against Libya. Lockerbie and Pan Am 103 simply
disappeared from the media.
If Libya had been behind the explosion of Pan Am 103, they would have relished producing the evidence and
a lot of Libyans would have been accused and put on trial. It would have helped their accusations that
"Libya was a rogue state"
The only facts that everyone agrees on is that the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner on 3 July 1988
with 290 people on board. And that a US airliner with 259 people was blown up on 21 December 1988. Some
coincidence!
Since PA103, no Iranian civilian aircraft of any sort has been attacked or threatened by the USA or any
other country. I guess that is a strong hint as to what intelligence services believe the true story to be.
Sounds like one of the Christ-killer handles you see over at Hasbara Central (aka,
Free Republic).
FReepers with handles like "ProudMarineMomEagleUSALibertyLoverArmyVetMAGAGalAirborneTexasFreedom" posting
articles on inside baseball of Knesset politics.
It's time for Iran to get insurance in the form of multiple nuclear warheads. I doubt Russia or China will
sell them but Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country, or N. Korea might. All they need is a few nukes that would
be include in a barrage of hundreds of missiles aimed at Tel Aviv. No Iron Dome (which is useless anyway)
would stop the attack. Israel would never allow (since we know they control Congress and the President) an
attack on Iran if there was even the slightest possibility of a nuke on Israel. Let's face it, the Israelis
are only "brave" when they slaughter defenseless Palestinian women and children. They were driven out of
Lebanon by a rag tag civilian militia.
You are naive and poorly educated murican from declining Amerikanistan who lives in the past. The Unipolar
era is over. The Iranians have the capacity to destroy all US bases in 2000km radius (in the Middle East)
with ballistic missile salvos, it and its shia allied groups in the region have plenty of attack drones and
long range cruise missiles too (and US land anti-air capability is poor), all US soldiers in Iraq will be
killed by shia millitias, drones and long range missiles (unless the US would try to invade Iraq again and
restart the occupation with 300 000 soldiers in Iraq, for which it no longer has the money, too much debt
and shaky economy), Russia can supply the country with high tech anti-air systems, Iran can supply manpads
and long range missiles to the Taliban which will lead to siege of US bases in Afghanistan and
bombardment/capture of americans there, (taliban are already winning there without any help). Iran can also
destroy most oil and gas infrastructure in the Middle East.
Estimation:
all US bases in the Middle East will be leveled.
US bases will be besieged in Afghanistan and Taliban will fully take over that country.
The biggest US embassy in the world in Iraq, will be captured, together with the US diplomats in it.
Shia Millitia Proxies will attack and capture/destroy many US embassies in the region.
Oil price will reach 150 200 $ leading to global economic crisis.
Israel will be attacked by Hizbulla and many israeli cities will be damaged, keeping it busy.
No european country will support such attack and this will lead to the EU marginalising NATO and replacing
it with its own independent european military pact, moving away from the US.
Whole world will condemn the US and will start moving away from dependency on that country, as no one wants
such a war in the Gulf.
30 000 americans (almost all in the middle east) killed and all of their objects in the Middle East
destroyed.
US companies infrastructure in the Middle East and in Iraq destroyed.
Big uprising against the US in Iraq.
US economy enters recession.
US is crippled by war debt.
For that large price to pay, the only US option will be US long range attacks via bombers, carriers and
subs, who will not be very effective vs russian anti-air systems. It will take a long time for Iran to be
destroyed if they have modern russian anti-air. Meanwhile the global economy will enter recession until the
war is over. There will be massive anti-US protests all over the world blaming it for the resulting global
economic crisis and recession.
In the long run, the US will be able to destroy most of Iran by conventional means, but the US itself
will be crippled by debt and will lose its superpower status. In other words, it will be the Suez Moment for
the US.
Ultimately though, there will be no large scale war because the US does not have the money for it. It is
crippled by debt. Picture underestimates US debt by 10 % and already estimates hyperinflation by 2050 (10 %
and growing annual budget deficits, which is a disaster).
Then there is the possibility for the US to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran but then the US will be
declared a rogue state by the world and every other state will get nukes too and NPT regime will be dead,
leading to the end of US influence and capacity to wage war in the world.
@Paul holland
That's a good suggestion but I still think they should go after Pompeo. If you really want to keep it 'tit
for tat' with even less retaliation then poor Gen. Milley should be splashed. (Evil grin)
@bruce county
Will not be allowed? then look what they did in this very moment. They already mass their forces in iraq and
surounding bases. Their are considerable more Galaxy C17 traffic in Ramstein/Germany and the whole C17 (as
far as you can identify them)look like a swarm of bees on the way to the middle east.
I have one wish for 2020, and it is this: That everyone stop referring to this group of bastards claiming to
great American patriots and thinkers (both a flagrant lie) as 'neocons', and call them what they are; 99%
are dual citizen Israeli firsters. Fostering the acronym neocon allows them to remain hidden behind a mask
of their own design, and is a great disservice and a threat to every American. These traitors with their
Israel first attitude, have but one job, and it is to dream up fake threats to America's security, (i.e.
Iraq's WMD's), in order to insure America's defense budget remains huge, and US soldiers all over the ME
making Israel feel safe and secure; not so much America. truth is they care nothing of America and have
perfected the art of subterfuge, as evidenced by this quote by self described paleo-neoconservative Norman
Podhertz in his work Breaking Ranks:
"An Israeli within the Jewish community, and an American on the public goy stage".
Netanyahu, aka Benzion Mileikowsky is holed up in that land of his idle, "Hitler's Argentinian Patagonia"?
or,
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("I never!")
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
("You're lying!")
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
Songwriters: Adam Patrick Devlin / Edward Daniel Chester / Eric Idle / Graham Chapman / John Cleese /
Mark James Morriss / Michael Palin / Neil Innes / Scott Edward Morriss / Terry Gilliam
Brave Sir Robin lyrics Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC
Artist: Monty Python
Album: The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Released: 1975
@Rich
I think the Iranians have already won on this round ..Iran stepped back and gave notice that when you are up
against a guy bigger than you are, you wait until something happens to even the odds.
The domestic deplorable don't understand bullet in the brain diplomacy.. What is in Iraq or Iran that
Americans want <=nothing. absolutely nothing that I can tell. so for whom is all of this?
Hard to know what Trump's thinking here is. War before an election does not seem a good idea, especially if
you are a candidate who has failed so far to achieve anything of substance around past promises to reduce
America's involvement in Mideast wars.
Remember that a crucial slice of the votes that put the man into office were not from his prime political
base, the "pick-up truck and Jesus" set, but from those concerned with peace and better relations with
Russia.
But prodding Iran to attack could allow Trump to play commander-in-chief defending the country. And
Americans just instinctively support even the worst possible presidents at war. You might call it the George
Bush Effect. The frightened puppy grabbing the nearest pantleg after a loud noise.
Of course, now when it comes to campaign contributions from American Oligarchs whose chief political
concern is what Israel wants, Trump's coffers will be overflowing.
I suspect Iran will take its time and carefully plan a response, and that response may not be clear and
unambiguous, and it might be multi-faceted and done over time.
The men running Iran are careful men, none of them impetuous. Chess players. The United States has more
than forty years of bellowing, open hostility towards the country, and we have not seen Iran's leaders act
foolishly in all that time despite many provocations.
I do not believe Iran will be driven to war that would be playing the Israeli-American game with
Israeli-American rules.
Clandestine and hybrid efforts, that is what Iran is best at. They have serious capabilities these days,
and the United States, with all its bases abroad, has great vulnerabilities.
Of course, there's also the option of Iran's just leaving the nuclear agreement (the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action, or JCPOA) that Trump idiotically tore-up and proceeding quietly with weapons development.
Iran, despite Israel's dishonest claims, never has pursued weapons development, only efficient use of
nuclear power and legitimate scientific research. Perhaps it is time to reconsider that policy
Iran has substantial deposits of uranium, and the enriched-uranium bomb is simpler to build than the
plutonium bomb. Maybe there is some possibility for covert assistance from North Korea, another country
treated like crap by Trump's Washington Braintrust?
4.Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle
Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in
even more provocative actions.
For what it's worth, I vote for 4.
Gandhi and MLK are household names because they used non-violent protest to bring attention to widespread
injustice.
As long as Iran responds in a non-violent way, they retain the moral high ground. The world is watching,
if Iran puts out a statement to the fact that the US is using assassinations to provoke Iran into an open
(obviously one-sided) war, who on the planet won't sympathize with Iran?
We all know the ZUS is a murderous, war criminal rogue regime under occupation by Zionists. Duh.
We all know the ((neocons)) and Zionists have demanded the destruction of Iran for what, decades now. We
all know of Bibi's unhinged frothing. It's more than obvious to the entire world.
What we don't need is bravado or chest thumping on the part of Iran. That is exactly what the fiend is
hoping for. Praying for. It's hands rubbing together and hissing 'they can't ignore this one, we slaughtered
their beloved general'.
If this were all being contained by the world's media and diplomatic channels, then it might be
different.
But EVERYBODY knows the score. Everybody knows who is the aggressor and who is the victim.
Iran should assume the posture of a victim, and allow all the world's people to watch in disgust as it's
menaced by the world's super-power coward, who NEVER picks on anyone it's own size, but always attacks
nations far weaker than it is.
What an embarrassment to be an American today, in slavish obeisance to the world's most revolting den of
snakes.
God bless and save the people of Iran.
It is with profound shame that I lament my nations depraved servility to a criminal regime.
Please, don't escalate the conflict. That is EXACTLY what ((they)) want you to do.
Funny how even you seems to forget that Trump KNOWN that he is a "tool" and that he have to play like one.
But every play he did on behalf of the Neocons did he in such a worst way that he everytime reaches the
excat opposite of what the neocons wanted to reach. North Stream 2 anyone? It's done, up runnig by now.
2% spending? how have done this yet?
buy exclusiv or also by US MIC company's? Hmm the turks buy now Russian AA.
India is also in shambles about the militray topic.
NOTHING, what the neocons want from him and he allegedly did seems to work really and not because he is a
moron this is ON PURPOSE.
I strongly believe that he known what he does and that he does this exactly like he or the ones behind him
wanted. Trmup isn't a neocon. He is a nationalist and plays a very dangerous doubbleplay with the Deep State
and their neocons/Zionists.
I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave
20% of "unexpected events"
I believe this estimate is rather correct. Personally, I believe the odds are
100% in favor of WAR. It has taken the Israelis 35 years, since the Iraq Iran war, to get America this
close. They will not allow something as trivial as peace to interfer.
Donald Trump is hardly a "disposable President" for Israel. The sky's the limit for Israel while Trump is in
power and they will never get anyone quite like him again. The Neocons won't go against Israel.
The death
of Soleimani was not long in coming after his masterminding of the successful attack on Saudi Arabian oil
facilities, and him making the fatal error of ordering demonstrators in Baghdad to be shot. I think the
combination of threatening Saudi Arabia at its weakest point and alienating the Shiite community in Iraq is
why the US decided now was the perfect time to target Soleimani.
@Not Raul
Hmmm, nuke Iran . I wonder how US would feel if Russia justifiably nuked the Mexican drug cartels in
Tijuana. Probably take it just as a friendly and helpful gesture in the war on drugs, right? Or Russia nukes
those pesky Quebec secessionists not far from DC?
Obviously, there is no place on the planet with more
cretins per head of population than US, lead by the Cretin in Chief. All itching to use those nukes just
sitting there, collecting dust since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why did cretins spend all that money on them
when they cannot use them?
One totally unrelated question. ISIS has chopped off a large number of non-Sunni Muslim heads and a few
heads of Westerners. Does anyone know even one example where an Israeli's head or head of a Western Jew has
been chopped off?
USrael is like a tradesman who declares war on a screwdriver or hammer in his toolbox.
The purpose of the drone strike false flag was to coronate a new, massive trauma based mind control effort
by the US Government aimed at her own domestic slaves. The CIA opinion makers are out in full force:
Sjursen, Engelhardt, Bacevich, Hedges, Cole, NYT, WaPo, AI you name it, all delivering the message of
peace because they were trained for war. Quickly form all the public opinions to make sure the people are
divided.
The voting class has given us 100% of the war, 100% of the inequality, 100% of the misery that the poor
suffer daily. Accordingly, the CIA has to assassinate wrong thinking in the voting class before it threatens
the status quo of war, inequality and suffering.
The only thing missing is a Pat Tillman character a patriotic zombie athlete, tatted and geared up to
kick ass for the right reasons as a hero until the sham that everyone knew all along except for poor Pat
reveals itself.
@Ignatius
I read this same theme at the VT site. Either Robert David Steel's piece or in a comment. Rather far fetched
idea, but not so far out that the dual citizen cretins in DC wouldn't use.
Thanks Saker!
The officials in Tehran have been and will continue to be calm, calculating, rational and making decisions
collectively! The Two Fat Guys and skinny dip" have been defeated by Iran in their Cold War with Iran for 4
decades! Iranians' mail goal is to force the US to run away from the ME region w/o confronting it! They
would like to achieve their goal as the Vietnamese did in 1973 if anyone remembers that! So far they have
been successful and their actions in the future will show their intentions more clearly!
With all due respect the Chinese and Russians would love to see the US humiliated so she's forced to leave
and they don't mind using Iran as a front to achieve their goal without confronting the US!
I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to come on here denying it had anything to do with Israel and
Judaism.
It's hard to make that claim when every chosenite from Benjamin Shapiro to Israeli citizen and fake
"national conservative" Yoram Hazony is celebrating on Twitter.
Example:
To all the jerks saying Trump did this "for Israel":
1. No American should die for Israel.
2. If you can't feel shame when your country is shamed and want to act when your own people are
killed, your problem isn't Israel. Your problem is you.
-- Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) January 3, 2020
Do these scum ever not lie? No American was killed by Iranians or Iranian-backed proxies before this
incident, not for at least a decade. And Trump totally did this for Israel. His biggest donors have been
demanding he do this for years and suddenly he does it. It's not hard to see the connection, especially amid
all the Jews celebrating on Twitter today.
Further, he goes on to beat his chest as a fake patriotic American (while being an Israeli citizen); it's
clear he's just celebrating an attack on his country's enemy, but wants you to think it has something to do
with America.
You can be darned sure no in the world thinks seizing an American embassy is a genius tactical move
right now. Not in Iran -- and not anywhere else.
-- Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) January 3, 2020
You can be damned sure no on in the world thinks this empire is anything but lawless and dangerous right
now -- headed by an irrational imbecile beholden to the interests of a racist apartheid state. Not in Europe
-- and not anywhere else.
At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect
U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds
Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in
Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of
hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had
orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months including the attack on
December 27th culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General
Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.
This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to
take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.
@Rurik
Gandhi drank his own urine and slept with prepubescent girls, MLK was a whoremonger and sodomite, you can
have them both. Iran won't escalate because they tried, and lost a general. If they try anything else,
they'll pay too steep a price.
"Its pretty clear that the dem's impeachment scam was a collaboration with the neocons to corner Trump
into having to obey McConnell, Graham and the rest of the criminals."
No it's not. It's pretty clear that orange clown is enthusiastic about mass-murdering people and trying
to start wars for his jewish-supremacist handlers.
"A few months back the great Orange King was going to pull out of Syria, right?"
No he wasn't; he was just posturing, as usual.
"It is almost patently obvious Trump was handed the option of starting war with Iran or having the
senate slowly turn against him (through a well orchestrated media campaign, of course), ending up with
him in prison or worse."
Or so you barely assert. But if that's the case why didn't "they" force Obama to start a war with Iran?
For that matter why did "they" allow Obama to enter into the JCPOA agreement with Iran in the first place?
The more likely explanation is that the impeachment scam was an effort to determine whether or not orange
clown had enough support to be re-elected. Perhaps our rulers wanted to see if the peasants would rally
around their embattled MAGA "hero" if they could present him as the hapless victim of the even-more-evil
"democrats." (And if so, his re-election "campaign strategy" could then be crafted around his apparent
"victimhood" since he has nothing else to campaign on).
If this is the case, then the experiment may now have come to an end, with the result that the favorite
son-of-perdition would likely not be re-elected; thus he has one year to start the war on Iran, and he is
wasting no time getting on with it.
Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country, or N. Korea might
Very unlikely that this could occur. Pakistan itself is wary of incurring further unwanted attention from
the US, which regularly violates its sovereignty anyway. If they indeed decided to pursue this route, the
Ziofascists in Washington would simply and very happily open up a new front against Islamabad. (Although
doing so would stand a better -- worse? -- chance of provoking some kind of Chinese reaction than the current US
antagonizing of Tehran.)
The DPRK's stance against Washington is purely defensive and they clearly have no wish to engage in any
action that could trigger the end of the Kim regime. China would also likely not back it up in such a
scenario.
Iran is clearly the victim here, but has been cornered into an unenviable position from which it has no
favorable options. Those hoping that Russia and China will somehow step in to prevent war will find
themselves disappointed. The most likely best scenario is that this new war will seal the eventual financial
bankruptcy of the US. However, the results of that would take years to unfold. But this new war will
undoubtedly be a costly one and, in the not so long run, fiscally untenable.
The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.
Lol. "Valley Forge Warrior". What an obvious Hasbara troll. He probably has only a vague knowledge of
American history, so he picked something he stereotypically thinks an American patriot would call himself.
Along with A123, these hacks have been clogging up the comments of every article on the subject trying to
gin up the goyim for war on Iran. What "ally" does that kind of thing?
@NTG
When? When the rest of the world was destroyed and US was the only one standing, representing half the
world's economy and industrial capacity? In current conditions this leads to hyperinflation and the rest of
the world, which is growing faster than the US (now down to 15 % of the world economy in PPP) and is already
quite self-sufficient from US industry abandoning the dollar. No one would take something that is printed in
heavy amounts to liquidate 30 + trillions in debt. The end of dollar main reserve currency status, which
leads to feedback loop and even greater hyperinflation in the US.
Forcing the US out of the area seems to be a likely response. Perhaps they'll be able to gin up some popular
riots and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Undermining the Saudi regime might be a real blow to
the US; who really knows how stable it actually is? As opportunities present themselves the Iranians will
avail themselves of them, avoiding direct confrontations and clashes. Remember, they live there so can drag
this out over time.
No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag la "USS
Liberty". Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities
in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves.
@Harbinger
The wankers Trump and Netanyahu have been planning this invasion for some time. Actually, given the level
and history of U.S. hubris, the Neocons have not quite gotten over the fact that 50 years ago, the Iranian
people kicked the murderous Shah (U.S. puppet) out of the country. The U.S. will continue to invade and wage
wars against sovereigns who refuse to tow the U.S. line. Please dump Trump in 2020!
The US constantly threatens to overthrow Iran's government, invades and occupies
its neighboring countries, decimates it with sanctions, launches cyber-attacks on its infrastructure, and
now assassinates its national leaders. But the propagandists tell you Iran is the "aggressor"
How can the government on a moment's notice locate and drop a bomb on the head of a veteran military
officer and yet not be able to find a measly whore (jizzlane) hiding out in Israel.
Are you familiar with the name of a Mossad agent "Madam" Ghislaine Maxwell? What about her father R.
Maxwell, a mega-embezzler, thief and Mossad agent?
The fallen Iranian was an honest and honorable man, unlike the Jewish procuress of underage girls for
wealthy pedophiles and the Jewish plunderer of pensions.
While Mirror Group shareholders were wiped out, arguably the biggest losers were the pensioners most
pensioners had to accept a 50% cut in the value of their pensions.
No wonder Maxwell (known as "a great fraud") was feted by other prominent Jewish frauds.
It is very doubtful that Iran retaliates in any way that might lead to all out war with the U.S. unless they
have assurances of total backing from either Russia or China, which I don't see happening at this time.
Neither one of those countries is ready for WW III against the U.S. at the present.
If I were Iran, though, I would use the fact that they sit on some of the largest energy reserves in the
world to help me acquire as many nukes as possible. That might truly be the only deterrent to their
destruction, as Israel and her surrogate the U.S. are never going to give up in there intention of
destroying that country.
@lysias
Yes, but it would piss off the sheople, and Iran doesn't need anymore of the American Bovinus demanding more
belligerence. (for which they personally won't risk a fingernail).
Since then their consolidation over the media and federal government has been consummate. The only cracks
in the iron bubble being the formerly free Internet, and they're very fast sealing off those few remaining
cracks.
Now you'd have to be near brain-dead not to know that they control our foreign policy in absolute terms,
and that Americans have been dying for the greater glory of their enemies in Israel for generations now.
What we need to do is allow the American people to decide if they want to send more of their children to
kill and die for their enemies in Israel.
We all know Iran is nothing more than one more country Israel demands we destroy.
Iran simply needs to allow the rest of the world, to rise up in condemnation with all the nations of the
planet, including the millions of patriotic Americans that are sick to death of our federal government's
slavish fealty to Jewish supremacist shekels.
Don't react to the provocation. Allow all the nations and people of the world to become sympathetic to
your cause. Perhaps, though some miracle even the Sunni nations of the world will side with Iran on this
one.
We all know who the bully is, and who the victim is. Just look at what the ZUS did to Iraq and Libya and
Syria and so many others
It's a global problem for so many, that we can't even count the victims of zio-criminality, from Donbas
to Caracas, to Bolivia..
We need a global outrage, and a global demand to reign in the Zionist fiend.
By doing nothing, but speaking out, Iran's message of victimization is it's more powerful, moral weapon.
Israel Assassinations from 1950's to 2018
[MORE]
1950s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
July 13, 1956 Gaza Strip Egypt Mustafa Hafez Egyptian Army Lieutenant-Colonel, responsible for
recruiting refugees to carry out attacks in Israel. Parcel bomb[12] Israel Defense Forces operation
directed by Yehoshafat Harkabi.
July 14, 1956 Amman Jordan Salah Mustafa Egyptian Military attache
1960s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
September 11, 1962 Munich Germany Heinz Krug West German rocket scientist working for Egypt's missile
program Abducted from his company offices on Munich's Schillerstrasse, his body was never found. Swiss
police later arrested two Mossad agents for threatening the daughter of another scientist and found
that they were responsible for the killing. Part of Operation Damocles. Mossad
November 28, 1962 Heluan Egypt 5 Egyptian factory workers Workers employed at Factory 333, an Egyptian
rocket factory. Letter bomb sent bearing Hamburg post mark. Another such bomb disfigured and blinded a
secretary. Part of Operation Damocles.
February 23, 1965 Montevideo Uruguay Herberts Cukurs Aviator who had been involved in the murders of
Latvian Jews during the Holocaust[18] Lured to and killed in Montevideo by agents under the false
pretense of starting an aviation business.
1970s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
July 8, 1972 Beirut Lebanon Ghassan Kanafani Palestinian writer and a leading member of the PFLP, who
had claimed responsibility for the Lod Airport massacre on behalf of the PFLP.[19] Killed by car bomb.
Mossad[20][21][22][19][23][24][25]
July 25, 1972 Attempted killing of Bassam Abu Sharif Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Information Office. He held a press conference with Ghassan Kanafani during the Dawson's Field
hijackings justifying the PFLP's actions. He lost four fingers, and was left deaf in one ear and blind
in one eye, after a book sent to him that was implanted with a bomb exploded in his hands.
October 16, 1972 Rome Italy Abdel Wael Zwaiter Libyan embassy employee, cousin of Yassir Arafat,[21]
PLO representative, poet and multilingual translator, considered by Israel to be a terrorist for his
alleged role in the Black September group and the Munich massacre,[27] though Aaron Klein states that
'uncorroborated and improperly cross-referenced intelligence information tied him to a support group'
for Black September.[24] Shot 12 times by two Mossad gunmen as he waited for an elevator to his
apartment near Piazza Avellino.[19][21]
December 8, 1972 Paris France Mahmoud Hamshari PLO representative in France and coordinator of the
Munich Olympic Games massacre.[28] Killed by bomb concealed in his telephone.
January 24, 1973 Nicosia Cyprus Hussein Al Bashir a.k.a. Hussein Abu-Khair/Hussein Abad. Fatah
representative in Nicosia, Cyprus and PLO liaison officer with the KGB.[24] Killed by bomb in his
hotel room bed.
April 6, 1973 Paris France Basil Al-Kubaissi PFLP member and American University of Beirut Professor
of International Law Killed on a street in Paris by two Mossad agents.[21]
April 9, 1973 Beirut Lebanon Kamal Adwan Black September commander and member of the Fatah central
committee[29] Killed in his apartment in front of his children during Operation Spring of Youth,
either shot 55 times or killed with a grenadeSayeret Matk al led by Ehud Barak
Muhammad Youssef Al-Najjar Black September Operations officer and PLO official Shot dead in his
apartment together with his wife during Operation Spring of Youth.[31] Sayeret Matkal together with
Mossad
Kamal Nasser Palestinian Christian poet, advocate of non-violence and PLO spokesman Shot dead in his
apartment during Operation Spring of Youth. According to Palestinian sources his body was left as if
hanging from a cross. A woman neighbour was shot dead when she opened her door during the operation.
Sayeret Matkal
April 11, 1973 Athens Greece Zaiad Muchasi Fatah representative to Cyprus Killed in hotel room.[21]
Mossad[32][33][34]
June 28, 1973 Paris France Mohammad Boudia Black September operations officer Killed by
pressure-activated mine under his car seat.[21]
July 21, 1973 Lillehammer Norway Attempted killing of Ali Hassan Salameh High-ranked leader in the PLO
and Black September who was behind the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre Shmed Bouchiki, an innocent
waiter believed to be Ali Hassan Salameh, killed by gunmen. Known as the Lillehammer affair.
March 27, 1978 East Berlin East Germany Wadie Haddad PFLP commander, who masterminded several plane
hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s.[36] He apparently died of cancer in an East Berlin hospital,
reportedly untraced by Mossad.[37] Mossad never claimed responsibility. Aaron Klein states that Mossad
passed on through a Palestinian contact a gift of chocolates laced with a slow poison, which
effectively caused his death several months later.[36]
January 22, 1979 Beirut Lebanon Ali Hassan Salameh High-ranked leader in the PLO and Black September
who was behind the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre[35] Killed by remote-controlled car bomb,[21]
along with four bodyguards and four innocent bystanders.
1980s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Executor
June 13, 1980 Paris France Yehia El-Mashad Egyptian nuclear scientist, lecturer at Alexandria
University Killed in his room at the Mridien Hotel in Operation Sphinx.[38][39]:23 Marie-Claude
Magal, prostitute, client of El-Meshad, pushed under a car and killed in the Boulevard Saint-Germain.
Mossad
September 1981 So Paulo Brazil Jos Alberto Albano do Amarante An Air Force lieutenant colonel,
assassinated by the Israeli intelligence service to prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear nation.He
was contaminated by radioactive material. Samuel Giliad or Guesten Zang, a Mossad agent, an Israeli
born in Poland.
August 21, 1983 Athens Greece Mamoun Meraish Senior PLO official Shot in his car from motorcycle.
Mossad
June 9, 1986 Khalid Nazzal Secretary of the DFLP (Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestine) Killed
in Athens by Mossad agents who entered Greece with fake passports, shot Nazzal while leaving his
hotel, and fled the country. Mossad
October 21, 1986 Munther Abu Ghazaleh High-ranked leader in the PLO. Senior member of the National
Palestinian Council, the Revolutionary Council of Al Fatah and the Supreme Military Council of the
Revolutionary Palestinian Forces. Killed by car bomb Mossad
April 16, 1988 Tunis Tunisia Abu Jihad Second-in-command to Yassir Arafat Shot dead in front of his
family in the Tunis Raid by Israeli commandos under the direction of Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya'alon, and
condemned as a political assassination by the United States State Department.[9][44] Israel Defense
Forces
July 14, 1989 Alexandria Egypt Said S. Bedair Egyptian scientist in electrical, electronic and
microwave engineering and a colonel in the Egyptian army Fell to his death from the balcony of his
brother's apartment in Camp Chezar, Alexandria, Egypt. His veins were found cut and a gas leak was
detected in the apartment. Arabic and Egyptian sources claim that the Mossad assassinated him in a way
that appears as a suicide.
1990s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Executor
March 20, 1990
Brussels Belgium Gerald Bull Canadian engineer and designer of the Project
Babylon "supergun" for Saddam Husseins government Shot at door to his apartment Attributed to Mossad
by several sources,[45] and widely believed to be a Mossad operation by intelligence experts,[46]
Gordon Thomas states it was the work of Mossad's director Nahum Admoni.[47] Israel denied involvement
at the time.[46] and several other countries had interests in seeing him dead.
February 16, 1992
Nabatieh Governorate Lebanon Abbas al-Musawi Secretary-General of Hezbollah
After 3 IDF soldiers were killed by Palestinian militants of the PIJ during a training exercise at
Gal'ed in Israel, Israel retaliated by killing Musawi in his car, together with his wife Sihan and
5-year-old child Hussein, with seven missiles launched from two Apache Israeli helicopters.[21]
Hezbollah retaliated by the attacking Israel's embassy in Argentina.[48] Israel Defense Forces[49]
June 8, 1992 Paris
France Atef Bseiso Palestinian official involved in Munich Massacre Shot
several times in the head at point-blank range by 2 gunmen, in his hotel (Aaron Klein's "Striking
Back") Mossad, with French complicity, according to the PLO, but French security sources suggested the
hand of Abu Nidal.[50][51]
October 26, 1995
Sliema Malta Fathi Shaqaqi Head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Shot and killed
in front of Diplomat Hotel.[21] Mossad.[47]
January 6, 1996
Beit Lahia Gaza Strip Yahya Ayyash "The Engineer", Hamas bomb maker Head blown
off by cell phone bomb in Osama Hamad's apartment, responding to a call from his father. Osama's
father, Kamal Hamad, was a known collaborator with Israel, and it was bruited in Israel that he had
betrayed his son's friend for $1 million, a fake passport and a U.S. visa. Covert Israeli
operation[53]
September 25, 1997
Amman Jordan Khaled Mashaal (failed attempt) Hamas political leader
Attempted poisoning. Israel provided antidote, after pressure by Clinton. Canada withdrew Ambassador.
Two Mossad agents with Canadian passports arrested
2000s
2000, September 29-2001,
April 25. According to Palestinian sources, the IDF assassinated 13
political activists in Area A under full Palestinian Authority, with 9 civilian casualties.[54]
2003 (August)
The Israeli government authorized the killing of Hamas's entire political
leadership in Gaza, 'without further notice,' in a method called 'the hunting season' in order to
strengthen the position of moderates and Mahmoud Abbas.
2005 In February Israel announced a suspension of targeted killings, while reserving the right to kill
allegedly 'ticking bombs'.[55]
Date Place Location Target Description Action Executor
November 9, 2000
Beit Sahur West Bank Hussein Mohammed Abayat (37); Abayat was a senior
official of the Fatah faction Tanzim. Killed while driving his Mitsubishi by a Hellfire anti-tank
missile fired from an Israeli Apache helicopter. Rahma She'ibat, (50); 'Aziza Dannoun Jobran (52), two
local women, were killed by a second missile, and Nazhmi She'ibat and his wife were also injured.
Accused of shooting at the Gilo settlement.[5][54][56] Israel Defense Forces[57]
November 22, 2000
Morag Gaza Strip Jamal Abdel Raziq (39), and Awni Dhuheir (38).[58] Senior
official of the Fatah faction Tanzim Killed on the Rafah-Khan Yunis western road near the junction
leading to Morag settlement while in a Honda Civic with the driver, Awni Dhuheir when their car was
machine-gunned from two tanks at close range. The first version, they were about to attack Morag; the
second version, Raziq was targeted after firing at IDF soldiers. His uncle was later sentenced to
death for collaborating in his nephew's death by furnishing Israel with details.[54] Two bystanders in
a taxi behind them also killed (Sami Abu Laban, 29, baker, and Na'el Shehdeh El-Leddawi, 25,
student).[58][59]
November 23, 2000
Nablus West Bank Ibrahim 'Abd al-Karim Bani 'Odeh (34) Unknown. Had been
jailed for 3 years by the PNA until two weeks before his death. Killed while driving a Subaru near
Al-Salam mosque. Israeli version, he died from his own rudimentary bomb. Palestinian version: his
cousin 'Allan Bani 'Oudeh confessed to collaborating with Israel in an assassination, and was
convicted and shot in Jan 2001.[54] ?[57]
December 11, 2000
Nablus West Bank Anwar Mahmoud Hamran (28) A PIJ bombing suspect. Jailed for
2 years by PNA and released 6 weeks before his death. Targeted on a campus of Al-Quds Open University
while waiting for a taxi-cab. Shot 19 times by a sniper at 500 yards. IDF version shot by soldiers in
self-defence. Palestinian version, he died with books in his hand.Israel Defense Forces
December 12, 2000
al-Khader West Bank Yusef Ahmad Mahmoud Abu Sawi (28) Unknown Targeted and
shot by a sniper at 200 metres, 17 bullets.[57]
December 13, 2000
Hebron West Bank 'Abbas 'Othman El-'Oweiwi(25) Hamas activist Targeted and
shot 3 times in head and chest by a sniper while standing in front of his store in Wadi Al-Tuffah
Street.[54][57]
December 14, 2000
Burin West Bank Saed Ibrahim Taha al-Kharuf (35) Targeted and shot dead.
rowspan=2|Israel Defense Forces.[57]
December 14, 2000
Junction of Salah el-Din near Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Hani Hussein Abu Bakra
Israeli version. Hamas activist shot as he tried to fire from a pistol. Driver of a Hyundai taxi van.
Palestinian version: shot while reaching for his identity card which he was asked to produce when
stopped. 4 of seven passengers wounded, one of whom, 'Abdullah 'Eissa Gannan, 40, died 10 days
later.[54]
December 17, 2000
Qalandiyya West Bank Samih Malabi Tanzim officer.[60] Mobile phone bomb.
December 31, 2000
Tulkarem West Bank Thabat Ahmad Thabat Classed by Israel as head of Tanzim
cell.[54] Dentist, lecturer on public health at Al Quds University, and Fatah Secretary-General on the
West Bank.[60] Israeli Special Forces sniper shot him as he drove his car from his home in Ramin,
classified as an apparent political assassination.[56] Israel Defense Forces
February 13, 2001
Gaza City[54] Gaza Strip Mas'oud Hussein 'Ayyad (50) Lieutenant-colonel in
Force 17, an aide of Yasser Arafat held responsible for a failed mortar attack on a Jewish settlement
in Gaza. The IDF also alleged, without providing evidence, that he intended to form a Hezbollah cell
in the Gaza Strip.[5][56][61] Killed while driving a Hyundai in Jabalia Camp by a Cobra gunship
launching 3rockets.[62] Israeli Air Force
February 19, 2001
Nablus West Bank Mahmoud Suleiman El-Madani (25) Hamas activist Shot by two
men in plainclothes as he left a mosque. As they fled, according to the Palestinian version, covering
fire was provided by an Israeli unit on Mount Gerizim.[54]
April 2, 2001
Al-Barazil neighborhood of Rafah Gaza Strip Mohammed 'Attwa 'Abdel-'Aal (26) PIJ
Combat helicopters fired three rockets at his Peugeot Thunder, also hitting the taxi behind, whose
occupants survived. Israeli Air Force[54]
April 5, 2001
Jenin West Bank Iyad Mohammed Hardan (26) Head of the PIJ in Jenin. IDF version.
He was involved in the 1997 Mahane Yehuda Market Bombings Blown up in a public phone booth, when,
reportedly, an Israeli helicopter was flying overhead.Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent
political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60]
April 25, 2001 Rafah West Bank Ramadan Ismail 'Azzam (33); Samir Sabri Zo'rob (34); Sa'di Mohammed
El-Dabbas (32); Yasser Hamdan El-Dabbas (18) Popular Resistance Committees members Blown up while
examining a triangular object with flashing lights that had been reported as lying near the border
earlier that day. Palestinians say the object exploded as an Israeli helicopter passed overhead.[54]
May 5, 2001 Bethlehem West Bank Ahmad Khalil 'Eissa Assad (38) PIJ activist Hit while leaving his
house for work, reportedly from shots (15) fired from the Israeli military outpost at Tel Abu Zaid,
250 metres away. His niece, Ala, was also injured. Israel said the victim intended carrying out armed
operations in the future inside Israel. Israel Defense Forces[63]
May 12, 2001 Jenin West Bank Mutassam Mohammed al-Sabagh (28) Fatah activist In a car with two
Palestinian intelligence officers, who managed to escape on sighting an Apache helicopter, which
struck it with three missiles. The two officers were also wounded. A fourth missile struck a
Palestinian police car killing Sergeant Aalam al-Raziq al-Jaloudi and injuring Lieutenant Tariq
Mohammed Amin al-Haj. Two bystanders also wounded. Israeli Army accused the three of plotting attacks
on nearby settlers.[63] Israeli Air Force[63]
June 24, 2001 Nablus West Bank Osama Fatih al-Jawabra (Jawabiri) (29) al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
militant. His name was on an Israeli wanted list submitted to PNA. Bomb exploded as he picked up a
phone in a public telephone booth. Two brothers, Malik Shabaro (2), and Amar Shabaro (4) injured.
Alleged by PNA to be IDF,.[64] but denied by the Israeli government.[63]
July 17, 2001 Bethlehem West Bank Omar Ahmed Sa'adeh (45) Hamas leader Killed by two wire-guided
missiles fired by two Israeli helicopter gunships at his garden hut, also killing Taha Aal-Arrouj
(37). His brother Izhaq Ahmed Sa'adeh (51), a peace activist, and his cousin Hamad Saleh Sa'adeh (29),
were killed by a further missile as they rushed towards the rubble. A dozen people nearby were
wounded. Israel maintained that it was a preventive attack on a planner of a terrorist attack at the
Maccabiah Games.[63][65] Israeli Air Force
July 23, 2001 'Anin, west of Jenin West Bank Mustafa Yusuf Hussein Yassin (26) ? Released from an
Israeli prison earlier that day. According to his wife, he opened the door on hearing noises outside
their home and was shot at point-blank range in front of his family. Israeli sources say he was
planning to bomb Israeli targets. Israel Defense Forces[63]
July 25, 2001 Nablus West Bank Salah Nour al-Din Khalil Darwouza (38) Hamas Car hit while driving in
Nablus. He evaded two missiles from an Apache helicopter, but the car was hit by a further 4. Israel
claimed he planned bombing attacks on French Hill, and Netanya. Israeli Air Force[63]
July 31, 2001 Nablus West Bank Jamal Mansour (41); Jamal Salim Damouni (42) High-ranking official of
Hamas' West Bank political wing Killed when office struck by helicopter-launched missiles[66] as
Mansour was giving an interview to journalists in the Palestinian Centre for Studies and Media. 4
others killed in the room: Mohammed al-Bishawi (28); Othman Qathnani (25); Omar Mansour (28); Fahim
Dawabsha, (32). Two children, aged 5 and 8, outside were also killed, and three more adults injured by
shrapnel.[63] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks. Israel Defense Forces[5]
August 5, 2001 Tulkarm West Bank Amer Mansour Habiri/Aamer Mansour al-Hudairy (22) Hamas Missiles
fired at the car.
August 20, 2001 Hebron West Bank Imad Abu Sneneh Leader of Tanzim Shot and killed.[67] Israeli
undercover team
August 27, 2001 Ramallah West Bank Abu Ali Mustafa (63) Head of the Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine and senior executive leader of the PLO. Killed by laser-guided missiles fired from Apache
helicopters while talking on the phone in his office.Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent
political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60] Other sources say Shin Bet convinced the Israeli
Cabinet he was connected to terrorism.[68] Israeli Air Force
September 6, 2001 Tulkarm West Bank 'Omar Mahmoud Dib Subuh (22); Mustafa 'Ahed Hassan 'Anbas (19).
Unknown Targeted and killed by a helicopter missile in an attempt to assassinate 4 Palestinians, of
whom 2 died. Israel Defense Forces[57]
October 14, 2001 Qalqiliya West Bank 'Abd a-Rahman Sa'id Hamed (33) Unknown Targeted by a sniper and
shot at the entrance to his house.
October 15, 2001 Nablus West Bank Ahmad Hassan Marshud (29) Unknown Targeted killing by explosion.
?[57]
October 18, 2001 Beit Sahur West Bank Jamal 'Abdallah 'Abayiat (35); 'Issa 'Atef Khatib 'Abayiat (28);
'Atef Ahmad 'Abayiat (25). Unknown The three, all relatives were killed while driving a Jeep. Israel
Defense Forces[57]
October 22, 2001 Nablus West Bank Ayman Halawah (26). Unknown Killed while riding in a car. ?[57]
31 October 2001 Hebron West Bank Jamil Jadallah al-Qawasmeh (25). Unknown Killed by a helicopter
missile which struck his house. Israeli Air Force[57]
2 November 2001 Tulkarm West Bank Fahmi Abu 'Easheh (28); Yasser 'Asira (25) Unknown Killed by gunfire
whole driving in a car. Israel Defense Forces[57]
23 November 2001 Far'a West Bank Mahmoud a-Shuli (Abu Hanud) (33); Maamun 'Awaisa (22); Ayman 'Awaisa
(33). Unknown all three killed while riding in a taxi by a helicopter missile.
December 10, 2001 Hebron West Bank Burhan al-Haymuni (3); Shadi Ahmad 'Arfah (13) None Two brothers
killed in a vehicle hit by a helicopter missile during a targeted killing of a person in a nearby car.
January 14, 2002 Tulkarem West Bank Raed (Muhammad Ra'if ) Karmi (28) Head of the Tanzim in Tulkarem
He had planned the murders of two Israelis in Tulkarem and was behind a failed assassination attempt
on the life of an Israeli Air Force colonel. After surviving an attempt to kill him by helicopter on
September 6, 2001, he was persuaded by Arafat to desist from violence but killed twenty three days
after a ceasefire[69] was in place because the Shin Bet was convinced they would never have the same
operational opportunity to take him out. Killed from a bomb planted in a cemetery wall, set off by a
UAV circling above when he passed by it on a visit to his mistress, to create the impression he had
blown himself up accidentally.[70][71] Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political
execution to provoke Palestinians.[60] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks.
January 22, 2002 Nablus West Bank Yusif Suragji West Bank head of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Three
other Hamas members also killed. Palestinian Authority claims it was an assassination.[72] Killed in a
raid on an alleged explosives factory.[72] Israeli Defence Forces
January 24, 2002 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Adli Hamadan (Bakr Hamdan) Senior Hamas member missile attack
on car.[72] Israeli Air Force
February 4, 2002 Rafah Gaza Strip Ayman Bihdari DFLP member wanted for 25 August 2001 raid in which
three Israeli soldiers were killed. missile attack on car. Four other DFLP members killed.[72]
February 16, 2002 Jenin West Bank Nazih Mahmoud Abu a-Saba' Second ranking Hamas officer in Jenin.[73]
Killed by a bomb planted in his car, in a targeted killing.[74] Israel Defense Forces
March 5, 2002 al-Birah West Bank Mohammad(Diriyah Munir) Abu Halawa (23); Fawzi Murar (32); 'Omar
Hussein Nimer Qadan (27). Wanted AMB member. Missile fired at car from helicopter, Murar and Qadan
according to B'tselem were not combatants at the time.[57][75] Israeli Air Force
March 6, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdel Rahman Ghadal Hamas member Missile attack on his home.[21]
March 9, 2002 Ramallah West Bank Samer Wajih Yunes 'Awis (29) Not a participant in hostilities at the
time, according to B'tselem.[57] Killed by missile fired from a helicopter, which struck a car he was
travelling in. Israel Defense Forces
March 14, 2002 Anabta West Bank Mutasen Hamad (Mu'atasem Mahmoud 'Abdallah Hammad) (28); 'Atef Subhi
Balbisi (Balbiti) (25). Hamad was an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade member and bomb maker. 3 missiles fired
from an Israeli attack helicopter at Hamad's car, near a chicken farm. A Palestinian source say a
bystander, a chicken farmer (Maher Balbiti) was also killed. An Israeli sources identify him as a
terrorist.[21][76][77] Israeli Air Force
April 5, 2002 Tubas West Bank Qeis 'Adwan (25); Saed 'Awwad (25); Majdi Balasmeh (26); Ashraf
Daraghmeh (29); Muhammad Kmeil (28); Munqez Sawafta (29) Qeis 'adwan was a Hamas activist and bomb
maker to whom several suicide bomb attacks were attributed. Targeted in a combined drone, tank and
special forces siege during Operation Defensive Shield. Given hospitality in his house by Munqez
Sawafta. After hours of gunfire, and a refusal to surrender, a D-9 armored bulldozer crushed part of
the house and the remaining 3 were shot.[57][78] Israel Defense Forces
April 22, 2002 Hebron West Bank Marwan Zaloum (59) and Samir Abu Rajoub. Tanzim Hebron leader and
Force 17 member Killed by a helicopter missile while driving a car. Zaloum was on an Israeli wanted
list, and thought responsible for shootings, including that Shalhevet Pass. Israeli helicopter
strike.[21][57][79] Israeli Air Force
May 22, 2002 Balata refugee camp, Nablus West Bank Iyad Hamdan (22); 'Imad Khatib (25); Mahmoud
'Abdallah Sa'id Titi (30); Bashir Yaish (30) Unknown, the first three were targeted. All four killed
by a shell shot from an Israeli tank. Yaish was not involved in hostilities at the time. Israel
Defense Forces[57]
June 24, 2002 Rafah Gaza Strip Yasir Raziq, 'Amr Kufa. Izzeddln al-Qassam Brigades leaders. Missiles
fired at two taxis, killing two other passengers (reportedly also Hamas activists),[80] the two
drivers and injuring 13 bystanders.[21][81] Israeli Air Force
June 30, 2002 Nablus West Bank Muhaned Taher, Imad Draoza. Muhaned Taher, nom de guerre "Engineer 4",
was a master Hamas bomber claimed by Israel to be responsible for both the Patt Junction Bus Bombing
and the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. Died with a deputy in a shoot-out with Israeli
raiding commandos.[21][80] Israel Defense Forces
June 17, 2002 al-Khader West Bank Walid Sbieh| ? Shot by an Israeli sniper in a targeted killing while
in his car.[57]
July 4, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Jihad Amerin/(Aqid) Jihad Amrain Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Colonel.
Killed in a car bomb.[21][82] Israel Security Forces.[83]
July 23, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Salah Shahade (Shehadeh) Leader of Hamas Izz ad-Din al-Qassam
Brigades Killed by 2,205-pound explosive dropped by an F-16. The attack also killed fourteen other
Palestinians including his wife and nine children. Yesh Gvul and Gush Shalom tried to have Dan Halutz
indicted, but the case was dropped.[21][84][85][86] Killed on the eve of an announced unilateral
cease-fire by Tanzim and Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks. Israeli Air Force.
27 reserve pilots undersigned a pilots' letter refusing to serve in IAF sorties over the West Bank and
Gaza in protest.
August 6, 2002 Jaba, Jenin West Bank Ali Ajuri, Murad Marshud Classified as people not known to be
involved in the fighting (B'tselem). Ajuri (21) was killed by an air-to-surface missile, during an
attempt to arrest him. Murad Marshud (19) killed as bystander.[74]
August 14, 2002 Tubas West Bank Nassa Jarrar Senior member of Hamas's militant wing. Died crushed by
rubble when an IDF bulldozer demolished his house. The IDF admitted it compelled at gunpoint Nidal Abu
M'khisan (19) to act as a human shield and get the victim out of his house. Jarrar shot the youth,
believing he was an IDF soldier. The victim was wheelchair bound. Israel suspected him of preparing a
bomb an Israeli high-rise building.[87][88] Israel Defense Forces
August 31 Tubas West Bank Bahira Daraghmeh (6); Ousamah Daraghmeh (12); Raafat Daraghmeh (29); Yazid
'Abd al-Razaq Daraghmeh (17); Sari Mahmoud Subuh (17). Five victims who did not participate in
hostilities when killed during a targeted killing, from a helicopter fired missile.[57] An eyewitness
account was later provided by 'Aref Daraghmeh. "The helicopter fired a third missile towards a
silver Mitsubishi, which had four people in it. The missile hit the trunk, and the car spun around its
axle. I saw a man escaping the car and running away. He ran about 25 meters and then fell to the
ground and died. The three other passengers remained inside. I saw an arm and an upper part of a skull
flying out of the car. The car went up in flames, and I could see three bodies burning inside it.
Three minutes later, after the Israeli helicopters left, I went out to the street and began to shout.
I saw people lying on the ground. Among them was six-year-old Bahira . . She was dead . . I also saw
Bahira's cousin, Osama . . I saw Osama's mother running towards Bahira, picking her up and heading
towards the a-Shifa clinic, which is about 500 meters away."
October 13, 2002 Beit Jala West Bank Muhammad Ishteiwi 'Abayat (28) ? Killed in an explosion in a
telephone booth, in a targeted killing.[57]
October 29, 2002 Tubas West Bank Assim Sawafta Age 19 Hamas Izzedine al Qassam military leader. Killed
by an undercover army unit, after failing to surrender.[21][89] Israel Defense Forces
November 4, 2002 Nablus West Bank Hamed 'Omar a-Sader (36); Firas Abu Ghazala (27). Unknown Killed by
a car-bomb. According to B'tselem, Firas Abu Ghazala was not engaged in hostilities at the time.[57]
November 26, 2002 Jenin West Bank Alah Sabbagh (26); Imad Nasrti/'Imad Nasharteh (22); Sabbagh
reportedly an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade member, Nasrti Hamas local leader. Killed in an Israeli
airstrike on a house in the Jenin refugee camp by two missiles fired into a room.[21][90] Israeli Air
Force
December 23, 2002 wadi Burqin near Jenin West Bank Shumann Hassan Subuh (29) and Mustafa Kash (26/30)
Subah was a Hamas commander and bomb maker. Ambushed by IDF unit as Kash drove a tractor between
Burqin and Al-Yamun.[21][57][91] Israel Defense Forces
January 30, 2003 Burqin West Bank Faiz al-Jabber (32) ? Targeted when Israeli forces opened fire at a
Fatah group. He fled, was wounded, then shot dead at close range.[57] Israeli Border Police
March 8, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ibrahim al-Makadmeh Gaza Dentist. Second-in-Command of Hamas's
Military Wing.[21] Hamas political leader. He and three of his aides killed by helicopter-fired
missiles.[92] Israeli Air Force
March 18, 2003 Baqat al-Hatab West Bank Nasser Asida Hamas commander Shot while hiding in a cave, On
Israel's most wanted list as alleged mastermind of attacks on Israeli settlements in the West
Bank.[93] Israel Defense Forces's Kfir Brigade[94]
March 25, 2003 Bethlehem West Bank Mwafaq 'Abd a-Razaq Shhadeh Badawneh (40); 'Alaa Iyad (24); Nader
Salameh Jawarish (25); Christine George S'adeh (11) ? Israeli Defence Forces version, agents were
ambushed and shot dead 2 Palestinian gunmen, and a girl in a car that blundered into the battle, and
was believed to be part of the ambush. The girl's parents and sister were wounded.[95] B'tselem
reports that three of the 4 did not participate in hostilities at the time, but were killed during the
targeted assassination by an undercover team of Nader Gawarish and Nader Salameh Jawarish[57]
April 8, 2003 Zeitoun, Gaza City Gaza Strip Said al-Arabid Hamas Israeli Air Force strike on his car
followed by helicopter missiles. Seven Palestinians, ranging from 6 to 75, were killed, 47 wounded, 8
critically.[21] Israeli Air Force[96]
April 9, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mahmoud Zatma Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine Senior Commander,
Bomb Maker[21] Apache helicopter hit the car he was driving in Gaza City, 10 bystanders injured.[97]
April 12, 2003 Tulkarm West Bank Jasser Hussein Ahmad 'Alumi (23) ? Killed by gunfire. Object of a
targeted killing.[57] Israel Defense Forces
April 10, 2003 Tulkarm West Bank Yasser Alemi Fatah, Tanzim Shot and killed as a fugitive in Tulkarm.
Israel Border Police[21]
April 29, 2003 Gaza Strip Nidal Salameh PFLP Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck his car[21]
Israeli Air Force
May 8, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Iyad el-Bek (30) Aide of Salah Shehade, Hamas activist.[21][98]
Killed by three helicopter missiles fired at a car.
June 11, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Tito Massoud (35) and Soffil Abu Nahez (29) Massoud was a senior
member of Hamas's military wing.[21] Retaliatory strike one hour after the Davidka Square bus bombing.
4 bystanders also killed[99]
June 12, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Jihad Srour and Yasser Taha Hamas members[21] Killed by between 4
and 6 helicopter missiles while their car was caught in a traffic jam, near a cemetery where victims
of the June 11 strike the day before were being buried. Collateral damage consisted of 6 other victims
including Taha's wife and child. 25 others were injured by the blasts.[100]
June 12, 2003 Jenin West Bank Fadi Taisir Jaradat (21); Saleh Suliman Jaradat (31) Saleh Suliman
Jaradat was an Islamic Jihad activist Both killed at the entrance of their home, the latter being the
target. Fadi Jaradat did not participate in hostilities at the time, according to B'tselem.[57] Israel
Defense Forces[57]
June 21, 2003 Hebron West Bank 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Qader Husseini al-Qawasmeh (41) Wanted by IDF Shot
dead after getting out of a taxi before a mosque. Three vans approached, with a dozen Israelis
disguised as Palestinian labourers, and he was shot in the leg, perhaps while fleeing to a nearby
field, and then finished off.[101][102]
August 21, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ismail Abu Shanab (48) Engineer and high-ranking Hamas military
commander.[103] High-ranking Hamas official[104] Missile strike, ending a cease-fire.[105][106]
Israeli Air Force[21]
August 24, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Walid el Hams, Ahmed Rashdi Eshtwi (24), Ahmed Abu Halala,
Muhammad Abu Lubda Hamas members. Eshtwi was said by the IDF to be a Hamas liaison officer with West
Bank cells.[107] Twin helicopter missile strike as the five were sitting in a vacant lot near a Force
17 base. Several bystanders were injured, and a further Hamas member critically wounded.[108]
August 26, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khaled Massoud brother of Tito Massoud, killed 3 months earlier.
Hamas Qassam rocket designer, alleged to be involved in mortar strikes. Attempted assassination of
Massoud, who was with two other Hamas activists, Wa'al Akilan and Massoud Abu Sahila, in a car.
Alerted to the threat, the three men managed to escape from their car as 3 missiles struck it and
killed a passing 65-year-old Jabaliya donkey driver Hassan Hemlawi, who was driving his cart. Two
bystanders were also wounded, including four children.[107][109]
August 28, 2003 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Hamdi Khalaq Izzedine al Qassam 3 missiles struck hit a donkey
cart Khalaq was driving. Three Gazans nearby were wounded. The IDF said he was on his way to a mortar
attack on an Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip.[110] Israel Defense Forces[21]
August 30, 2003 On a road linking the Nusseirat and Bureij refugee camps Gaza Strip Abdullah Akel (37)
and Farid Mayet (40) Hamas senior operatives, said to have fired mortar shells and Qassam rocks.
Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck their pickup truck. Seven others Palestinians were wounded by
the fire.. IDF soldiers machine-gunned an 8-year-old girl Aya Fayad the same day in the Khan Yunis
refugee camp, while, according to IDF reports, shooting at road-bomb militants detonating bombs on a
patrol route.[111] 'Israeli strike kills two militants,'[112] Israeli Air Force[21]
September 1, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khader Houssre (36) Hamas member Killed when 4 helicopter
missiles struck a car with 3 Hamas members, in a crowded side street. The second was critically
wounded, while the other managed to flee. 25 bystanders were injured in the strike.[113]
October 28, 2003 Tulharm Refugee Camp West Bank Ibrahim 'Aref Ibrahim a-N'anish Wanted by IDF Shot
dead, unarmed, as he drove his car to the entrance of the refugee camp.[57] Israel Defense Forces
December 25, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mustafa Sabah Senior Hamas bomb maker, thought behind
explosions that blew up 3 Merkava tanks inside the Gaza Strip.[114] Killed when 3 helicopter missiles
destroyed a Palestinian Authority compound where Sabah worked as a part-time guard.[114] Israeli Air
Force[21]
December 25, 2003 Gaza Strip Gaza Strip Mekled Hameid PIJ military commander. Helicopter gunship
attack on car, killing its occupants, including two PIJ members. Two bystanders were also reported
killed and some 25 bystanders injured.[115]
February 2, 2004 Nablus West Bank Hashem Da'ud Ishteiwi Abu Hamdan (2); Muhammad Hasanein Mustafa Abu
Hamdan (24); Nader Mahmoud 'Abd al-Hafiz Abu Leil (24); Na'el Ziad Husseini Hasanein (22). All four
wanted by the IDF Killed in a car struck by a missile fired from a helicopter. Israel Defense
Forces[57]
February 7, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Aziz Mahmoud Shami Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine local
field commander, claimed to be behind a 1995 double suicide bombing in Netanya. Missile strike
incinerated his car while he drove down a crowded street, and a passing 12-year-old boy was killed,
and 10 others wounded.[116] [21]
February 28, 2004 Jabaliya refugee camp Gaza Strip Amin Dahduh, Mahmoud Juda, Aiyman Dahduh. PIJ
military commander Missiles hit his car as it travelled from Gaza city to the refugee camp. Two
passengers are also killed and eleven bystanders wounded.[117][118] Israeli helicopters.
March 3, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Tarad Jamal, Ibrahim Dayri and Ammar Hassan.[5] Senior Hamas
members Missiles from helicopter fired at their car as it drove down a coastal road.[119] Helicopter
strike.[21]
March 16, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Nidal Salfiti and Shadi Muhana Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
Israeli missile strike.[21]
March 22, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmed Yassin Co-founder and leader of Hamas The purpose of the
operation was to strengthen the position of Mahmoud Abbas. As Yassin left a mosque at dawn, he, 2
bodyguards, and 7 bystanders killed by Israeli Air Force AH-64 Apache-fired Hellfire missiles. 17
bystanders were wounded.[120][121] Israeli Air Force[21]
April 17, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi Co-founder and leader of Hamas, and
successor of Ahmed Yassin as leader of Hamas after his death The purpose of the operation was to
strengthen the position of Mahmoud Abbas. al-Rantissi was killed by helicopter-fired missiles, along
with his son and bodyguard. Several bystanders were injured.[122]
April 22, 2004 Talluza West Bank Yasser Ahmed Abu Laimun (32) Lecturer in hospital management at the
Arab-American University in Jenin, mistaken for Imad Mohammed Janajra. IDF initially reported he was a
Hamas member.[123] Initially reported shot after shooting, and then running away from an Israeli
attack dog, trained to seize wanted individuals. His widow testified that he was shot, while in his
garden, from a distance of 200 yards by gunfire from Israeli soldiers behind an oak tree. The IDF
apologized.[124][125][126] Israel Defense Forces
May 5, 2004 Talluza West Bank Imad Mohammed Janajra (31)[21] Hamas leader Ambushed in an olive grove,
after an earlier attempt, mistaking Abu Laimun for him. Said by IDF to be armed and approaching
them.[126] Golani Brigade's elite Egoz unit.
May 30, 2004 Zeitoun Gaza Strip Wael Nassar[21] Hamas mastermind behind the mine that blew up an
Israeli troop carrier raiding Gaza City, on May 11, killing 6 soldier. He was killed on his
motorcycle, together with his aide, by a missile strike which also wounded 7 civilians, including a
woman and two children. A second following missile killed another Hamas member nearby.[127] Helicopter
strike
June 14, 2004 Nablus West Bank Khalil Mahmoud Zuhdi Marshud (24)[21][128]'Awad Hassan Ahmad Abu Zeid
(24). Head of Al-Aqsa Brigades in Nablus Earlier targeted in a Nablus missile attack on a car on May
3, killing 3 Al Aqsa Brigade members. He was in a different vehicle. Killed when a missile hit a car
outside the Balata refugee camp, also killing PIJ members Awad Abu Zeid e Mohammed Al Assi (Israeli
version). Abu Zeid did not engage in hostilities when killed (B'tselem report).[57] Israeli Army radio
said the decision to kill him followed on several failures to arrest him. The same day, an attempt to
kill Zakaria Zubeidi, head of the Jenin al Aqsa Brigades, failed.[128][129] Israel Defense Forces
June 26, 2004 Nablus West Bank Nayef Abu Sharkh (40) Jafer el-Massari Fadi Bagit Sheikh Ibrahim and
the others. Respectively Tanzim Hamas Nablus officer; Islamic Jihad officer.[21] Killed by IDF
paratroopers together with six other men found huddled in a secret tunnel beneath a house in the old
city of Nablus, after trailing a fugitive into the house.[130] Israeli paratroopers.
July 22, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hazem Rahim[21] Islamic Jihad in Palestine member Helicopter
gunship missile strike on a car, killing Rahim and his deputy, Rauf Abu Asi. According to Israeli
sources, Rahim had been seen on video two months earlier brandishing body parts of ambushed Israeli
soldiers.[131][132] Israel Defense Forces
July 29, 2004 Near Rafah refugee camp Gaza Strip Amr Abu Suta, Zaki Abu Rakha[21] Abu al-Rish Brigades
leader. In a car, together with bodyguard, incinerated by Israeli helicopter fire. Accused of
involvement in the shooting of an IDF officer, and a 1992 killing in a Jewish settlement in the Gaza
Strip.[133]
August 17, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Five dead. Four Unidentified?[21] The target was a Hamas Izz
ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades leader, Ahmed al-Jabari. The five, included al-Jabari's 14-year-old son, his
brother, his nephew and son-in-law, were killed in a drone missile strike on al-Jabari's home. About a
dozen other Palestinians wounded. al-Jabari survived the attempt.[134][135] Israeli Air Force
September 13, 2004 Jenin West Bank Mahmoud Ass'ad Rajab Abu Khalifah (25),[21] Amjad Husseini 'Aref
Abu Hassan, Yamen Feisal 'Abd al-Wahab Ayub Al-Aqsa Brigades leader, deputy to Zakariya Zubeidi.
Killed together with two aides (Israeli version) when a helicopter missile struck his car in the city
centre.[136] Amjad Hassan and Yamen Feisal 'Abd al-Wahab Ayub were not, according to B'tselem,
involved in the fighting.[57]
September 20, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khaled Abu Shamiyeh (30) Hamas rocketry mechanic.[21][137] Car
hit by missile Israel Defense Forces
September 21, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Nabil al-Saedi (34), Rabah Zaqout[21] Hamas mid-ranking
operatives. Killed when their Jeep was struck by a missile. 8 bystanders including 2 children were
wounded.[138]
September 27, 2004 Damascus Syria Izz Eldine Subhi Sheik Khalil (42)[21] Hamas senior official. A
Gazan deported by Israel in 1992. Blown up by a bomb hidden in his SUV when he answered a call on his
mobile phone, triggering the explosion. Israel did not claim responsibility but Ariel Sharon's
spokesman Raanin Gissin said:'Our longstanding policy has been that no terrorist will have any
sanctuary and any immunity,' and Moshe Ya'alon commented that action should be adopted against "terror
headquarters in Damascus" in the wake of the recent Beersheba bus bombings.[139]
September 27, 2004 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Ali al-Shaeir (26)[21] Popular Resistance Committee member
Killed while an Israeli helicopter gunship fired several missiles at a car in Abbassam, believed to
hold their target, Muhammad Abu Nasira. The latter, with two others of the group sustained injuries,
and al-Shair died.[140] Israeli helicopter strike
October 6, 2004 al-Shati refugee camp Gaza Strip Bashir Khalil al-Dabash, (38/42) and Zarif Yousef
al-'Are'ir (30)[21] Head of Islamic Jihad's military wing, al-Quds Brigades. Both killed by helicopter
missile fired at their Subaru in 'Izziddin al-Qassam Street in downtown Gaza. Three passers-by were
wounded. One of three operations in Operation Days of Penitence that killed 5 other Palestinian
militants.[141][142] Israeli Air Force[21]
October 21, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Adnan al-Ghoul Imad al-Baas 2nd in command of Hamas, and Qassem
rocket expert. Killed together with his aide Imad Abbas when their car was destroyed by a missile from
an Apache helicopter. Four bystanders were wounded. .[5]
July 15, 2005 East of Salfit West Bank Samer Abdulhadi Dawhqa, Mohammad Ahmed Salameh Mar'i (20),
Mohammad Yusef 'Abd al-Fatah A'yash (22) Alleged to be 'ticking bombs'.[55] Killed in an olive grove,
or, according to B'tselem, in a cave where two were hiding. The first two died immediately in a
missile and gunfire strike by Apache helicopters. The third was taken to Ramallah in critical
condition, but then seized by Israeli forces and taken off in a military ambulance. He died later, and
neither he nor Mar'i, according to B'tselem, were involved in the fighting.[57][143] Israel Defense
Forces
July 16, 2005 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Saeed Seam (Sayid Isa Jabar Tziam) (31). Hamas commander of
Izzedine al Qassam. Allegedly involved in killing two settlers in 2002 and shooting at an Israeli army
outpost in 2004.[21] Shot dead by Israeli sniper in a targeted killing as he stood outside his Gaza
home, as he was going to water his garden, in Khan Yunis.[144][145]
July 16, 2005 Gaza City .[146] Gaza Strip 'Four Unidentified' (JVL)=Adel Mohammad Haniyya (29); A'asem
Marwan Abu Ras (23); Saber Abu Aasi ( 24); Amjad Anwar Arafat,[147] one reportedly a nephew of Ismail
Haniya.[21][148] Hamas operatives. Apache helicopter struck a van carrying the men and numerous Qassam
rockets in Gaza city. Five civilians, including a child, were wounded in the attack.[144][149][150]
Israeli Air Force[21][21][151][21][152][21][153][154][21][155][156][21][157]
September 25, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Sheikh Mohammed Khalil (32) PIJ Alleged to have been involved
in Hatuel family's murder near the Gush Qatif settlement bloc. Killed when his Mercedes was struck by
5 missiles launched from an Israeli aircraft.[158]
October 27, 2005 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Shadi Mehana/Shadi Muhana (25) PIJ Airstrike hitting car with
four Palestinian militants north of Gaza City. Three civilians were also killed, including a
15-year-old boy (Rami Asef) and a 60-year-old man. One source stated 14 other Palestinians were
wounded.[159][160]
November 1, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hassan Madhoun (33); Fawzi Abu Kara[161] Al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades Allegedly planning an operation to strike the Eretz Crossing. Killed when his car was hit by
an Israeli Apache helicopter missile. According to documents in the Palestine Papers Israel's Shaul
Mofaz had proposed to the PA that Fatah execute him.[162]
December 7, 2005 Rafah Gaza Strip Mahmoud Arkan (29). Popular Resistance Committees field operative
Airborne missile strike on a moving car in a residential area. 10 bystanders, including three
children, were injured.[163][164]
December 8, 2005 Gaza Strip Iyad Nagar Ziyad Qaddas Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Missile striking a house.
A third militant, and several Palestinians nearby, including a young girl, suffered injuries.[165]
December 14, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Four Unidentified Popular Resistance Committees Missile strike
on a white sedan near the Karni crossing. Israeli sources say the car was packed with explosives.
Three PRC members killed, a fourth is thought to have been an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades member. One
occupant survived, and two bystanders were injured.[166][167]
January 2, 2006 East of Jabaliya Gaza Strip Sayid Abu-Gadian (45); Akram Gadasas (43), third unknown.
PIJ All three hit by IAF rocket while in a car close to a no-go zone declared by Israel in the
northern Gaza Strip. Collateral damage, two bystanders were wounded.
February 5, 2006 Zeitoun Gaza Strip Adnan Bustan; Jihad al-Sawafiri Islamic Jihad in Palestine.
Believed to have director of their engineering and manufacturing unit. Killed when 2 cars fired on by
an IAF missile, the second en route to a retaliatory attack for an earlier Israeli helicopter strike
that killed three people.
February 6, 2006 North of Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip[168] Hassan 'Asfour (25); Rami Hanouna (27)[169]
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade| Hit and killed when their car was struck by three missiles from an Israeli
drone. Three bystanders also wounded.[168]
February 7, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Abu Shariya; Suheil Al Baqir Al Aqsa Brigades Their car
was demolished by a missile.
March 6, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Munir Mahmed Sukhar (30); Iyad Abu Shalouf Islamic Jihad field
operative. Collateral damage, 3-8 passers-by wounded, including 17-year-old Ahmed Sousi, and an
8-year-old boy (Ra'ed al-Batch), both of whom later died.[170]
May 20, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Dahdoh PIJ Killed in car, held responsible for firing crude
rockets into southern Israel. Palestinian version stated Muhanned Annen, 5; his mother, Amnah, 25; and
Hannan Annen, 45, Muhanned's aunt, were collateral victims. Dahdoh was alone in the car (IDF version).
May 25, 2006 Sidon Lebanon Mahmoud al-Majzoub (Abu Hamze), Nidal al-Majzoub Commander of the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad; the brother was a member also. Critically wounded in car bombing, when he
turned on the ignition of his car, parked near the Abu Bakr mosque in Sidon,. He died the next day.
Islamic Jihad blamed Israel, though Israel denied it.[171] An Israeli government spokesman denied
knowledge of any Israeli involvement. (alleged)
June 5, 2006 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip[172] Majdi Hamad (25); Imad Assaliya (27) Popular Resistance
Committees Missile struck their car, targeting Hamad. Three bystanders were injured. Israeli Air
Force[21][173][21][21][174][175]
June 8, 2006 Rafah Gaza Strip Jamal Abu Samhadana and three others Founder of the Popular Resistance
Committees militant group, a former Fatah and Tanzim member, and number two on Israel's list of wanted
terrorists. Had survived 4 assassination attempts.[176] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail
peace talks, as it coincided with a referendum vote on a political initiative by Mahmoud Abbas. Killed
by Israeli airstrike on a training camp, along with at least three other PRC members.[177]
June 13, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hamoud Wadiya; Shawki Sayklia Wadiya was a PIJ rocket expert. Three
militants in a van with a Grad rocket were driving down a main street when a missile struck nearby.
They fled but were killed by a second missile, as people gathered. The second blast killed 11
Palestinian bystanders, including Ashraf Mughrabi (25) his son, Maher (8), and a relative Hisham (14),
4 ambulance drivers and hospital staff rushing to the incident, and three boys. Thirty-nine people
were wounded.[178]
July 4, 2006 Beit Hanoun Gaza Strip Isamail Rateb Al-Masri (30)[179][180] Izz ad-Din al-Qassam
Brigades Killed by an IAF rocket.[181]
August 9, 2006 Jenin Gaza Strip Osama Attili (24); Mohammed Atik (26) Described by Israel as leaders
of PIJ Killed when (2) helicopter(s) fired missiles into their house. PIJ leader Hussam Jaradat,
another target escaped the strike, while his deputy Walid Ubeidi abu al-Kassam, was lightly
wounded.[182]
October 12, 2006 'Abasan al-Kabirah neighbourhood Gaza Strip Three unidentified='Abd a-Rahman
'Abdallah Muhammad Qdeih (19); Na'el Fawzi Suliman Qdeih (22); Salah Rashad Shehdeh Qdeih (22); Hamas
All three, armed, killed by a helicopter missile after one of the three fired at an IDF tank
October 12, 2006 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Three militants of Kadiah family. Hamas Five members of Kadiah
family killed, two, Adel Kadiah, 40, and his son, Sohaib, 13, being civilians
October 12, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ashraf Ferwana Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Ashraf targeted in
his home but he survived the drone missile strike which demolished his house. His brother Ayman
Ferwana and a girl died, and 10 others injured.[174][183][184]
October 14, 2006 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Ahmad Hassan 'Abd al-Fatah Abu al-'Anin (19); Sakher Faiz
Muhammad Abu Jabal (19); Rami 'Odeh Salem Abu Rashed (22); Faiz 'Ali Fadel al-'Ur (33); Suliman Hassan
Fadel al-'Ur (30); Muhammad Faiz Mustafa Shaqurah (30); Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Five killed
while walking armed in the refugee camp, by a helicopter-launched missile.Awad Attatwa (18), not
associated with group, also died.[175][185]
October 14, 2006 One Unidentified Al Aqsa Brigades Died when the car he was in was hit by a missile
fired in an airstrike. A local commander also critically injured, and two bystanders wounded.[185]
November 7, 2006 Al-Yamun West Bank Salim Yousef Mahmoud Abu Al-Haija (24); Ala'a Jamil Khamaisa (24);
Taher Abed Abahra (25); Mahmoud Rajah Abu Hassan (25). Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades The four militants
were shot while sitting near the Al-Yamun bakery (Palestinian version), fled wounded and were killed
in a local house. Aiman Suleiman Mahmoud Mustafa (31), a bakery worker came out to see what was
happening and was shot dead. Salim Ahmed Awad (27), Ibrahim Mahmoud Nawahda (30), Salim Ahmed Awad
(27) and Mohammed Yousef Abu Al-Haija (27) were also shot and taken prisoner.[186] Israel Defense
Forces undercover squad.
November 20, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Bassel Sha'aban Ubeid (22); Abdel Qader Habib (26) Izz ad-Din
al-Qassam Brigades Missile fired at a Mercedes containing both, parked outside the Ubeid family home.
Collateral damage, 5 civilians, members of the Amen family, including Hanan Mohammed Amen, aged 3
months and Mo'men Hamdi Amen (2), injured by shrapnel.[186] Israeli Air Force[21]
May 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Imad Muhammad Ahmad Shabaneh (33) Hamas Killed while travelling in a
car hit by an Israeli helicopter missile. Israeli helicopters[21][175]
June 1, 2007 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Fawzi (Fadi) Abu Mustafa PIJ/Al Quds Brigades senior member Killed
by an IAF airforce missile while riding a motor bike. Israeli Air
Force[21][187][21][187][188][188][21][189][21][190][21][191][21][192][21][193][194][21][195][188][21][187][188][21][187][196]
June 24, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hussein Khalil al-Hur=Hossam Khaled Harb (32) Hussein Harb Peugeot
al-Quds Brigades local leader. Struck by a missile while driving a Peugeot through Gaza City
October 23, 2007 Gaza City (near) Gaza Strip Mubarak al-Hassanat (35) Popular Resistance Committees
head and Director of military affairs in the Hamas Interior Ministry. Israeli airstrike (IAF) on his
car.
December 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Majed Harazin (Abu Muamen) PIJ. Senior Commander, West Bank,
overseer of rocket operations. Killed together with two others in his car, reportedly packed with
explosives.
December 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdelkarim Dahdouh; Iman Al-Illa; Ahmad Dahdooh, Ammar al-Said;
Jihad Zahar; Mohamman Karamsi PIJ. Missile strike from an aircraft on a car, combined with IDF
undercover unit, on a PIJ cell preparing to launch rockets.
December 18, 2007 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Hani Barhoum; Mohammed A-Sharif Hamas Strike on a Hamas
security position.
January 13, 2008 Al-Shati Refugee Camp Gaza Strip Nidal Amudi; Mahir Mabhuh; third man unidentified
al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Senior operative The three were killed in a car driving through the refugee
camp, struck by an IAF missile.
January 17, 2008 Beit Lahiya Gaza Strip One unidentified[21] =Raad Abu al-Ful (43) and his wife. PIJ
rocket manufacturer They were killed by an IAF airstrike which fired missiles at their car.
January 20, 2008 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmad Abu Sharia Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Commander Hit by an
IAF missile as he walked in the streets. Two other Palestinians wounded.
February 4, 2008 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abu Said Qarmout Popular Resistance Committees member Killed by
an IAF missile that struck his car. Three others were wounded, two seriously.
April 14, 2008 Gaza Strip Ibrahim Abu Olba DFLP Israeli Air Force.[21]
April 30, 2008 Near Shabura refugee camp, Rafah Gaza Strip Nafez Mansour (40) Hamas Killed in an IAF
missile strike. Reportedly involved in Gilad Shalit abduction. Collateral damage. Three bystanders,
one dying of his wounds. A further bystander and young girl also hurt.[21] Israeli Air Force/Shin Bet
joint operation.[197]
June 17, 2008 al-Qararah, Rafah district Gaza Strip Mu'taz Muhammad Jum'ah Dughmosh (27); Musa Fawzi
Salman al-'Adini (35); Mahmoud Muhammad Hassan a-Shanadi (25); Nidal Khaled Sa'id a-Sadudi
(21)Muhammad 'Amer Muhammad 'Asaliyah (20).[175] Army of Islam Killed when their car was struck by an
IAf missile. A further two people were wounded.[198] Israeli Air Force.[21]
August 1, 2008 Tartus Syria Muhammad Suleiman Syrian General. National Security Advisor. Presidential
Advisor for Arms Procurement and Strategic Weapons. Killed by sniper fire to the head and neck. Israel
denied responsibility for the killing, but was widely suspected of involvement. According to an NSA
intercept published by wikileaks, the NSA defined it as the 'first known instance of Israel targeting
a legitimate government official." [199][200][201] The U.S. Embassy in Damascus reported that Israelis
were the 'most obvious suspect (alleged).'[202]
January 1, 2009 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Nizar Rayan (49) Top level Senior Hamas leader. Professor of
Sharia law, Islamic University of Gaza. Among first 5 top Hamas decision makers, and field operative.
Advocated suicide bombings inside Israel.[203][204] His house destroyed by an IAF bomb. along with his
4 wives and 6 of his 14 children. 30 others in the vicinity were wounded. According to Israel,
secondary explosions from weapons in the building caused collateral damage. Rayan was not the target,
rather, the strike aimed to destroy Hamas' central compound which included several buildings that
served as storage sites for weapons. Israel further stated that phone warnings were delivered to the
residents.[204][205] Israeli Air Force
January 3, 2009 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abu Zakaria al-Jamal Senior Hamas military wing commander of Izz
ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and leader of Gaza City's rocket-launching squads[206] Killed in Israeli
airstrike.[207]
January 15, 2009 Jabalia Gaza Strip Said Seyam Hamas Interior Minister Killed in Israeli airstrike
with his brother, his son, and Hamas general security services officer. Salah Abu Shrakh.[208] Israeli
Air Force
January 26, 2009 Bureij Refugee Camp Gaza Strip Issa Batran (failed. See 30 July 2010) Senior military
commander of the Hamas military wing Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Targeted at his home. The attempt
to assassinate him failed, but the shell hit the balcony of their home and killed his wife Manal
Sha'rawi, and five of their children: Bilal, Izz Ad-Din, Ihsan, Islam and Eyman. Batran and his child
Abdul-Hadi survived.[209][210] Israel Defense Forces
March 4, 2009 Gaza Strip Khaled Shalan Senior Operative PIJ Killed in Israeli airstrike, together with
2/3 other militants, targeted after alleged involvement in rocket attacks on the Israeli city of
Ashkelon. They jumped from their car but were critically wounded. 5 bystanders were also
wounded.[211][212][213] Israeli Air Force
2010s
Date Place Location Target Description Action Executor
January 11, 2010 Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Awad Abu Nasir Islamic Jihad Senior Field Commander Had
escaped several assassination attempts. Reportedly involved in attempts to harm Israeli soldiers.
Killed by a missile.[214][215] Israeli Air Force[21]
January 12, 2010 Tehran Iran Masoud Alimohammadi Iranian Physicist Killed in a car bomb. Majid Jamali
Fashi reportedly confessed to an Iranian court he had been recruited by Mossad to carry out the
execution, while the US State Department called the allegation "absurd". Mossad (alleged)[216]
January 19, 2010 Dubai United Arab Emirates Mahmoud al-Mabhouh Hamas senior military commander of Izz
ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, believed to have been involved in smuggling weapons and explosives into
Gaza.[217] Widely reported to have been killed by Israeli intelligence members. Israel stated that
there is no proof of its involvement, and neither confirmed nor denied the allegations of a Mossad
role.[218][219] Dubai police report that Israeli agents used Australian, French, British, Irish, and
Dutch passports.
July 30, 2010 Deserted area in the Nuseirat refugee camp Gaza Strip Issa Abdul-Hadi al-Batran (40)
Hamas Senior military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in central Gaza, who had survived 4
previous attempts on his life (26 Jan.2009). Thought to have been involved in manufacturing rockets.
Killed by a missile in retaliation for earlier rocket attack on city of Ashkelon. A further 13
Palestinians were injured in the strike.[209][210] Israeli Air Force
November 3, 2010 Gaza Strip Mohammed Nimnim Allegedly al-Qaeda affiliated, Army of Islam
commander[220] Car explosion, due to either a bomb planted by Israel or an Israeli airstrike.[221]
Israeli Air Force, with Egyptian intelligence.
November 17, 2010 Gaza Strip Islam Yassin al-Qaeda affiliated, Army of Islam commander[222] Israeli
airstrike on his car, killing him, his brother, and injuring four others.[223] Israeli Air Force
January 11, 2011 Gaza Strip Mohammed A-Najar Islamic Jihad operative. Suspected of planning attacks
against civilians and launching rockets at Israel[224]
Attacked by the Israel Airforce while driving his motorcycle in the Gaza Strip.[224]
Israeli Air Force
April 2, 2011 Ismail Lubbad, Abdullah Lubbad, Muhammad al Dayah Hamas Allegedly aiming to kidnap
Israeli tourists in Sinai over Passover. .[21]
April 9, 2011 Gaza Strip Tayseer Abu Snima Senior Hamas military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam
Brigades Killed along with 2 of his bodyguards by the Israeli air force during a period of escalated
rocket fire from Gaza. He was the most senior Hamas commander killed since 2009.[225] Israeli Air
Force
July 23, 2011 Tehran Iran Darioush Rezaeinejad Iranian electrical engineer Killed by unknown gunmen on
motorcycle. Rezaeinejad was involved in development of high-voltage switches, which are used in a key
component of nuclear warheads. Such switches may also have civilian scientific applications.[226] The
German Newspaper Der Spiegel claimed Mossad was behind the operation. He is the third Iranian nuclear
scientist killed since 2010.[227] Mossad (alleged)
August 18, 2011 Gaza Strip Abu Oud al-Nirab; Khaled Shaath; Imad Hamed Popular Resistance Committees
Commanders Killed hours after a terrorist attack killed 6 civilians and one soldier in southern
Israel. 4 additional members of the group were killed in the strike.[228] Israeli Air Force, Shin Bet
August 24, 2011 Ismael al-Asmar PIJ Allegedly weapons smuggler and militant in Egypt's Sinai, killed
just before shooting a Qassam rocket. [21]
September 6, 2011 Khaled Sahmoud Popular Resistance Committees Killed after allegedly firing 5 Qassam
into Southern Israel [21]
October 29, 2011 Ahmed al-Sheikh Khalil PIJ Munitions expert Killed in retaliation for allegedly
launching rockets into Israel earlier that day. [21]
November 12, 2011 Tehran Iran General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam The main architect of the Iranian
missile system and the founder/father of Iran's deterrent power ballistic missile forces.
He was also the chief of the "self-sufficiency" unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Killed
along with 17 other members of the Revolutionary Guards known as Bid Kaneh explosion.
Those who died are known as the "Shahidan Ghadir".
Iranian officials said that the blast at the missile base was an accident, and ruled out any sabotage
organized by Israel.
AGIR said that the explosion "had taken place in an arms depot when a new kind of munitions was being
tested and moved".
However, TIME magazine cited a "unnamed western intelligence source" as saying that Mossad was behind
the blast.
Israel neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.
[229] [230] [231]
Mossad (alleged)
December 9, 2011 Isam Subahi Isamil Batash Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades [21]
January 11, 2012 Tehran Iran Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan Iranian nuclear scientist The bomb that killed
Ahmadi-Roshan at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person was a
magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and the
" work of the Zionists [Israelis]," deputy Tehran governor Safarali Baratloo said.[232]
[233][234]
Mossad (alleged)
March 9, 2012 Tel al-Hawa Gaza Strip Zuhir al-Qaisi; Mahmud Ahmed Hananni Qaisi was Secretary-General
of the Popular Resistance Committees According to Israeli intelligence, he was planning an imminent
attack in the Sinai.[235] Israeli Air Force
August 5, 2012 Tel al-Sultan Refugee Camp.[236] Gaza Strip Nadi Okhal (19); Ahmad Said Ismail (22)
Popular Resistance Committee, Two senior operatives. IDF sources say they were associated with global
jihadist movement. Killed while riding a motor bike. The other passenger was badly wounded. [21]
September 20, 2012 Gaza Strip Gaza Strip Anis Abu Mahmoud el-Anin (22); Ashraf Mahmoud Salah (38).
Hamas security officers. Salah belonged to the Popular Resistance Committees Their car was shelled by
aircraft overhead.[237] Israeli Air Force[21]
October 13, 2012 Jabaliya Gaza Strip Hisham Al-Saidni (Abu al-Walid al- Maqdisi) (43/47/53);[238]
Ashraf al-Sabah.[239][240] Respectively Salafi-jihadist militant leader of al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad and
the Mujahedeen Shura Council, and head of Ansar Al-Sunna. Israeli and one Salafi source say they had
links with Al-Qaeda.[241][242] Killed by a drone-launched rocket while riding a motor bike in company
with Jazar. Several civilians, including a 12-year-old boy, were wounded.[243]
October 13, 2012 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Yasser Mohammad al-Atal (23) Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine Rocket strike while he was riding his motor bike. A second man was critically
injured.[240][244]
October 14, 2012 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ezzedine Abu Nasira (23); Ahmad Fatayer (22)[240] Popular
Resistance Committees Struck by a missile while riding in a tuk-tuk after firing rockets into Israel
to avenge deaths resulting from two airstrikes the day before. Two others seriously wounded.[245]
Israeli Air Force[21]
November 14, 2012 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmed Jaabari Top level Commander of Hamas' military wing Izz
ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Number 2 to Mohammed Deif. Killed in an airstrike at the start of Operation
Pillar of Cloud. Led Hamas' 2007 takeover of the Gaza Strip and, according to Israel, was responsible
for most attacks on Israel originating in Gaza from about 2006 to 2012, including the capture of Gilad
Shalit.[246]
November 1519, 2012 Gaza Strip Hab's Hassan Us Msamch
Ahmed Abu Jalal
Khaled Shaer
Osama Kadi
Muhammad Kalb
Ramz Harb
Yahiyah Abbayah Hab's Hassan Us Msamch, was a senior operative and Hamas Bombmaker.
Ahmed Abu Jalal, was a Senior Hamas commander of the Hamas central military wing in Al-Muazi.
Khaled Shaer, was a senior operative in the anti-tank operations.
Osama Kadi, was a senior operative in anti-tank operations.
Muhammad Kalb, was a senior operative in the aerial defense operations.
Ramz Harb, was an Islamic Jihad senior operative in propaganda in Gaza city.
Yahiyah Abbayah was a senior Hamas expert bomb maker and a military commander in central Gaza. All of
them were killed by IAF airstrike inside their command bunker and weapon storage during Operation
Pillar of Defense.
February 12, 2013 Damascus Syria Hassan Shateri Top IRGC General. Under the pseudonym Hussam
Khoshnevis, He was a Head of Iranian IRGC special reconstruction project for Hezbollah infrastructure
in southern Lebanon.
Israel air strike killed him during his traveling from Damascus to Beirut.
[247]
April 30, 2013 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hithem Ziad Ibrahim Masshal (24/25) and three others, one on
the bike. Al Quds Brigades (Israel). Hamas security guard at Al-Shifa Hospital (Hamas version).[248]
Defined by Israel as a Freelance Terror Consultant" and active in different Jihad Salafi terror
organisations responsible for two rockets fired towards Eilat on 17 April, he was killed when a rocket
hit him on his motorbike. The strike broke a fragile cease-fire agreement.[249]
December 4, 2013 Beirut Lebanon Hassan al-Laqqis Senior Hezbollah Military Commander. Chief of
technology officer and in charge of the Arms Procurement and Strategic Weapons for the group. Shot and
Killed by gunmen in the head with a silenced gun outside his home and car.
Israel never took responsibility, but it is widely suspected Mossad committed it.
[231]
Mossad
January 22, 2014 Beit Hanoun Gaza Strip Ahmad Zaanin; Mahmoud Yousef Zaanin PFLP;PIJ The relatives
were held responsible for rocket attacks into southern Israel. Only Ahmed was admitted by PIJ to be a
member. His cousin and he were killed sitting in a pickup truck parked outside their home.[250]
Israeli Air Force[21]
February 9, 2014 Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Abdullah Kharti Popular Resistance Committees member.
Regarded by IDF as involved with rocket fire episodes. Hit and critically wounded, with a friend,
while riding on a motorcycle.[251]
March 3, 2014 farmland near Beit Hanoun[252] Gaza Strip Mus'ab Musa Za'aneen (21); Sharif Nasser (31)
PIJ (Israeli version):Had just fired homemade rocket landing in a field south of Ashkelon (Palestinian
version): It was not known if either were militants. A child and a fourth person were wounded.[253]
June 11, 2014 Gaza Strip Mohammed Ahmed Alarur/Awar (30/33) of Beit Lahiya; Hamada Hassan, a Beit
Lahia resident (25) was critically wounded.[254] Hamas policeman. Salafist cell leader (Israeli
description) Described by IDF sources as a global jihad-affiliated terrorist planning attacks against
Israel responsible for a rocket salvo on Sderot that interrupted the silence of a Passover holiday.
Alarur was hit by a missile while riding a motorbike. A car nearby was also struck.[255] One report
identifies a further victim, his 7 year old nephew, who was riding in the family care and who died of
wounds on June 14, ascribing to the latter a role of 'human shield.'[256] Israel Air Force, Shin Bet.
June 27, 2014 al-Shati refugee camp Gaza Strip Muhammad al-Fasih and; Usama al-Hassumi Two Senior
operatives. Al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades Struck by two helicopter-launched missiles while driving a
black Kia vehicle. Two other people were wounded.[257] Israeli Air Force
July 5, 2014 Damascus Syria Mwafaq Badiyeh Samir Kuntar's right-hand man and the personal liaison
officer between Samir Kuntar and Hezbollah. He was killed by an explosive device planted on his car by
"Mossad agents." While driving on the main road between Quneitra and Damascus. The security source
claim the assassination was a response to rockets fired from Syria to Israel in March, that the Syrian
army and Hezbollah were responsible for. Mossad (alleged)
July 8, 2014 Gaza Strip Muhammad Shaaban Muhammad Shaaban is a head of Hamas Special Forces Naval
Commando Unit in Gaza He was killed along with 2 passengers when his car was hit by IAF air strike
followed by attempted infiltration by 5 Hamas Naval Frogmen inside Israel Beach in Gaza border.
[258]
Israeli Air Force
July 27, 2014 Gaza Strip Salah Abu Hassanein
Hafez Mohammad Hamad
Hussein Abd al-Qader Muheisin
Akram Sha'ar
Mahmoud Ziada
Osama al-Haya
Ahmad Sahmoud
Abdallah Allah'ras
Shaaban Dakhdoukh
Mahmoud Sinwar Salah Abu Hassanein leader and spokesperson of Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
Hafez Mohammad Hamad was Top level Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in the Beit Hanoun (northern
Gaza) area who is directly responsible for the rocket fire on Sderot during escalation leading up to
Operation Protective Edge.
Hussein Abd al-Qader Muheisin was a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Sheijaya.
Akram Sha'ar is a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis, who is directly responsible for
both rocket fire and terror attacks in Israel.
Mahmoud Ziada was a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Jabaliya, responsible for upgrading Hamas
rocket arsenal and directing fighting against Israel during Operation Protective Edge.
Osama al-Hayya A Senior Hamas leader in Sheijaya, whose son is in Hamas's 'political wing' Khalil
al-Hayya.
Ahmad Sahmoud was a Top level Hamas commander in Khan Younis.
Abdallah Allah'ras is a Senior commander in the Hamas's "military wing,""the Al-Qassam Brigades.
Shaaban Dakhdoukh was a commander of the forces in Zeitoun, who worked on burying long-range rockets
and helped to smuggle weapons for his forces.
Mahmoud Sinwar a Hamas Military commander, who was involved in the creation of attack tunnels and the
launching of rocket fire into Israeli territory and the raid in which Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was
captured. All of them were killed by IAF airstrike inside of their house along with their comrades and
entire family and also inside their buried Gaza tunnels.
[258][259]
August 3, 2014 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Ahmad al-Mabhouh Nephew of slain Hamas commander Mahmoud
al-Mabhouh in charge of engineering and destruction officer in Hamas.
Among other things, he was responsible for hiding rockets before they were launched at Israel,
preparing complex explosive devices and planning armed attacks against Israeli targets. The IDF and
Shin Bet attacked a building in Jabaliya on Saturday night, killing Hamas operative Ahmad al-Mabhouh,
the nephew of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was inside.
[260]
Israeli Armed Forces, Shin Bet
August 19, 2014 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Deif (failed attempt) Chief of staff and Supreme
Military Commander of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The main architect of Hamas's tunnel system.
Several IAF missiles struck Deif's 6 storey home. His wife Widad (27), 7 month old son Ali and
daughter Sarah (3) were killed in the strike. Three other residents in the building were also killed.
According to Fox News, anonymous Israeli intelligence sources claimed that Deif had been killed in the
strike. Hamas denied the reports that Deif, who has survived five previous Israeli attempts to
assassinate him, had died in the F-16 bombing of his home. In April 2015, Israel confirmed that Deif
survived the assassination attempt.[261][262][263][264][265] Israeli Air Force
August 21, 2014 Rafah Gaza Strip Raed al Atar Rafah Division Senior commander.
Mohammed Abu Shmallah Rafah Division Senior commander.
Mohammed Barhoum Rafah Division Senior commander. 3 Hamas Senior Military commanders Struck by a pair
of F-16 one-ton bombs guided through a window of the building where they had been located.[266][267]
January 18, 2015 al-Amal Farms, Quneitra District Syria Jihad Mughniyah
Mohammed Ahmed Issa
Abu Ali Reza Al Tabatabai
Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi
Ismail Al Ashhab
Abu Abbas Al Hijazi
Mohammed Ali Hassan Abu Al Hassan
Ghazi Ali Dhawi
Ali Hussein Ibrahim
Along with 6 other Iranian and Hezbollah high-ranking officers Jihad Mughniyah was a son of a slain
Hezbollah supreme military commander Imad Mughniyah.
Mohammed Ahmed Issa was Head of Security and Operations. He was also a Senior Hezbollah Military
Commander in Syria.
Ismail Al Ashhab was a Senior Hezbollah military commander and a top liaison officer with Iran in
charge of training Hezbollah forces along the Golan heights frontier.
Abu Ali Reza Al Tabatabai was a Top Iranian IRGC General.
Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi was a Top Iranian IRGC General.
Abu Abbas Al Hijazi was a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Mohammed Ali Hassan Abu Al Hassan was also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Ghazi Ali Dhawi was also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Ali Hussein Ibrahim also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria. Struck and hit by Israel
Air Force Nimrod/Hellfire missile Apache Helicopter during their reconnaissance and inspection mission
along with IsraeliSyrian ceasefire line at the Golan Heights.
According to Israel Intelligence Security, they were planning for massive mega attack, including
infiltration, shooting, assassinations, suicide bombing, anti-tank attack, and missile attack with the
intention of kill and kidnap Israel soldiers and civilians community along with Quneitra and Galilee
border.
And also help to establish the missile base inside Quneitra region.
Israel neither confirmed nor denied an air strike.
December 21, 2015 Damascus Syria Samir Kuntar
Farhan Issam Shaalan
Mohammed Riza Fahemi
Mir Ahmad Ahmadi
along with several high ranking IRGC commanders and Hezbollah members Samir Kuntar was a senior
Hezbollah commander and also a convicted murderer of an Israeli family in 1979, held in Israeli prison
for the next 30 years before released in a prisoner swap in 2008.
Mohammed Riza Fahemi and Mir Ahmad Ahmadi were two Iranian senior military officers of the IRGC
Intelligence division. According to the Israeli defence establishment, they were meeting in order to
plan the next round of Iran-sponsored terrorist operation against Israel from the Golan Heights areas
recently secured by the Syrian military. Two Israeli planes allegedly destroyed a six-story
residential building in Jaramana on the outskirts of Damascus. Kuntar's death was confirmed by his
brother and Hezbollah. The explosion also killed eight Syrian nationals, among them Hezbollah
commanders, and injured a number of other people.[268][269]
December 17, 2016 Sfax Tunisia Mohammed Al Zawari Mohammed Al Zawari was a Chief of Hamas drone
program and an Aviation Engineer expert. He also worked on the development and production of Hezbollah
drones. He was shot dead in the head 6 times by using guns equipped with silencer just in front of his
house, who located in Sfax 270 km Southeast of Tunis. Hamas accused Mossad[270]
March 24, 2017 Gaza Strip Palestine Mazen Fuqaha Mazen Fuqaha was a Senior Hamas Operative. He was
also a Senior commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas Military wing. According to Hamas, he
was shot dead 4 times in the head and chest by Israeli Special Forces by using silenced weapons guided
by Shin Bet Agents and Gaza operatives. Israeli Special Forces/ Shin Bet[citation needed]
April 21, 2018 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Fadi al-Batsh Batash was a Hamas-affiliated Palestinian engineer
from the Gaza Strip. Shot dead by two people on a motorcycle when he was leaving a mosque after his
morning prayers. Mossad is suspected.[271]
@Rich
Your "most moral" nation of Epstein cannot survive without blackmailing and deceiving, and yet you are
coming on the UNZ forum to lecture the readers about morals? This is ridiculous.
Time to realize that holobiz is over.
@Rich
Spoken like a true Hasbera Clown. The Iranians actually defeated the "ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein" that
were supplied with US biological and Chemical weapons since their objective was purely defensive. Just as
those "ragtag forces" in Vietnam defeated the US by continuing to exist despite the genocidal bombing
campaigns.
You should really improve your literacy level by actually reading a book instead of some
Zionist Agitprop.
@RowBuddy
Are you so naive as to think that dumping Trump in 2020 will change anything? Israel owns both parties
equally, and it is a fact that up to this point in his administration Donald Trump has the least amount of
blood on his hands when compared to each of the last three Presidents.
If you think differently, then ask yourself how the Nobel Peace Prize winning Messiah and the Hilldebeast
destroyed the #1 economic country in Africa and turned it into a total shit hole nightmare. That would be
the country of Libya for those not paying attention or who worship at the feet of the equally corrupt
Democrat party.
@Not Raul
Well lets take this to its conclusion,Trump nukes Iran it drifts over into Russia killing a few hundred or
thousands,now just what do you think Russia would do,do you think that Russia would take that as an act of
war against them, and let those missile's programed to impact the White House and pentagon be on there
way;!!!
Iraqi security official tells @nbcnews there has been anther US airstrike, this one north of Baghdad
targeting Shiite militia leaders. Reports of 6 killed.
This right BEFORE a big Shiite protest tomorrow in Baghdad. It seems certain to provoke an escalation.
The attack has been confirmed by other sources.
It looks like the provocations will continue until Iran responds creating the pretext for a broader war.
@Alfred
US is unique to indict people from opposite spectrums of the same crimes usually after one of the criminals
are dealt with . 911 has been blamed on Iran. It has been approved by American court . Settlements have been
reached without any participation of Iran . After Bin Laden was dealt with for crimes of 911, Saddam was
pointed fi anger at with similar success story . Pakistan has been also accused directly and indirectly of
the same crimes .
Pan Am had checkered history The intercepts of messages that seemingly originated from Libya was
manufactured and relayed by Israeli agents of worst filthy zionist mindset to draw visceral wrath of America
on Libya .
Now then Zio will be the first to blame it on Iran and who knows after that Pakistan.
The fallen Iranian was an honest and honorable man, unlike the Jewish procuress of underage girls for
wealthy pedophiles and the Jewish plunderer of pensions.
I'd like to send this to every US military barracks in the world.
I'd like to see it on every soldier's locker and pasted on every Army recruitment center in America.
Young Americans have been slaughtering honorable Muslim men, women and children, thousands of miles away,
so that repulsive pigs like Epstein or Weinstein
can rape their daughters while they're off fighting and dying.
It's an untenable situation, and one we should all try to stop.
Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11
The Unz Review already has some good comedy writers. I would suggest that you start with open mic nights
in bars and coffee shops until you develop some basic skills.
@Rurik
Not to worry the maneuver is too transparent.
1. Strategically, they accomplished zilch.
2. They made a first-rate martyr.
That they had no better idea can only mean:
1. They are losing.
2. They did it in hopes of provoking an overreaction (much like Heydrich had to die because he did more for
the Czech worker than anyone before or after him).
And over the last four decades the Iranians have grown calloused to provocation
By doing nothing, but speaking out, Iran's message of victimization is it's more powerful, moral
weapon.
A noble sentiment, Rurik. Sadly, in the last few decades, morality has taken a back seat, and evil seems
to consistently triumph. Consider the plight of the unarmed Palestinians protesting near the Israeli wall on
their land. They have held the moral upper ground, while the Israelis have consistently mowed them down,
women and children alike, with nary a protest from the rest of the world, least of all from their
bought-and-paid-for Arab neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan (don't get me started on the KSA). Meanwhile,
countries that have protested, like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, are considered terrorists.
I think that "turning the other cheek" was a shrewd jewish trick on christians. The only way to stop a
bully is punch him in the nose.
@annamaria
In my world Epstein and his friends get the death penalty. My people have no semitic or Ashkenazi blood at
all. But just because some deranged general dislikes Israel, doesn't make him a good guy. He was a leader of
an army that engages in terrorism, as well as pursuing an agenda that is antithetical to freedom and basic
human rights. I'm not here lecturing anyone, but if you consider the millionaire mullahs and their lackeys
"heroes", I'd say you're confused, at the least.
@Rurik
I believe a not insignificant amount -- perhaps even the majority -- of pro-war Americans know this to be true:
That they and their progeny are mere cannon fodder for Zionist imperialism. But they simply don't care or
are even proud of dying for so "worthy" a cause. Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted
hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.
@JamesinNM
I fully expect Israel to set off a nuke in the US and destroy some Southern or Midwestern city where the
"deplorables" live. Then indisputable evidence will be found pinning it on Iran. Kills two birds with one
stone.
They get the war they want, kill a bunch of those they hate in America. And those they hate in America
clamor for the destruction of others they hate in Iran. The mother of all false flags. The one on 9/11
didn't completely get the 7 nations job done.
@Rich
Soleimani was fighting AL CIADA aka ISIS a creation of the ZUS and Israel and ZBritain and NATO, and so they
killed him as they could not let him continue to kill the terrorists created by the CIA and MOSSAD and MI6.
@Passer by
i said a "Profitable", not a good one. And i didn't mean the US economy as a nation economy.
The whole "western" system right now is driven by some very few (an NO they are NOT Jews, they are only
rich, very rich). And only those will profit from it. Until someone stop them directly.
Those people don't care about live or nation. They only care about money, their own money.
And over the last four decades the Iranians have grown calloused to provocation
I hope so. It's so bloody obvious by now.
Like the way they've been trying to 'rope a dope' Putin into a wider war with Ukraine, but Putin's far
too savvy to take the bait.
Just let the ZUS keep frothing like a rabid dog, (h/t Ron Unz) and the world will eventually tire of its
antics, and put it down, by repudiating the dollar.
If Iran is threatened with an all out war they could easily close the Straight of Homes and destroy the
Saudi oil fields with Chemical weapons that'll render extracting Saudi oil mute. Result would be loss of
Western World economy crashing big time and the USA falling into civil war cause they cannot maintain their
freebies to the population. Not to mention attacking every US base in the ME. After all if Iran was facing
annihilation they would have nothing to lose but to bring everyone down with them.
Iran won't escalate because they tried, and lost a general. If they try anything else, they'll pay too
steep a price.
They might have just killed a foremost general, but the ones who have just proved to the world that they
are losing are the US/Israeli Zionists.
When engaged in a strategic survival fight against a historic, cohesive nation of 80 millions people,
killing one of their generals won't make any difference. It just reveals that you have run out of more
effective, long-term means and have reached a strategic dead-end.
It is like losing a dispute over land with a powerful neighbour, and throwing a stone at one of his
windows to satisfy a tantrum. It won't change anything significant.
This is the end of the road for Zionist long-term strategy in the ME.
Iran will not retaliate militarily, but you will soon understand the law of unintended consequences:
Soleimani was so popular in Iran that Iranians will rally around their government; so much for the social
and economic undermining of the Islamic Republic that was Israel's best card.
Iraqis will also rally around their institutions; the end of the US occupation has now been put on top of
their priorities.
Israel will have to face an even stronger and more cohesive Shia Crescent, as Iraq will join in.
I'm not necessarily a cheerleader for Iran but, were I a leader in Iran, every time the US attacked one of
mine, some Israeli bigshot would bite the dust. Every time. Dual citizens would be my preferred target. It
would be a favor to the world.
@Johnny Walker Read
The murdered peacemaker John Lennon famously asked, "What if there was a war and nobody showed up?" Since
Vietnam, any American who has joined the military is a fool. These fools have not only aided in the
destruction of many non-threatening nations and the deaths of millions of innocents but they have also aided
in the destruction of the USA itself, for the working American people that is.
the Israelis have consistently mowed them down, women and children alike, with nary a protest from the
rest of the world, least of all from their bought-and-paid-for Arab neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan
(don't get me started on the KSA).
yea, or the SJW in the US House or NYT. Where are 'the squad' when it comes to Palestine, or Iran, for
that matter?
Counting shekels, that's where.
I think that "turning the other cheek" was a shrewd jewish trick on christians. The only way to stop a
bully is punch him in the nose.
I wholeheartedly agree, in a fair contest.
But Iran is in no position to fight a war with the ZUS. It would be crushed, and the zios would be just
as giddy over dead American goyim as they would dead Iranians, if not more so.
One thing I just can't understand, is how fellow Muslims can accommodate Zionism, as it's practiced these
days. Like the KSA, as you mention.
So, yea, it's an awful situation, but I'd still counsel a non-violent protest posture, even as the fiend
menaces and slaughters them. But if an Iranian or Iraqi, or God knows how many other people who've been so
terribly wronged, were to strike out, and kill one or two goons in the service of zion, I know I couldn't
begrudge them. Like the Afghans who occasionally kill their ZUS trainers/occupiers. It's perfectly
understandable.
@Rich
I challenge you to show just a single act of terrorism committed by General Soleimani and Iran, and I mean
an act of terror not a retaliation. Iran has done nothing to the West to warrant the aggression against it.
Her only problem is the vast resources it has that the West so desperately wants to control.
@plantman
BAGHDAD --
A United States air strike targeted an Iraqi militia late on Friday on Taji road north of
Baghdad,
state TV said. It did not name the militia or provide further details.
Question #1: Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate
international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?
Question #2: Thirty -- fifty -- seventy years from now, will an Iraqi court charge with war crimes and
crimes against humanity the 82nd Airborne soldiers pictured above?
@Passer by
All correct in the medium term just a bit wishful in the here and now
All excellent points why the US MUST hold onto the Gulf, Persian or not, with teeth and fingernails;
losing control over oil the US dont need means they can force no one to trade actual value for green paper,
which not only means cold turkey from all those dandy little wars but also groid uprising back home.
Sure, folding up and going home would be the best for all concerned
but it will never happen :/
@Gizmo880
This is what the Clinton apologist with his head up his Duff "editor" over at Veterans Today thinks as well.
As if O-bomb-em wasn't as bad or even worse than Cheney er I mean Bushwhacker Bush. I mean get real! These
people are so deluded. If we just all close our eyes and vote Democrat and sing kumbaya we'll enter a world
of hope and change.
Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the
utter foolishness of your average American.
I'm somewhat more charitable of the Americanus Bovinus.
I suspect that he either knows of the 'special relationship, in which case he'd be reluctant to kill and
die for his enemies in Israel, or he's just another duped fool.
Pat Tillman started off being a duped fool, but then he figured it out. They solved that 'problem' with
three 5.56mm holes in a 'tight pattern' to Pat's forehead.
@Agent76
Were the neocons also inspired by Deuteronomy 7 which talks about the necessary destruction of 7 (seven!)
nations?
Deuteronomy 7 New International Version (NIV)
Driving Out the Nations
7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before
you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites,
seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you
and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show
them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their
daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods,
and the Lord's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to
them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their
idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out
of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
Trump is acting out the American Paradox. Jews have such total power that the only way to ease the Jewish
attack on you is to serve them even harder. Jews have done everything to disparage and defame Trump, and
what does the 'tough guy' do? To ease the agony, he sucks up to Zion even more so that 'my Jews' will push
back against the 'Jews who hate me'.
Jews are the gods of America. In the Bible, if the God clobbers you, your only hope of salvation is to
serve Him with greater servitude. In America, if Jews kick your butt, your only option is to hope that they
will kick you less hard by kissing their ass.
@Rurik
Dear Rurik, the tribe is in a self-destruction mode -- they cannot help it. Zionists are consumed by ethnic
hatred and the hatred is blinding and destroying them.
It is tragic that the psychopaths have murdered the great numbers of decent and innocent human beings.
What is truly appalling is the cowardice of American brass. While politicians are the natural persons of
easy morals, the dishonorable and pussy-catting American commanders are a stunning phenomenon. From Rumsfeld
to Brennan to the current "boss" (what's his name which he is busy dishonoring?), the US brass has learned
how to stay comfortable (and profitably) on their knees serving the zionist masters.
@Ilya G Poimandres
Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself. None of this is legal or acceptable and for a country
that's so obsessed with giving foreigners "constitutional rights", it makes us look like a bunch of
hypocrites. But of course we are. And they don't do it in my name and I want no part of any of it.
@Poco
This is a very real worry of mine. Very plausible and actually, probable. I worry that it will be a
biological weapon. That scares the crap out of me! And I wouldn't put it past them one bit. They love it
when we suffer and die. The Bible was right about them.
Actions like this make us question past US military actions. US paints itself as the good guy fighting the
bad guys, but US has provoked so many nations and forced them to react, whereupon US employed its superior
firepower to kill countless people.
Maybe the US was always evil.
Will the progs and Democrats hit Trump hard on this? Or will their response be muted because their Jewish
masters actually like this side of treacherous Trump doing the bidding of Israel and Zion?
Jewish Power is utterly vile. Sacrifice any number of people for Zion. It's really a new form of human
sacrifice. Jews make a big deal of how their religion forbade human sacrifice, but they sacrifice human
lives by way of US foreign policy.
@TaintedCanker
The reason decent people dislike America and Israel more than Iran et al. is because America and Israel are
the aggressors here. Why is that so hard to understand?
But Iran is in no position to fight a war with the ZUS. It would be crushed, and the zios would be
just as giddy over dead American goyim as they would dead Iranians, if not more so.
Yes, Iran would be crushed in a direct military confrontation, however, an asymmetric war is a different
beast altogether. I referred in an earlier post to "death by a thousand cuts", and that is what Iran should
do directed assassinations by their allies, who are everywhere. What is good for the goose
Start by taking down a few zios like Pompeo, Bolton, Adelson, etc., and suddenly bullying isn't so cheap.
One thing I just can't understand, is how fellow Muslims can accommodate Zionism, as it's practiced
these days. Like the KSA, as you mention.
I don't know that they do tolerate zionists but they have been effectively muzzled by the tyrants we
prop up to control them (e.g. MBS, Sisi, et al.). Look at our cousins in Europe, who are just as muzzled and
jailed for raising a single dissenting voice against jews or Israel. Forget Europe, we, ourselves are on the
threshold of something similar here. Unconstitutional laws go unchallenged. Note the recent laws forbidding
protests against Israel on campus. A flood is imminent.
Where are 'the squad' when it comes to Palestine, or Iran, for that matter?
Like damning with faint praise, the fact that the Palestinian/Iranian cause is represented by the 'squad'
does more damage to their plight than if they had kept their moths shut. The squad is easy to take down and
their position on this issue is easily dismissed, and they fail to gain the support of people like me
because their other issues are so ludicrous. Their flawed character (e.g incest, lies, etc.) hardly makes
them good lawyers for anyone, leave alone Palestinians and Iranians.
@A123
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You take tidbits from the MSM and what the
establishment says and regurgitate. You are a stooge of Natenyahu, the real sociapath. Trump is becoming one
very fast as well.
The regional stability only requires that uncle Sam come home and stop shedding
American blood as well as Middle Eastern blood.
Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home.
Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much
weaker.
Here is a very good example of your ignorance. You have typical American problem. They think they know
how the Iranian mind works. They don't know a thing about how Iranians think. Iran has ten more Sulemanis
waiting in line to take his place and there are ten more Al-Mohandus in Iraq.
Does anyone remember what an American General said about ISIS? He said it will take 30 to 40 years to
defeat of ISIS in Iraq. It took less three years for the Iraq militias, all volunteer group mobilzed as a
result of a fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, to defeat ISIS and ISIS was being supplied arms by the
US. Al-Mohandus was one of that group.
@renfro
Thank you for posting that list. Any just soul in this world should keep a copy of that list as a permanent
reminder of the nature of the Jewish state and its sponsor/protector insane criminals deserving the
harshest of their own gods' revenge: total obliteration from the face of the earth for ever. They are the
scourge of humanity; is anyone with a conscience safe in thie world?
Question #1: Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate
international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?
These guys just follow orders. They are not taught to think about the morality of their actions, but to
trust the wisdom of their leaders and the justice of the cause.
No thinking person could honestly serve in the American Military today. Their cause is not defense of any
ideals or their own homeland, but to serve an unjust and evil government in thrall to Jewish supremacists.
The only hope for us sane people is to hunker down and crack open another delightful $1.39 plus tax 8.1%
Hurricane 25 ouncer. Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, when in reality they
are pathetically superstitious and naturally subservient. Half the country every Sunday actually worships a
mythical jew zombie and even routinely mutilates the genitals of their male offspring to demonstrate total
fealty to their cock cutter cult overlords. The other half every Sunday worships giant muscular Africans in
plastic hats and tight spandex groping each other in a simulated homoerotic orgy on their flat screen living
room joo boxes. Oh, and it has been proven that guzzling fully synth swill like Ice House, Steel Reserve,
and Hurricane is actually healthier than counter and designers beers as brews made from actual fermented
real grains all contain the magic ingredient, RoundUp ..providing your liver and brain can withstand a
steady diet of 8%to 10% high octane fuel.
@Harbinger
I keep saying it.
Bomb to dust these maaaa-humpers in that shithole south of Lebanon.
The World major problems will go away with the next 10 years
@Adrian
I am a born again Christian and reader of the Bible but I cannot qoute chapter and versues like yourself and
many more who are able. Thanks for your reply and be blessed!
@Haxo Angmark
I don't think all, or even most, of them are hasbarists. They are mostly brain-addled American boomer
"conservatives" who blindly believe everything the Jews spoon-feed them. And really, 80% of (((ZeroHedge)))
is also Jewish propaganda these days, so why shouldn't their commenters reflect that?
It's not so
different from the moronic commentary found in the Steve Sailer section here at Unz, which seems to
increasingly bleed out to the rest of the site.
January 03, 2020 There can be no justification for this act of murder
"America's lawless arrogance has
gone too far with the assassination of Iran's top military commander. The deadly airstrike against General
Qasem Soleimani was carried out on the order of President Donald Trump.
@Rich
He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism"
Israel is nation that survives on terrorism It was birthed by terrorism . It gets money everytime some guy
makes threats to a desolate synagogue or storms on the headstones of some graveyard . The money helps the
nation to survive get food water electricity and it uses the change for making bullets to hit at the eyes of
the Palestinian boys.
@Rich
I don't see where anyone is putting forth the idea that Iran can defeat the United States -- and they don't
have to to, essentially, 'win'.
After all, look at the end results for We The People Of The United States
as a result of the (false flag known as) 9/11 -- let's see, we've got the Patriot Act to destroy our
individual rights; we've got the TSA folks to do likewise; we've got the NSA to spy on anyone and everyone;
we've spent Trillion$ chasing phony WMDs (thanks to the 'intelligence' shoved at US by the israelis); we've
spent heaven-only-knows how much modifying the cabins of our commercial aircraft to prevent 'terrorist'
attacks; we've allowed folks to capitalize on the whole Twin Towers insurance scam.
All in all, we've been under the gun since 9/11 -- afraid of our own shadows -- bowing to the israeli
bastards who know no limits to their evil -- and, thanks to President Trump, American blood will be spilled
for them once again and American freedoms will be lost for the once again.
@Nicols Palacios Navarro
America needs interfaith dialogue with Islam but without including the Jewish faith . It is for the
forgiveness that we hope will be showed to and bestowed on our future generations . We need to include
Buddhist as well.
@Alfred
A good summation. However, it gets even darker than this.
Journalist working at the outer limits of the
mainstream (e.g. Robert Fisk) had long suspected an Iranian hand in Pan Am 103. And lawyers for the two
Libyans prosecuted for the bombing identified 11 alleged members of the rather obscure Palestinian Popular
Struggle Front (PPSF) as the men responsible. The Iranians did back this group, BUT numerous sources claim
that the operation took place with the consent of US authorities.
Why would the US allow such an attack upon its citizens? According to former Congressional staffer and
(former) CIA asset Susan Lindauer, the attack was directed at shutting down an investigation into a CIA-run
drug-trafficking ring (codenamed "Operation Khourah") operating from Beirut. In her words:
"The Defence Intelligence Agency had gone into Lebanon and were gathering forensic evidence to prove the
CIA's role in heroin trafficking.
"They boarded Pan Am flight 103 that morning and they were flying back to Washington to deliver their
report, with heroin, cash and banking records."
The UK Guardian summarised the scenario thusly:
//Among the Lockerbie victims was a party of US intelligence specialists, led by Major Charles McKee of
the DIA, returning from an aborted hostage-rescue mission in Lebanon. A variety of sources have claimed that
McKee, who was fiercely anti-drugs, got wind of the CIA's deals and was returning to Washington to blow the
whistle. A few months after Lockerbie, reports emerged from Lebanon that McKee's travel plans had been
leaked to the bombers. The implication was that Flight 103 was targeted, in part, because he was on board.
//
So extensive is the evidence of all this murk that even CNN has acknowledged it:
Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international
rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?
Yes, it's not only a right, it's an obligation. Following orders is not a defence for anyone knowingly
involved in crimes of war and against humanity.
However, the plea of obedience to superior orders can be a mitigating circumstance and reduce the
severity of punishment. A private soldier responsibility for a war crime would be the same as that of the
general or commander-in-chief who made the order, but his punishment would be reduced or symbolic.
In this case, a properly constituted court would convict Trump and all others in the chain of command,
down to the operators of the drone, for the assassination of Suleimani.
@JamesinNM
Tell that to Perle,Kristol,Kagan Kaplan Lutti Abrams Feith Wolfowitz and Haim Saban , Sheldon Adeslhon ,
Singer and Marcus . Use loudspeaker to make it reach the settlers occupiers and Likudniks .
Unfortunately it is partial, as it doesn't include Iraqis individually targeted and assassinated from
2003 on. Do you have access to that list as well?
@anon
Okay, I get it, you don't like Israel, but does your dislike of Israel mean the Iranians are hale and hearty
fellows? Most of their leadership are corrupt millionaires who use a medieval religion to justify torturing
and enslaving their populace. The Iranian leadership is full of evil people who are openly hostile to the
United States and its interests. Sorry.
The fact that you, and many others on this site, are strongly hostile to Israel and feel affection for
the defeated Palestinians, doesn't change the fact that Israel acts as an ally to the US in its dealings
with various enemies. The argument over how much, if any, foreign aid should be given to foreign nations has
nothing to do with the fact that Iran has chosen to be an enemy of the US. Had they not killed an American
contractor and coordinated the attack on the US embassy in Iraq (as well as other terrorist attacks),
General Soleimani, might still be alive to torture his enemies and plan terrorist attacks.
'U.S. Airstrike Targets Iraqi Militia North of Baghdad, State TV Reports
Iraqi army sources say at least five killed in attack on Iran-backed militia convoy, which group says was
carrying medical teams '
-- Haaretz
Obviously, we want to make certain Iran feels it necessary to respond.
@Rich
Then I guess he would fit right into Washington with their deranged people that kill wedding parties and
children,would put on illegal no fly zones killing 500,000 children,now just where do you think their
freedoms were .Its people like you that are sick in the head all puffed up with the empire bullshit that
everything on the planet belongs to us and was just put there for our taking,your a perfect example of a
neocon hiding behind patriotism.the sick kind that will destroy the world if we let it.!!
Their perspective on the assassination took several different angles than were presented even here on
Unz. I disagree with their conclusion that Iran has only two options: all out war NOW -- Iran will be
destroyed but so will Israel, and US bases will be eradicated; or sit on their hands and take the repeated
hits that USPisrael intends to send. (the latter seems to be the case: another attack has already taken
place).
But Rick Wiles and Doc Burkhart reported two more bits of information:
1. US press spokesman hinted that the PMU that was attacked by USA & lost 32 men, helped plan the attack on
Suleimani; claim was Suleimani was 'going rogue' -- US is offering an "out" to Iran in that Iran Central was
not directing the anti-American operation that Suleimani was planning.
The briefer said: "Iran has only two options: Come to the table and negotiate, or endure more attacks."
Because IRGC Quds force had been declared a terrorist organization, killing Suleimani was hunkey-dorie.
Realize, tho, that Adam Schiff has proposed legislation that hate crimes be prosecuted as domestic
terrorism, and the Monsey incident upped the ante on that, so that domestic terrorism would be prosecuted
the same way as international terrorism. Knocking over a grave marker in a Jewish cemetery could possibly be
turned into an act of international terrorism. Rick Wiles or any of us anonymous keyboard warriors that Fran
Taubman is so eager to doxx could be named as Terrorist, and, presumably, be droned by our own government,
in our own American home, at the behest of Israeli partisans.
2. Israeli newspapers quoted Netanyahu that he knew in advance about the assassination, likely was in on
the planning (with Pompeo).
Also, a New York Times article wrote on Jan. 2 -- before the attack:
"What if the
former commander
of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Suleimani, visits Baghdad
for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to
use hypersonic missiles
will be many."
What's a hypersonic missile? Who has them? How did NYTimes know this stuff?
Did US use hypersonic missiles? Was the NYTimes article, and the assassination of the Quds general, warnings
to other world leaders?
Every time you speak out against western imperialism in a given nation or question western propaganda
narratives about that nation's government, you will inevitably be accused of loving that nation's
government by anyone who argues with you.
When I say "inevitably", I am not exaggerating.
If you speak in any public forum for any length
of time expressing skepticism of what we're told to believe about a nation whose government has been
targeted by the US-centralized empire, you will with absolute certainty eventually run into someone who
accuses you of thinking that that government is awesome and pure and good.
@Rich
"Israel acts as an ally to the US in its dealings with various enemies."
-- This is a really poor joke.
Israel is the worst enemy of the US. Israel is guilty of killing and maiming the servicemen on the USS
Liberty.
Your filthy Pollard has created the worst spying episode in the history of the US (the goodies were sold by
Israel to China).
Mossad and Mossad's deputies Epstein et al have contributed a huge amount of evilness to the US and beyond.
The ongoing mass slaughter for Eretz Israel on the US dime & limb has been the greatest achievement of
sadistic Israel-firsters.
And only God knows the details of the zonists' involvement in 9/11.
If you want to talk about "corrupt millionaires and evil people" who "torture and enslave" and who are
"openly hostile" to the United States -- and all other countries that are not totally zionized (like Russia
and Iran) -- then your talk should be about zionists and the Jewish State.
By the way, were not you among the dancing Israelis celebrating the miraculous (controlled) demolition of
the towers?
"NATO got it right," he said. "In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single life. This
is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward "
@Maiasta
Victor Ostrovsky, a Canadian former intelligence colonel with Israel's Mossad secret service and author of
the bestseller By Way Of Deception (the title comes from the Mossad motto), will testify that it was Mossad
commandos who set up the transmitter in Tripoli that generated a false signal about the "success" of the
Berlin bomb he has already given a detailed description of this daring operation in his second book, The
Other Side Of Deception. Ostrovsky, who will testify by closed-circuit television from somewhere in North
America he fears that, if he comes to Holland, he may be "Vanunu-ed" (ie kidnapped and smuggled back to
Israel) for breaking his secrets oath will state that the Lockerbie intercept so resembles the La Belle
intercept as to have probably the same provenance. This is what US lawyers call the "duck" argument: "If it
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles, the preponderance of evidence is that it is a duck."
Ostrovsky's evidence would then put the onus on the Lord Advocate to prove that the Lockerbie intercept is
genuine, not disinformation. Ostrovsky believes that, in both bombings, Israel implicated Libya to shield
Iran, thereby encouraging Iran not to persecute its small Jewish community.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie
I wouldn't be surprised if the idiots "in charge" of this country decide to do a false flag "terrorist"
attack here in America, killing civilians, if this goes further. They're already putting out articles
indicating this. I don't believe the Iranians would target civilians here, but we all know who would.
Operation Gladio
The best thing that the Iranians could do is blurt out the truth for all the world to hear. Especially if
your side is militarily weaker, truth must be the main weapon. The Iranian leader should mock and shame
Donald Trump as a cuck-stooge of not only Zionism but Jewish Supremacism that rules the US. He should point
out how Jewish Zionist Power has been out to destroy Trump from day one, but the orange-man coward remains
most servile to the very group that has done most to undermine his presidency.
[MORE]
The current state of the world is so embarrassing. It's like goyim of all stripes are stuck in some
gladiatorial ring under Jewish orchestration. Jews hate whites and Trump. Jews hate Iranians. Given
that both groups have in common the rabid & virulent hostility of Jewish supremacists, the most
natural thing would be for both sides to unite against the Jews. Whites and Iranians are natural
allies. But what do they do? Trump the so-called 'white nationalist' sucks up to Jews and attacks
Iran. And Iran feels compelled to denounce all of America when the real culprits are the freaking
Jews. Goyim are the gladiators in SPARTACUS -- though slaves of Rome, they slaughter each other for the
amusement of Roman elites. Though Jews are hostile to whites and Iranians, whites are willing to kill
Iranians to win approval from their Jewish masters, and Iranians waste so much time denouncing all of
the US. What the world needs is a Spartacus-like figure. Spartacus united the slaves and made them
fight Rome than each other. Goyim need to unite to fight Jewish Supremacist Power. This is where
China, Russia, and Iran are doing the right thing, but they are still loathe to Name the Jew. Current
US belligerence is the direct outcome of Jewish domination.
Iranians should throw Trump's words right back in his face. In 2016, Trump said the Iraq War was a
total disaster, and that the US should get out of the Middle East. He also said the US should work for
world peace by working with Russia. But since then, Jewish supremacists and its cuck-minions in the
Deep State have done everything to undermine Trump, and the weary beast has succumbed to Jewish
machinations. Trump is more Sparky the running dog than Spartacus. But then, much of the blame must go
to white American Conservatives. Their brand of idiotic Christianity, atomizing libertarianism, and
anti-intellectualism led to all the elite institutions being taken over by Jews, progs, and
cucky-wucks. It could be Putin is mute about Jewish power because the Russian economy is still
substantially in Jewish hands. One might hope China will be bold in stating the truth, but the Chinese
way is strategic than principled. Also, China has been pulled into US market imperialism. It's the US
gambit as the sole superpower with a vast market. If old European Empires suppressed economic growth
in their colonies, US encourages economic growth as dependence on US markets. Thus, all the economies
that grew by selling to the US are deathly afraid of losing market access. As the religion of the US
is now globo-homo-shlomo-afro, they dare not speak the truth that Jewish Power is behind the current
rot of globalist cultural imperialism.
It is about time for Russia, Iran, and all nations to mock the US as a Jewish Supremacist empire,
one where craven white cowards do little but crawl on their knees and pledge undying support for
Jewish supremacists and Zion. Why? Because soulless US is only about one thing: Money and Idolatry.
Jews got the money and idolized themselves as the supreme identity group that ALL other groups must
serve. While Jewish elites rub their hands at the prospect of another Middle East War, it will be
goyim , white American soldiers and countless Persians/Arabs/Muslims, who will do all the killing and
dying. Jewish globalists went from Semites to Supremites, and now, so-called Anti-Semitism is
Anti-Supremitism, which is more necessary than ever. And it's about time Russia addressed the
J-Question. Vladimir Putin has been silent on this for too long, but it is time for truth. It is time
to put down the gauntlet. No, no one one should make crazy neo-nazi talking points. They just need to
speak the truth that Jews control the US, the lone superpower, and that the Jewish modus operandi is
Jewish hegemony at any cost. Also, Zionism has turned into Yinon-ism based on the Yinon Plan.
We've all been duped by Jewish Power. There was a time when Jews assured goyim, "Stick with us, and
you shall have true free speech", "Struggle with us against unfettered capitalist greed", and "Support
our cause to expose the Deep State and to create a more open and transparent society." But Jews
weren't really against Excessive Power & Privilege. They just wanted to bring down the old Wasp elites
so that they, as the new elites, would have the power to curtail free speech, rake in all the profits,
and use deep state apparatus to destroy rivals and critics. Jewish Power is the main source of many
woes around the world, but because of the stigma of 'antisemitism', so many people will blame anyone
but the Jews. When Alex Jones got deplatformed, whom did he blame? The Chinese. Trump is pushed
against the rope, so whom does he shake his fist at? Iranians. John McCain and Mitt Romney were
smeared and slimed by the Jew-run mass media(despite their total cuckery to Zion) in 2008 and 2012,
but whom did they rag on? Trump and his supporters. What a sorry bunch. (Granted, morons like Richard
Spencer and Neo-Nazi crew deserve their share of blame by sinking the promising dissident Alt Right
label with what truly amounts to white supremacism and even neo-Nazism, thereby making it more
difficult for Trump to address legitimate white interests.)
Anyway, imagine a scenario where Nazi Germany attacks Poland, France, Russia, and Great Britain but
all those nations praise Hitler & Nazi Germany while taking their rage and frustration on each other.
Such is the state of the world today. Jews torment and destroy so many nations and peoples, but entire
nations are willing to war with one other while speaking and doing nothing about the Jewish Glob.
Unless people understand the urgency of Naming the Jew, nothing will change. It's like a doctor won't
cure cancer if he does EVERYTHING but name the cancer. If there's a dead rat decaying and stinking up
the apartment, no amount of 'solutions' will fix the problem unless someone names the dead rat and
remove it from the premises. After WWII, Jews got a grace period, well-deserved due to Shoah. But it's
time to face facts about Jews of the Now. Pretending Jews are still Shoah victims is like pretending
current China is still the 'Sick Man of Asia' of the 19th century. Times change, and Jews are the
supreme rulers of the world, and this must be called out. But that worthless pile of shi* Trump only
sucks up to Jews more even as they bugger his ass. And white Americans are truly retarded. Jewish
Power is carrying out White Nakba in US, EU, Canada, and Australia -- as cuck-white elites in media,
academia, and institutions are nothing but mental minions of Jewish Power, as in Jews lead, goyim
follow -- , and whites are being turned into New Palestinians, but all these worthless white
'conservatives' are cheering Trump's anti-BDS law that violates the US constitution. How utterly
pathetic.
@Anonymous
"White American Christians are generally afraid of the Jewish lobby."
-- Agree. The US brass are cowards.
The US government of cowards is for sale. The US media is owned by Israel-firsters who have been propagating
lies upon lies. "Is this good for Jews?" has become the zionists' battle cry that scares Americans into
submission.
The scared Americans need to process the fact of holobiz being over. The Jews are not victims -- the Jews
are shameless aggressors and traitors busy with frightening and corrupting the western governments to the
bones because allegedly "this is good for Jews:"
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
Let's be clear about what we just didwe assassinated two key military and political leaders on the
sovereign territory of Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi Government. There is no evidence or
valid intelligence that shows Soleimani directing Iraqi Shia militias to attack and kill US troops. None.
But those facts do not matter.
Judging from the media reaction on cable news, there is a lot of whooping and celebrating the death of
Soleimani as a decisive blow against terrorism. Boy we showed those Iranians who is boss. But that is not
how the Iranians see it and that is not how a significant portion of the Iraqi Shia population see it.
From their perspective this is the equivalent of the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.
The zionized cowards in the US government made American servicemen into targets for retaliation in
response to American crimes in Iraq -- crimes that were committed because "this is good for Jews" who want
their Eretz Israel by any means, including a mass slaughter of the innocent in the Middle East.
Boy Jewish intelligence is terribly overrated. The zionists do believe that selecting and promoting cowards
and profiteers on the positions of power in the US is "good for Jews." Idiots.
Iran will explain to Iraq that the US will fight to every last drop of Iraqi blood while Iran will do its
best to support their fellow Shia. The Iraqi parliament, not wanting another war inside Iraq and hating the
US for starting it, will vote to expel the US or maybe to simply refuse the US any air rights.
The US then either retreats out of Iraq or it become an occupying force. If the US retreats, it'll go
down in history as a strategic defeat. If the US decides to occupy, it'll need to disband the Iraqi
parliament (ie a democracy) and replace it with the inevitable transitional government who'll be fed with a
steady stream of suitcases full of $100 bills. At the same time, the US will need to fight a bloody guerilla
war which will ultimately end in a strategic defeat when the US population gets bored by the smart-bomb
video footage.
Their are considerable more Galaxy C17 traffic in Ramstein/Germany and the whole C17 (as far as you
can identify them)look like a swarm of bees on the way to the middle east.
Galaxy was the C-5; C-17 is the Globemaster. In addition to its role in Tactical and Strategic airlift,
it also serves as MedEvac, often to Ramstein/Landstuhl.
That's a good suggestion but I still think they should go after Pompeo. If you really want to keep it
'tit for tat' with even less retaliation then poor Gen. Milley should be splashed. (Evil grin)
Milley's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: his 'same-store sales' equivalent would have been Hossein Salami.
Soleimani wasn't even head of the IRGC that's also Hossein Salami.
If the US had "red-carded" Salami, today they would be cleaning up missile debris and human remains at US
bases all over the Middle East, and "Iron Dome" would get definitive evidence that it's a joke.
Although Soleimani had genuine clout and a high profile, he was only the head of Quds Force, which is
kinda MI (plus a bit of special operations/coordination of irregulars).
So I would guess that the appropriate tit-for-tat splash would be LtGen Scott Berrier (G2 Intel).
Everyone's heard of that guy, right?
Plus, if they splashed Pompous, the resulting fatberg would burn for longer than the Springfield tyre
fire. Nobody wants that.
@Passer by
During the lead-up to the Gulf War, I recall "experts" like you talking about how Hussein's
"battle-hardened" "elite" Republican Guard was going to send those wet-behind-the-ears American soldiers
running home with their tails tucked between their legs. They were all then as prescient as you are now.
Spare me these countless internet military "experts" who always seem to know who can do what, and yet end up
being wrong in every instance.
@Colin Wright
The Quran promotes a supremacist ideology for world domination. It is the Muslim equivalent of the Talmud.
Neither the Muslims nor the zionists will get a moment's restful sleep until they know their place, but
psychopathic anti-Christ peoples are full of the devil, making them a curse on humanity.
Unfortunately it is partial, as it doesn't include Iraqis individually targeted and assassinated from
2003 on. Do you have access to that list as well?
@Colin Wright
I admit I stopped paying attention to beheadings after the first few.
It seemed pretty obvious that it was the worst possible advertisement for a cause. The only people who
would think "
Kewl
!" were people already on their side. Plus it was guaranteed to horrify moderates.
It also guaranteed a full-court hostile press in Western media (SWIDT? two uses of 'press' in the same word
genius!).
It struck me as the sort of thing that (ahem) plays into the hands of those who wanted to give pan-Arab
nationalism a bad name. Almost as if that was the intention.
They should have hired
Hill and Knowlton
and done their PR properly.
.
Also, the aesthetics were
awful
.
The guys doing the beheadings had
very
white forearms whiter than most Anglo military guys.
I'm sensitive like that: I found the beheaders' pasty skin off-putting.
The lack of struggle from the victims was also weird evidence perhaps that they were sedated, which is
good for them I guess.
For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was
not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN
of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf.
The crash of the Pan Am 103 was, according to Ari Ben-Menashe, related to a fabricated claim on 5 CIA
agents running drugs via their contacts in Frankfurt under CIA's Bill Casey.
One less known point on the Pan Am 103 is the probable assassination by South Africa's apartheid
government of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson (according to Patrick Hasseldine).
"Pik Botha and a South African delegation from Johannesburg, who was initially booked to travel to the
Namibian independence ratification ceremony in New York on Pan Am Flight 103 from London. Instead, the
booking was cancelled as he and six delegates took an earlier flight, thereby avoiding the fatal PAN AM 103
bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland" (wiki, Pik Botha).
Robert Mueller's 30-year search for justice on Pan AM 103 led to nothing except the USual platitudes
(unfounded accusations) on Iran and the PLO.
@The Alarmist
Well, yes, every member of every military is a legitimate target. Especially a general. If it sounds logical
to you, that's because not only is it logical, it's common sense. As far as who drew first blood, that's a
little more complicated. Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of
radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other
attacks by Iranians and their proxies. I really don't understand the outpouring of sympathy for a general in
a foreign nation that is an outspoken enemy of the US. I get it, you guys hate Israel, but that doesn't
absolve the Iranian mullahs or their henchmen. They are not your friends, they don't like you and their end
game is the same end game they've had since the founding of their "religion", the violent spread of Islam
throughout the world. Read the Koran first, before you throw your support behind these jihadists. If their
own holy book doesn't open your eyes and you still believe the West is the "imperialist", find me
Constantinople on the map.
@barr
Thanks for the reminder. I'm familiar with Ostrovsky, of course, and i found the book you mentioned to be
quite an eye-opener, albeit still written from a basically pro-Israel point-of-view.
re: "Israel
implicated Libya to shield Iran." Yes, this is more than plausible, especially when we consider that Israel
was largely responsible for arming Iran during the long war with Iraq in the 1980s. The latter may seem
counter-intuitive to many, but it actually fell perfectly in line with the Oded Yinon plan for regional
balkanisation. I think that as soon as the Iraqi Resistance movement was crushed back in 2008, Iran was
considered no longer so useful to the Zionists, and they began the next phase of destabilisation. Obviously,
all regional powers are to be taken out one-by-one, and that presents a problem when it comes to a regional
alliance such as the so-called "Shia Crescent" of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon (or Hezbollah).
I think it likely that the Qassem assassination though, is a significant miscalculation that will cost
Trump and the US dearly.
@Rich
I agree with the notion that Persian capabilities are consistently overstated on
unz.com
They look more capable than Arabs. That's not much. They haven't shown the ability to develop
their own weapons. The rest of their industry sucks (e.g. cars).
Rolling out of Kuwait across a plain is way easier than
rolling up the Zagroz especially when the other guy knows you're coming and has had 50 years to prepare,
and the natives at your back want the other guy to win.
The Zagroz aren't as daunting as trying to go up the sides on AH76 in Parwan, which is some of the most
inhospitable terrain on Earth. Invading Iran via Iraq (which is the US' only option) isn't even as hard
(topographially) as trying to take Zrich by invading Switzerland starting from Milan.
Topography matters.
Safwan to Baghdad is flat freeway (and was, even in 1991); Baghdad to Hamedan, not so much. (Hamedan's
the town on the other side of the Zagroz, on the only non-impossible route to Teheran).
For the average grunt, it would be like "
Restrepo
" from day 1, constantly, for the entire trip
but with no HESCO.
It would guarantee tens of thousands of cases of PTSD.
Armour and artillery really really
really
needs roads (or rail), and aerial reconnaissance is way
easier on a sandy table top, than in mountains.
@renfro
1
The killing of Iraqi Academics: A War to Erase the Future and Culture of Iraqis
List of Iraqi academics assassinated in Iraq during the US-led occupation
Academics assassinated: 324
Updated: November 7, 2013
(Last case registered: No. 125)
Spanish Campaign against the Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq
IraqSolidaridad 2005-2013
[MORE]
The following list of University academics assassinated in Iraq is updated with the information
delivered by the Iraqi CEOSI sources inside Iraq. It presents all the data compiled in the previous
IraqSolidaridad editions. This relation has been collated and completed with that elaborate by the
Belgian organization 'BRussells Tribunal' [1]. This list only refers to the academic, institutional
and research fields from Iraqi Universities, so that it does not include the staff that belongs to
other fields and institutions, who has been targeting since the beginning of the occupation, such as
directors of primary and secondary schools, high schools or health workers [2].
BAGHDAD
Baghdad University
1. Abbas al-Attar: PhD in humanities, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date
unknown.
2. Abdel Hussein Jabuk: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
3. Abdel Salam Saba: PhD in sociology, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
4. Abdel Razak al-Naas: Lecturer in information and international mass media at Baghdad University's
College of Information Sciences. He was a regular analyst for Arabic satellite TV channels. He was
killed in his car at Baghdad University 28 January 2005. His assassination led to confrontations
between students and police, and journalists went on strike.
5. Ahmed Nassir al-Nassiri: PhD in education sciences, Baghdad University, assassinated in February
2005.
6. Ali Abdul-Hussein Kamil: PhD in physical sciences, lecturer in the Department of Physics, Baghdad
University. Date unknown.
7. Amir al-Jazragi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Medicine, and
consultant at the Iraqi Ministry of Health, assassinated on November 17, 2005.
2
8. Basil al-Karji: PhD in chemistry, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
9. Essam Sharif Mohammed: PhD in history, professor in Department of History and head of the College
of Humanities, Baghdad University. Dead October 25, 2003.
10. Faidhi al-Faidhi: PhD in education sciences, lecturer at Baghdad University and al- Munstansiriya
University. He was also member of the Muslim Scientists Committee. Assassinated in 2005.
11. Fouad Abrahim Mohammed al-Bayaty: PhD in German philology, professor and head of College of
Philology, Baghdad University. Killed Abril 19, 2005.
12. Haifa Alwan al-Hil: PhD in physics, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Science for Women.
Assassinated September 7, 2003.
13. Heikel Mohammed al-Musawi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at al-Kindi College of Medicine, Baghdad
University. Assassinated November 17, 2005.
14. Hassan Abd Ali Dawood al-Rubai: PhD in stomatology, dean of the College of Stomatology, Baghdad
University. Assassinated December 20, 2005.
15. Hazim Abdul Hadi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University.
16. Husain Ali al-Jumaily: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Political Sciences. He was
assassinated in Bagdad on 16 July. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17,
2009].
17. Khalid Hassan Mahdi Nasrullah: Lecturer and Secretary of the Faculty of Political Sciences,
Baghdad University. After four days of been kidnapped in Baghdad, his body was found with signs of
torture on Mars 27, 2007. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
18. Khalel Ismail Abd al-Dahri: PhD in physical education, lecturer at the College of Physical
Education, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
19. Khalil Ismail al-Hadithi: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Political Sciences. He was
assassinated in Amman [Jordan] on April 23, 2006. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi
sources, January 17, 2009].
20. Kilan Mahmoud Ramez: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
21. Maha Abdel Kadira: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
22. Majed Nasser Hussein al-Maamoori: Professor of veterinary medicine at Baghdad University's College
of Veterinary Medicine. Assassinated February 17, 2007.
23. Marwan al-Raawi: PhD in engineering and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
24. Marwan Galeb Mudhir al-Hetti: PhD in chemical engineering and lecturer at the School of
Engineering, Baghdad University. Killed March 16, 2004.
25. Majeed Hussein Ali: PhD in physical sciences and lecturer at the College of Sciences, Baghdad
University. Date unknown.
3
26. Mehned al-Dulaimi: PhD in mechanical engineering, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
27. Mohammed Falah al-Dulaimi: PhD in physical sciences, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
28. Mohammed Tuki Hussein al-Talakani: PhD in physical sciences, nuclear scientist since 1984, and
lecturer at Baghdad University. Assassinated September 4, 2004.
29. Mohammed al-Kissi: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
30. Mohammed Abdallah al-Rawi: PhD in surgery, former president of Baghdad University, member of the
Arab Council of Medicine and of the Iraqi Council of Medicine, president of the Iraqi Union of
Doctors. Killed July 27, 2003.
31. Mohammed al-Jazairi: PhD in medicine and plastic surgeon, College of Medicine, Baghdad University.
Assassinated 15 November 2005.
32. Mustafa al-Hity: PhD in medicine, pediatrician, College of Medicine, Baghdad University.
Assassinated 14 November 2005.
33. Mustafa al-Mashadani: PhD in religious studies, lecturer in Baghdad University's College of
Humanities. Date unknown.
34. Nafea Mahmmoud Jalaf: PhD in Arabic language, professor in Baghdad University's College of
Humanities. Killed December 13, 2003.
35. Nawfal Ahmad: PhD, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Fine Arts. She was assassinated at
the front door of her house on 25 December 2005.
36. Nazar Abdul Amir al-Ubaidy: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
37. Raad Shlash: PhD in biological sciences, head of Department of Biology at Baghdad University's
College of Sciences. He was killed at the front door of his house on November 17, 2005.
38. Rafi Sarcisan Vancan: Bachelor of English language, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of
Women's Studies. Assassinated June 9, 2003.
39. Saadi Dagher Morab: PhD in fine arts, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Fine Arts.
Killed July 23, 2004.
40. Sabri Mustafa al-Bayaty: PhD in geography, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities.
Killed June 13, 2004.
41. Saad Yassin al-Ansari: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. He was killed in al-Saydiya
neighborhood, Baghdad, 17 November 2005.
42. Wannas Abdulah al-Naddawi: PhD in education sciences, Baghdad University. Assassinated 18 February
2005.
43. Yassim al-Isawi: PhD in religious studies, Baghdad University's College of Arts. Assassinated 21
June 2005.
44. Zaki Jabar Laftah al-Saedi: Bachelor of veterinary medicine, lecturer at Baghdad University's
College of Veterinary Medicine. Assassinated October 16, 2004.
45. Basem al-Modarres: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Philosophy. [Source:
al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
46. Jasim Mohamed Achamri: Dean of College of Philosophy, Baghdad University. [Source: al-Hayat, 28
February 2006].
47. Hisham Charif: Head of Department of History and lecturer at Baghdad University. [Source:
al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
4
48. Qais Hussam al-Den Jumaa: Professor and Dean of College of Agriculture, Baghdad University. Killed
27 March 2006 by US soldiers in downtown Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source].
49. Mohammed Yaakoub al-Abidi: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi
Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
50. Abdelatif Attai: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of
University Lecturers report, March 2006].
51. Ali al-Maliki: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of
University Lecturers report, March 2006].
52. Nafia Aboud: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi. Association of
University Lecturers report, March 2006].
53. Abbas Kadem Alhachimi: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi
Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
54. Mouloud Hasan Albardar Aturki: Lecturer in Hanafi Teology at al-Imam al-Aadam College of Theology,
Baghdad University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
55. Riadh Abbas Saleh: Lecturer at Baghdad University's Centre for International Studies. Killed 11
May 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, 17 May 2006].
56. Abbas al-Amery: Professor and head of Department of Administration and Business, College of
Administration and Economy, Baghdad University. Killed together with his son and one of his relatives
at the main entrance to the College 16 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, May 17, 2006].
57. Muthana Harith Jasim: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Engineering. Killed near his
home in al-Mansur, 13 June 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, 13 June 2006].
58. Hani Aref al-Dulaimy: Lecturer in the Department of Computer Engineering, Baghdad University's
College of Engineering. He was killed, together with three of his students, 13 June 2006 on campus.
[Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 13 June 2006].
59. Hussain al-Sharifi: Professor of urinary surgery at Baghdad University's College of Medicine.
Killed in May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 12 June 2006].
60. Hadi Muhammad Abub al-Obaidi: Lecturer in the Department of Surgery, Baghdad University's College
of Medicine. Killed 19 June 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 20 June 2006].
61. Hamza Shenian: Professor of veterinary surgery at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary
Medicine. Killed by armed men in his garden in a Baghdad neighborhood 21 June 2006. This was the first
known case of a professor executed in the victim's home. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 21
June 2006].
62. Jassim Mohama al-Eesaui: Professor at College of Political Sciences, Baghdad University, and
editor of al-Syada newspaper. He was 61 years old when killed in al-Shuala, 22 June 2006. [Source:
UNAMI report, 1 May-30 June 2006].
5
63. Shukir Mahmoud As-Salam: dental surgeon at al-Yamuk Hospital, Baghdad. Killed near his home by
armed men 6 September 2006. [Source: TV news, As-Sharquia channel, 7 September 2006, and CEOSI Iraqi
sources].
64. Mahdi Nuseif Jasim: Professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Baghdad University.
Killed 13 September 2006 near the university. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source].
65. Adil al-Mansuri: Maxillofacial surgeon and professor at the College of Medicine, Baghdad
University. Kidnapped by uniformed men near Iban al-Nafis Hospital in Baghdad. He was found dead with
torture signs and mutilation in Sadr City. He was killed during a wave of assassinations in which
seven medical specialists were assassinated. Date unknown: July or August 2006 [Source: Iraqi health
service sources, 24 September 2006].
66. Shukur Arsalan: Maxillofacial surgeon and professor at the College of Medicine, Baghdad
University. Killed by armed men when leaving his clinic in Harziya neighborhood during a wave of
assassinations in which seven specialists were assassinated. Date unknown: July or August 2006.
[Source: Iraqi Health System sources, 24 September 2006].
67. Issam al-Rawi: Professor of geology at Baghdad University, president of the Association of
University Professors of Iraq. Killed 30 October 2006 during an attack carried out by a group of armed
men in which two more professors were seriously injured. [Sources: CEOSI sources, and Associated
Press].
68. Yaqdan Sadun al-Dhalmi: Professor and lecturer in the College of Education, Baghdad University.
Killed 16 October 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources].
69. Jlid Ibrahim Mousa: Professor and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed by
a group of armed men in September 2006. During August and September 2006, 6 professors of medicine
were assassinated in Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources].
70. Mohammed Jassim al-Assadi: Professor and dean of the College of Administration and Economy,
Baghdad University. Killed 2 November 2006 by a group of armed men when he was driving to Baghdad
University. Their son was also killed in the attack. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources and Time Magazine, 2
October 2006].
71. Jassim al-Assadi's wife (name unknown): Lecturer at College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad
University [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources and Time Magazine, 2 October 2006].
72. Mohammed Mehdi Saleh: Lecturer at Baghdad University (unknown position) and member of the
Association of Muslim Scholars. Imam of Ahl al-Sufa Mosque in al-Shurta al-Jamisa neighborhood. Killed
14 November 2006 while driving in the neighborhood of al-Amal in central Baghdad. [Source: UMA, 14
November 2006].
73. Hedaib Majhol: Lecturer at College of Physical Education, Baghdad University, president of the
Football University Club and member of the Iraqi Football Association. Kidnapped in Baghdad. His body
was found three later in Baghdad morgue 3 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 2
December 2006].
74. Al-Hareth Abdul Hamid: Professor of psychiatric medicine and head of the Department of Psychology
at Baghdad University. Former
6
president of the Society of Parapsychological Investigations of Iraq. A renowned scientist, Abdul
Hamid was shot dead in the neighborhood of al-Mansur, Baghdad, 6 December 2006 by unknown men.
[Sources: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 6 December 2006, and Reuters, 30 January 2007].
75. Anwar Abdul Hussain: Lecturer at the College of Odontology, Baghdad University. Killed in Haifa
Street in Baghdad in the third week of January 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23
January 2007].
76. Majed Nasser Hussain: PhD and lecturer at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Baghdad University.
He was killed in front of his wife and daughter while leaving home in the third week of January 2007.
Nasser Hussain had been kidnapped two years before and freed after paying a ransom. [Source: CEOSI
Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
77. Khaled al-Hassan: Professor and deputy dean of the College of Political Sciences, Baghdad
University. Killed in March 2007. [Source: Association of University Lecturers of Iraq, 7 April 2007].
78. Ali Mohammed Hamza: Professor of Islamic Studies at Baghdad University. Department and college
unknown. Killed 17 April 2007. [Sources: TV channels As-Sharquia and al-Jazeera].
79. Abdulwahab Majed: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Education. Department and college
unknown. Killed 2 May 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 May 2007].
80. Sabah al-Taei: Deputy Dean of the College of Education, Baghdad University. Killed 7 May 2007.
[Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources. 8 May 2007].
81. Nihad Mohammed al-Rawi: Professor of Civil Engineering and deputy president of Baghdad University.
Shot dead 26 June 2007 in al-Jadria Bridge, a few meters away from the university campus, when exiting
with his daughter Rana, whom he protected from the shots with his body. [Sources: BRussells Tribunal
and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 26-27 June 2007].
82. Muhammad Kasem al-Jaboori: Lecturer at the College of Agriculture, Baghdad University. Killed,
together with his son and his brother-in-law, by paramilitary forces 22 June 2007. [Source: CEOSI
Iraqi university sources, 27 June 2007].
83. Samir [surname unknown]: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Administration and Economy.
His body was found shot one day after being kidnapped in Kut where he was visiting family. Professor
Samir lived in the Baghdad district of al-Sidiya. [Source: Voices of Iraq,
http://www.iraqslogger.com
, 29 June 2007].
84. Amin Abdul Aziz Sarhan: Lecturer at Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. He was
kidnapped from his home in Basra by unidentified armed men 13 October 2007 and found dead on the
morning of 15 October. [Source: Voices of Iraq, 15 October 2007].
85. Mohammed Kadhem al-Atabi: Head of Baghdad University's Department of Planning and Evaluation. He
was kidnapped 18 October 2007 from his home in Baghdad by a group of armed men and found dead a few
hours later in the area of Ur, near to Sadr City, which is under the control of Moqtada al-Sadr's
Mahdi Army. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 26 October 2007].
7
86. Munther Murhej Radhi: Dean of the College of Odontology, Baghdad University. He was found dead in
his car 23 January 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 January 2008].
87. Mundir Marhach: Dean of Faculty of Stomatology, Baghdad University. According to information
provided by the Centre for Human Rights of Baghdad, he was killed in March [exact day unknown].
[Source: al-Basrah reported 12 March 2008].
88. Abdul Sattar Jeid al-Dulaimy, a Microbiologist and lecturer in the College of Veterinary Medicine
and in other institutions in the University. He was killed in November 2003 by three gunmen in front
of his wife and his four children. His three assassins were waiting the family return to Baghdad after
have been visiting his parents in al-Ramadi city, west Baghdad. His wife was also sot in her head, but
she survived. His 14 year old eldest child died of a heart problem a year later. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university source, 11 June 2008.]
*. Abdulkareem Shenein Mohammad: professor of Arabic Language in the College of Islamic Sciences,
University of Baghdad, killed on 27 May 2010 by an assassin (an student, Baghdad police source
informed) with a silencer gun in his personal office in the University. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university source upon media reports, 27 May 2010.] [Subsequent reports confirm that Professor
Abdulkareem Shenein Mohammad survived the attack.]
89. Mudhafar Mahmoud: associated professor in the Geology Department in the College of Science,
University of Baghdad. Dr Mahmoud was assassinated on 28 November 2010 near his house in Baghdad.
[Source: Iraqi source to BRussells Tribunal on 1st December, 2010.]
90. Ali Shalash: professor of Poultry Diseases in the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Baghdad, killed by assassins who broke into his house in Al-Khadraa area in Baghdad on 17 February,
2011. [Source: Iraqi source to CEOSI on 18 February, 2011.] 91. Ahmed Shakir was a specialist in
cardio-vascular diseases and professor at the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Baghdad.
According to security reports, Dr. Shakir was killed when a bomb planted in his car exploded in
Zaafaraniyya, south of Baghdad, last Monday 1 July 2013. The report released by UNESCO can be read
here [Source: UNESCO, July 3, 2013].
Al-Maamoon Faculty [private college, Baghdad]
92. Mohammed al-Miyahi: Dean of al-Maamoun Faculty in Baghdad. He was shot with a silencer-equipped
gun in front of his house in al-Qadisiah district, southern Baghdad, as he stepped out of his car 14
December 2007. [Source CEOSI Iraqi source and Kuwait News Agency, reported 19 December 2007, IPS
reported 19 December 2007, and al-Basrah, reported 12 March 2008].
Al-Mustansiriya University (Baghdad)
8
93. Aalim Abdul Hameed: PhD in preventive medicine, specialist in depleted uranium effects in Basra,
dean of the College of Medicine, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
94. Abdul Latif al-Mayah: PhD in economics, lecturer and head of Department of Research,
al-Mustansiriya University. Killed January 9, 2004.
95. Aki Thakir Alaany: PhD and lecturer at the College of Literature, al-Mustansiriya University. Date
unknown.
96. Falah al-Dulaimi: PhD, professor and deputy dean of al-Mustansiriya University's College of
Sciences. Date unknown.
97. Falah Ali Hussein: PhD in physics, lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Sciences,
al-Mustansiriya University, killed May 2005.
98. Musa Saloum Addas: PhD, lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Educational Sciences,
al-Mustansiriya University, killed 27 May 2005.
99. Hussam al-Din Ahmad Mahmmoud: PhD in education
sciences, lecturer and dean at College of Education Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. Date
unknown.
100. Jasim Abdul Kareem: PhD and lecturer at the College of the Education, al-Mustansiriya University.
Date unknown.
101. Abdul As Satar Sabar al-Khazraji: PhD in history, al-Mustansiriya University, killed 19 June
2005. [A same name and surname lecturer in Engineering at the College of Computer Science Technology,
al-Nahrein University was assassinated in March 2006.]
102. Samir Yield Gerges: PhD and lecturer at the College of Administration and Economy at
al-Mustansiriya University, killed 28 August 2005.
103. Jasim al-Fahaidawi: PhD and lecturer in Arabic literature at the College of Humanities,
al-Mustansiriya University. Assassinated at the university entrance. [Source: BBC News, 15 November
2005].
104. Kadhim Talal Hussein: Deputy Dean of the College of Education, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed
November 23, 2005.
105. Mohammed Nayeb al-Qissi: PhD in geography, lecturer at Department of Research, al-Mustansiriya
University. Assassinated June 20, 2003.
106. Sabah Mahmoud al-Rubaie: PhD in geography, lecturer and dean at College of Educational Sciences,
al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
107. Ali Hasan Muhawish: Dean and lecturer at the College of Engineering, al-Mustansiriya University.
Killed March 12, 2006. [Source: Middle East Online, 13 March 2006].
108. Imad Naser Alfuadi: Lecturer at the College of Political Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University.
[Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
109. Mohammed Ali Jawad Achami: President of the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source:
Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
110. Husam Karyakus Tomas: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source:
Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
9
111. Basem Habib Salman: Lecturer at the College of Medicine at al-Mustansiriya University. [Source:
Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
112. Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Ani: PhD in engineering, lecturer at the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya
University. Kidnapped, together with his friend Akrem Mehdi, 26 April 2006, at his home in Palestine
Street, Baghdad. Their bodies were found two days later. [CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 May 2006].
113. Jasim Fiadh al-Shammari: Lecturer in psychology at the College of Arts, al-Mustansiriya Baghdad
University. Killed near campus 23 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 30 May 2006].
114. Saad Mehdi Shalash: PhD in history and lecturer in history at the College of Arts,
al-Mustansiriya University, and editor of the newspaper Raya al-Arab. Shot dead at his home with his
wife 26 October 2006. [Source: al-Quds al-Arabi, 27 October 2006].
115. Kamal Nassir: Professor of history and lecturer at al-Mustansiriya and Bufa Universities. Killed
at his home in Baghdad in October 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 2 November 2006].
116. Hasseb Aref al-Obaidi: Professor in the College of Political Sciences at al-Mustansiriya
University. Since he was kidnapped 22 October 2006, his whereabouts is unknown. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources].
117. Najeeb [or Nadjat] al-Salihi: Lecturer in the College of Psychology at al-Mustansiriya University
and head of the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Higher Education of Iraq. Al-Salihi, 39 years
old, was kidnapped close to campus and his body, shot dead, was found 20 days after his disappearance
in Baghdad morgue. His family was able recover his body only after paying a significant amount of
money, October 1, 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
118. Dhia al-Deen Mahdi Hussein: Professor of international criminal law at the College of Law,
al-Mustansiriya University. Missing since kidnapped from his home in the Baghdad neighborhood of Dhia
in 4 November 2006 by a group of armed men driving police cars. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university
sources, 5 November 2006].
119. Muntather al-Hamdani: Deputy Dean of the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. He was
assassinated, together with Ali Hassam, lecturer at the same college, 20 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI
Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006. The Iraqi police identified Ali Arnoosi as the deputy dean
assassinated 21 December, and Mohammed Hamdani as another victim. It is unknown whether both
[Muntather al-Hamdani and Mohammed Hamdani] are the same case or not].
120. Ali Hassam: Lecturer at the College of Law at al-Mustansiriya University. He was killed together
with Muntather al-Hamdani, deputy dean of the college, 20 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources, 24 December 2006. The Iraqi police identified Ali Arnoosi as the deputy dean
assassinated 21 December, and Mohammed Hamdani as another victim. It is unknown whether both
[Muntather al-Hamdani and Mohammed Hamdani] are the same case or not.
121. Dhia al-Mguter: Professor of economy at the College of Administration and Economy of
al-Mustansiriya University. He was killed
10
23 January 2007 in Baghdad while driving. He was a prominent economist and president of the Consumer's
Defense Association and the Iraqi Association of Economists. A commentator at for As-Sharquia
television, he participated in the Maram Committee, being responsible for investigating irregularities
occurring during the elections held in January 2006. Al-Mguter was part of a family with a long
anti-colonialist tradition since the British occupation. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and
Az-Zaman newspaper, 24 January 2007].
122. Ridha Abdul al-Kuraishi: Deputy dean of the University of al-Mustansiriya's College of
administration and economy. He was kidnapped 28 March 2007 and found dead the next day. [Source: Iraqi
Association of University Lecturers, 7 April 2007. See the letter sent to CEOSI (Arabic)].
123. Zaid Abdulmonem Ali: professor at the Baghdad Cancer Research Center, institution associated to
the Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad. Dr. Abdulmomem Ali was killed in March 26, 2011 when an IED
attached to his vehicle went off in al-Nusoor square, west of Baghdad. The explosion also left Ali's
wife and two civilians others wounded. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq news agency, on March 26, 2011.]
124. Mohmamed Al-Alwan: Dean of the College of Medicine, Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad. Dr
Al-Alwan was assassinated in his clinic in Harithiyah, Baghdad, on April 29, 2011. He had been the
Dean of Medical College for over 4 years. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, March 30, 2011 from
Iraqi media and International Iraqi Medical Society.] 125. Naser Husein al Shahmani, professor at
al-Mustansyria University was shot by some gunmen few days ago. They killed him on the spot. [Source:
Ahmad al Farji's article (in Arabic), October 28, 2013.]
University of Technology [Baghdad]
126. Muhannad [or Mehned] al-Dulaimi: PhD in mechanical engineering, lecturer at the Baghdad
University of Technology. Date unknown.
127. Muhey Hussein: PhD in aerodynamics, lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the
Baghdad University of Technology. Date unknown.
128. Qahtan Kadhim Hatim: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer in the College of Engineering of the Baghdad
University of Technology. Assassinated May 30, 2004.
129. Sahira Mohammed Machhadani: Baghdad University of Technology. Department and college unknown.
[Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, March 2006].
130. Ahmed Ali Husein: Lecturer at the Baghdad University of Technology, specialist in applied
mechanics. He was killed by a group of armed men in downtown Baghdad 22 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources, 24 May 2006].
131. Name unknown: Lecturer at Baghdad University of Technology. Killed 27 June 2006 by a group of
armed men. They were driving a vehicle in the Baghdad neighborhood of al-Mansur and shot him without
11
stopping. Next day, students and professors staged demonstrations in all universities across the
country opposing the assassination and kidnapping of professors and lecturers. [Source: al-Jazeera and
Jordan Times, 27 June 2006].
132. Ali Kadhim Ali: Professor at Baghdad University of Technology. Shot dead in November 2006 in the
district of al-Yarmuk by a group of armed men. His wife, Dr Baida Obeid -- gynecologist -- was also
killed in the attack. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 16 November 2006].
133. Mayed Jasim al-Janabi: Lecturer in physics at Baghdad University of Technology. Killed 23 May
2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, December 2006].
134. Khalel Enjad al-Jumaily: Lecturer at University of Technology. Department and college unknown. He
was killed 22 December 2006 with his son, a physician, after being kidnapped. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources, 24 December 2006].
135. Abdul Sami al-Janabi: Deputy President of the Baghdad University of Technology. Missing after
being kidnapped during the third week of January 2007. In 2004, Abdul Sami al-Janabi was dean of
al-Mustansiriya University's College of Sciences in Baghdad. He resigned from this position after Shia
paramilitary forces threatened to kill him. Such forces began then to occupy university centers in the
capital. Transferred by the Ministry of Higher Education to a new position to preserve his security,
Sami al-Janabi has almost certainly been assassinated. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23
January 2007].
136. Ameer Mekki al-Zihairi: Lecturer at Baghdad University of Technology. He was killed in March
2007. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, 7 April 2007. See pdf].
137. Saad Abd Alwahab Al-Shaaban: Former Dean of the College of Computer Engineering and Information
Technology in the University of Technology. Killed on Thursday 14 October 2010 by plastic explosive
implanted to his car in Adhamia district of Baghdad. Saad Abd Alwahab Al-Shaaban left Iraq in 2006 and
returned back to Baghdad. He was lately working in the National Center for Computer Science, Ministry
of Higher Education. (Source: [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources on Alane News Agency, , October
15, 2010.]
138. Saad Abdul Jabar: professor at the Technological University in Bagdad. Assassinated in Al-Siyada
district, Southwest Baghdad, while driving his car by murderers using silenced guns on 26 February,
2011.[Source: Asuat Al-Iraq agency, 26 February, and Yaqen agency, February 27, 2010.]
Al-Nahrein University [Baghdad]
139. Akel Abdel Jabar al-Bahadili: Professor and deputy dean of al-Nahrein University's College of
Medicine. Head of Adhamiya Hospital in Baghdad. He was a specialist in internal medicine, killed 2
December 2005.
140. Mohammed al-Khazairy: Lecturer at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital, al- Nahrein
University. He was a specialist in plastic surgery.
12
141. Laith Abdel Aziz: PhD and lecturer at the College of Sciences, al-Nahrein University. Date
unknown. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
142. Abdul as-Satar Sabar al-Khazraji: Lecturer in engineering at the College of Computer Science
Technology, al-Nahrein University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March
2006]. [A same name and surname PhD in history, lecturer at Al-Munstansiriya University was killed on
19 June 2005.]
143. Uday al-Beiruti: Professor at al-Nahrein University. Kidnapped in University College al-Kadhemiya
Hospital's parking lot by armed men dressed in Interior Ministry uniforms. His body was found with
sigs of torture in Sadr City. Date unknown: July/August 2006. His murder took place during a wave of
assassinations in which seven of his colleagues were killed. [Source: Iraqi health service sources, 24
September 2006].
144. Khalel al-Khumaili: Professor at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. He was found
shot dead in December 2006 [exact date unknown] after being kidnapped at University College
al-Kadhemiya Hospital, together with his son, Dr Anas al-Jomaili, lecturer at the same college.
[Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
145. Anas al-Jumaili: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. He was found shot
dead in December [exact date unknown] with his father, Dr Jalil al-Jumaili, professor of medicine,
after being kidnapped at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university
sources, 24 December 2006].
146. Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was
found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped from his home 28 January 2007 together with
lecturers Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi and Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy, and a student. All were found
dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February
2007].
147. Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He
was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped 28 January 2007 on his way home, together
with lecturers Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid and Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy, and a student. All were found
dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February
2007].
148. Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31
January 2007 after having been kidnapped on his way home 28 January 2007, together with a student and
lecturers Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi and Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid. All were found dead
in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
149. Khaled al-Naieb: Lecturer in microbiology and deputy dean of al-Nahrein University's College of
Higher Studies in Medicine. Killed 30 March 2007 at the main entrance to the college. Having been
threatened by the Mahdi Army, Moqtada as-Sadr's militia, Dr al- Naieb had moved to work in Irbil.
During a brief visit to his family in Baghdad, and after recently becoming a father, he was killed at
the main entrance
13
to the college on his way to collect some documents. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 4 April
2007. Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report dated April 7, 2007. See pdf].
150. Sami Sitrak: Professor of English and dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Law. Professor
Sitrak was killed 29 March 2007. He had been appointed dean of the College after the former dean's
resignation following an attempt to kill him along with three other College lecturers. [Source: Iraqi
Association of University Lecturers, April 7, 2007. See pdf].
151. Thair Ahmed Jebr: Lecturer in the Department of Physics, College of Sciences, al- Nahrein
University. Jebr was killed in the attack against satellite TV channel al-Baghdadiya April 5, 2007.
[Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, April 7, 2007. See pdf].
152. Iyad Hamza: PhD in chemistry, Baghdad University. He was the academic assistant of the President
of al-Nahrein University. On May 4, 2008 he was killed near his home in Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
source, May 6, 2008].
153. Khamal Abu Muhie: Professor at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. Killed on 22
November 2009 at his home in the neighborhood of Adamiya, Baghdad. [Source: Al-Sharquia TV, November
22, 2009].
Islamic University [Baghdad]
154. Haizem al-Azawi: Lecturer at Baghdad Islamic University. Department and college unknown. He was
35 years old and married and was killed 13 February 2006 by armed men when he arriving home in the
neighborhood of Habibiya. [Source: Asia Times, March 3, 2006].
155. Saadi Ahmad Zidaan al-Fahdawi: PhD in Islamic science, lecturer at the College of Islamic
Science, Baghdad University. Killed March 26, 2006.
156. Abdel Aziz al-Jazem: Lecturer in Islamic theology at the College of Islamic Science, Baghdad
University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
157. Saad Jasim Mohammed: Lecturer at the Baghdad Islamic University. Department and college unknown.
Killed, together with his brother Mohammed Jassim Mohammed, 11 May 2007 in the neighborhood of
al-Mansur. The armed men who committed the crime where identified by the Association of Muslims
Scholars as members of a death squad. [Sources: press release of the Association of Muslims Scholars,
May 12, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi University sources, May 13, 2007].
158. Qais Sabah al-Jabouri: Professor at the Baghdad Islamic University. Killed 7 June 2007 by a group
of armed men who shot him from a car when he was leaving the university with the lecturers Alaa Jalel
Essa and Saad Jalifa al-Ani, who were killed and seriously injured respectively. [Sources Association
of Muslims Scholars press release, June 7, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, June 9, 2007].
159. Alaa Jalel Essa: Professor at the Baghdad Islamic University. Killed 7 June 2007 by a group of
armed men who shot him from a car when he was leaving the university with the lecturers Qais Sabah
al-Jabouri and Saad Jalifa al-Ani, who were killed and seriously injured
14
respectively. [Sources: Association of Muslims Scholars press release, June 7, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi
university sources, June 9, 2007].
Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education [Baghdad]
Academics killed after a massive kidnapping occurred November 13, 2006:
160. Abdul Salam Suaidan al-Mashhadani: Lecturer in political sciences and head of the Scholarship
section of the Ministry of Higher Education. He was kidnapped November13, 2006, in an assault on the
Ministry. His body was found with signs of torture and mutilation 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI
Iraqi university sources, November 26, 2006.]
161. Abdul Hamed al-Hadizi: Professor [specialty unknown]. He was kidnapped on November 13, 2006 in an
assault on the Ministry. His body was found with signs of torture and mutilation, 24 November 2006.
[Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 26, 2006].
162. Thamer Kamel Mohamed: Head of the Department of Human Right at the Ministry of Higher Education.
Shot on 22 February 2010 on his way to work in one of main Baghdad streets [al-Qanat Street]. The
assassins used silencers fitted in their guns. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, February 23,
2006 and Alernet].
Al-Mansour University [Baghdad]
163. Amal Maamlaji: IT professor at the al-Mansour University in Baghdad. She was born in Kerbala and
got involved in human rights particularly women's rights. She was shot dead in an ambush while
driving her car [160 bullets were found in her car] according to her husband, Athir Haddad, to whom
France24 interviewed by telephone. [Source: France24, July 4, 2008,].
Baghdad Institutes
164. Izi al-Deen al-Rawi: President of the Arabic University's Institute of Petroleum, Industry and
Minerals. Al-Rawi was kidnapped and found dead November 20, 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university
sources, November 20, 2006].
BABYLON Hilla University
165. Khaled M al-Khanabi: PhD in Islamic history, lecturer in Hilla University's School of Humanities.
Date unknown.
166. Mohsin Suleiman al-Ajeely: PhD in agronomy, lecturer in the College of Agronomy, Hilla
University. Killed on December 24, 2005.
167. Fleih al-Gharbawi: Lecturer in the College of Medicine. Killed in Hilla [capital of the province
of Babylon, 100 kilometers south of Baghdad] 20 November 2006 by armed men. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
sources, 20 November 2006].
168. Ali al-Grari [or Garar]. Professor at Hilla University. He was shot dead November 20, 2006 by
armed men in a vehicle on the freeway
15
between Hilla and Baghdad. [Source: Iraqi police sources cited by Reuters, November 20, 2006].
AT-TAMIM Kirkuk University
169. Ahmed Ithaldin Yahya: Lecturer in the College of Engineering, Kirkuk University. Killed by a car
bomb in the vicinity of his home in Kirkuk, February 16, 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university
sources, February 17, 2007].
170. Hussein Qader Omar: professor and Dean of Kirkuk University's College of Education Sciences.
Killed in November 20, 2006 by shots made from a vehicle in the city center. An accompanying colleague
was injured. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 21, 2006, and Iraqi Police Sources
cited by Reuters, November 20, 2006].
171. Sabri Abdul Jabar Mohammed: Lecturer at the College of Education Sciences at Kirkuk University.
Found dead November 1, 2007 in a street in Kirkuk one day after being kidnapped by a group of
unidentified armed men [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI, November
2, 2007].
172. Abdel Sattar Tahir Sharif: Lecturer at Kirkuk University. Department and college unknown.
75-years-old, he was assassinated March 5, 2008 by armed men in the district of Shoraw, 10 kilometers
northeast of Kirkuk. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq/Voices of Iraq, 5 March 2008].
173. Ibrahim Shaeer Jabbar Al-Jumaili: Pediatrician and professor of Medicine at Kirkuk University.
Dr. Ibrahim S.J. Al-Jumaili, 55 years old, was murdered July 22, 2011, after he resisted attempts by
four people to kidnap him, police said. [Source: AFP, July 22, 2011]. 174. Amer al-Doury: Dr. Amer
al-Douri was the Dean of the Administration and Economic College in Kirkuk. He was first handcuffed
and then executed in Hawija at protesters site, when Maliki's SWAT Security Forces raided the peaceful
protesting site and killed 86, injured hundreds, and arrested more on Tuesday April 23, 2013. [Source
Al Sharquiya TV News 20].
NINEVEH
Mosul University
175. Abdel Jabar al-Naimi: Dean of Mosul University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
176. Abdul Jabar Mustafa: PhD in political sciences, dean of Mosul University's College of Political
Sciences. Date unknown.
177. Abdul Aziz El-Atrachi: PhD in Plant Protection in the College of Agronomy and Forestry, Mosul
University. He was killed by a loose bullet shot by and American soldier. Date unknown.
178. Eman Abd-Almonaom Yunis: PhD in translation, lecturer in the College of Humanities, Mosul
University. Killed August 30, 2004.
179. Khaled Faisal Hamed al-Sheekho: PhD and lecturer in the College of Physical Education, Mosul
University. Killed April 11, 2003.
180. Leila [or Lyla] Abdu Allah al-Saad: PhD in law, dean of Mosul University's College of Law.
Assassinated in June 22, 2004.
16
181. Mahfud al-Kazzaz: PhD and lecturer at University Mosul. Department and college unknown. Killed
November 20, 2004.
182. Mohammed Yunis Thanoon: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer in the College of Physical Education,
Mosul University. Killed January 27. 2004.
183. Muneer al-Khiero: PhD in law and lecturer in the College of Law, Mosul University. Married to Dr
Leila Abdu Allah al-Saad, also assassinated. Date unknown.
184. Muwafek Yahya Hamdun: Deputy Dean and professor at the College of Agronomy, Mosul University.
[Source: al-Hayat, February 28, 2006].
185. Omar Miran: Baghdad University bachelor of law [1946]. PhD in history from Paris University
[1952], professor of history at Mosul University, specialist in history of the Middle East. Killed,
along with his wife and three of his sons, by armed men in February 2006 [exact date unknown].
186. Naif Sultan Saleh: Lecturer at the Technical Institute, Mosul University. [Source: Iraqi
Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
187. Natek Sabri Hasan: Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Mechanization and head of the
College of Agronomy, Mosul University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report,
March 2006].
188. Noel Petros Shammas Matti: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, Mosul University. Married and
father of two daughters, was kidnapped and found dead August 4, 2006.
189. Noel Butrus S. Mathew: PhD, professor at the Health Institute of Mosul University. Date unknown.
190. Ahmad Hamid al-Tai: Professor and head of Department of Medicine, Mosul University. Killed 20
November 2006 when armed men intercepted his vehicle as he was heading home. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources, November 20, 2006].
191. Kamel Abdul Hussain: Lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Law, Mosul University. Killed in
January 11, 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
192. Talal Younis: Professor and dean of the College of Political Sciences. Killed on the morning of
April 16, 2007 at the main entrance to the college. Within less than half an hour Professor Jaafer
Hassan Sadeq of the Department of History at Mosul University was assassinated at his home. [Sources:
CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Mosul].
193. Jaafer Hassan Sadeq: Professor in the Department of History of Mosul University's College of
Arts. Killed April 16, 2007 at home in the district of al-Kafaaat, northwest of Mosul. Within less
than half an hour, Professor Talal Younis, dean of Mosul University's College of Political Sciences,
was killed at the main entrance to the college. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and
al-Mosul].
194. Ismail Taleb Ahmed: Lecturer in the College of Education, Mosul University. Killed 2 May 2007
while on his way to college. [Source: al-Mosul, May 2, 2007].
195. Nidal al-Asadi: Professor in the Computer Sciences Department of Mosul University's College of
Sciences. Shot dead by armed men in the district of al-Muhandiseen, according to police sources in
Mosul.
17
[Sources: INA, May 2, 2007, and Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal, May 3, 2007].
196. Abdul Kader Ali Abdullah: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic, College of Education Sciences,
Mosul University. Found dead 25/26 August 2007 after being kidnapped five days before by a group of
armed men. [Source: Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI August 26-27, 2007].
197. Unknown: Lecturer at Mosul University killed in the explosion of two car bombs near campus,
October 1, 2007. In this attack, six other people were injured, among them four students. [Source:
KUNA, October 1, 2007].
198. Aziz Suleiman: Lecturer at Mosul University. Department and College are unknown. Killed in Mosul
January 22, 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, January 24, 2008].
199. Jalil Ibrahim Ahmed al-Naimi: Director of the Sharia Department [Islamic Law] at Mosul
University. He was shot dead by armed men when he came back home [in Mosul] from University, 30
January 2008. [Sources: CEOSI and BRussells Tribunal University Iraqi sources, Heytnet and al-Quds
al-Arabi, January 31, 2008].
200. Faris Younis: Lecturer at Agriculture College, Mosul University. Dr. Younis was killed June 2,
2008 as a result of a car bomb put in his car. Different sources reported that dozens of academics and
students from Mosul University were arrested by Badr militias and Kurd pershmergas. These facts
occurred at the end of May, 2008, when the city was taken over by US occupation and Iraqi forces
[Source: CEOSI University Iraqui sources, June 3, 2008].
201. Walid Saad Allah al-Mouli, a university professor [Department unknown] was shot down on Sunday 15
June 2008 by unknown gunmen while he was on his way to work in Mosul's northern neighborhood of
al-Hadbaa, 405 Km northern Baghdad, killing him on the spot. In the attack, two of his sons were
seriously wounded and are in a critical condition. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq-[VOI], June
16, 2008].
202. Ahmed Murad Shehab: professor of Mosul University's Faculty of Administration and Economics.
Ahmed Murad Shehab was fatally shot in the neighborhood of al-Nur, on Mosul's left bank. [Source:
Press TV, 21 de abril de 2009].
203. Unidentified female university professor: The professor of law was assassinated in front of her
home in the al-Intissar district of western Mosul by unknown gunmen on Tuesday, the local police said.
They declined to give her name. [Source: PressTV, April 21, 2009].
204. Unknown: lecturer at Mosul University. On May 24, 2009, gunmen ambushed killed a university
teacher near his home in Al Andalus neighborhood, Mosul. [Source: The New York Times May 24, 2009].
205. Ibrahem Al-Kasab: professor in the College of Education, Mosul University. Dr. Al-Kasab was shot
dead on 4th October, 2010. Unknown gang assassinated him in his home at the eastren part of Mosul.
[Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and Al-Sabah al-Yadid October 4, 2010].
206. Amer Selbi: professor at College of Islamic Science, Mosul University. Assassinated on his way to
College by murderers using
18
silenced guns on 6th March 2011. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 10 March, 2011].
207. Yasser Ahmed Sheet: assistant Dean of the Fine Arts Faculty of the Mosul University. Gunmen
opened fire on Yasser Ahmed Sheet in front of his house in al-Muthanna neighborhood, eastern Mosul, on
April 9, 2011, a local security source told to Aswat al-Iraq news agency. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq news
agency, on April 9, 2011.]
208. Mohammed Jasem al Jabouri: professor in the Faculty of Imam al-Adham, Mosul, province of Niniveh,
was killed during the night last 2 July, 2012 by gunmen who shot him to death near his house.
[Sources: Association of Muslim Scholars and Safaq News, 3 July, 2012]
QADISIYA
Diwaniya University
209. Hakim Malik al-Zayadi: PhD in Arabic philology, lecturer in Arabic literature at al-Qadisyia
University. Dr al-Zayadi was born in Diwaniya, and was killed in Latifiya when he was traveling from
Baghdad 24 July 2005].
210. Mayid Husein: Physician and lecturer at the College of Medicine, Diwaniya University. [Source:
Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
211. Saleh Abed Hassoun: al-Qadisiyah University's Dean of the School of Law. Salih Abed Hassoun was
shot dead by a group of armed men when driving his car in downtown Baghdad on 7 July 2008.
[Source:McClatchy, 8 July 2008.]
BASRA
Basra University
212. Abdel al-Munim Abdel Mayad: Bachelor and lecturer at Basra University. Date unknown.
213. Abdel Gani Assaadun: Bachelor and lecturer at Basra University. Date unknown.
214. Abdul Alah [or Abdullah] al-Fadhel: PhD, professor and deputy dean of Basra University's College
of Medicine. Killed January 1, 2006.
215. Abdul-Hussein Nasir Jalaf: PhD in agronomy, lecturer at the College of Agronomy's Center of
Research on Date Palm Trees, Basra University. Killed May 1, 2005.
216. Alaa Daoud: PhD in sciences, professor and chairman of Basra University [also reported as a
lecturer in history]. Killed 20 July 2005.
217. Ali Ghalib Abd Ali: Bachelor of sciences, assistant professor at the School of Engineering, Basra
University. Killed April 12, 2004.
218. Asaad Salem Shrieda: PhD in engineering, professor and dean of Basra University's School of
Engineering. Killed Octobre 15, 2003.
219. Faysal al-Assadi: PhD in agronomy, professor at the College of Agronomy, Basra University. Date
unknown.
220. Ghassab Jabber Attar: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer at the School of Engineering, Basra
University. Assassinated June 8, 2003.
19
221. Haidar al-Baaj: PhD in surgery, head of the University College Basra Hospital. Date unknown.
222. Haidar Taher: PhD and professor at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
223. Hussein Yasin: PhD in physics, lecturer in sciences at Basra University Killed 18 February 2004
at his home and in front of his family.
224. Khaled Shrieda: PhD in engineering, dean of the School of Engineering, Basra University. Date
unknown.
225. Khamhour al-Zargani: PhD in history, head of the Department of History at the College of
Education, Basra University Killed 19 August 2005.
226. Kadim Mashut Awad: visiting professor at the Department of Soils, College of Agriculture, Basra
University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
227. Karem Hassani: PhD and lecturer at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
228. Kefaia Hussein Saleh: PhD in English philology, lecturer in the College of Education Sciences,
Basra University. Assassinated May 28, 2004.
229. Mohammed al-Hakim: PhD in pharmacy, professor and dean of Basra University's College of Pharmacy.
Date unknown.
230. Mohammed Yassem Badr: PhD, professor and chairman of Basra University. Date unknown.
231. Omar Fakhri: PhD and lecturer in biology at the College of Sciences, Basra University. Date
unknown.
232. Saad Alrubaiee: PhD and lecturer in biology at the College of Sciences, Basra University. Date
unknown.
233. Yaddab al-Hajjam: PhD in education sciences and lecturer at the College of Education Sciences,
Basra University. Date unknown.
234. Zanubia Abdel Husein: PhD in veterinary medicine, lecturer at the College of Veterinary Medicine,
Basra University. Date unknown.
235. Jalil Ibrahim Almachari: Lecturer at Basra University. Department and college unknown. Killed 20
March 2006 after criticizing in a public lecture the situation in Iraq. [Arabic Source: al-Kader].
236. Abdullah Hamed al-Fadel: PhD in medicine, lecturer in surgery and deputy dean of the College of
Medicine at Basra University. Killed in January 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources].
237. Fuad al-Dajan: PhD in medicine, lecturer in gynecology at the College of Medicine, Basra
University. Killed at the beginning of March 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi
university sources].
238. Saad al-Shahin: PhD in medicine, lecturer in internal medicine at Basra University's College of
Medicine. Killed at the beginning of March 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university
sources].
239. Jamhoor Karem Khammas: Lecturer at the College of Arts, Basra University. [Source: Iraqi
Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
240. Karem Mohsen: PhD and lecturer at Department of Agriculture, College of Agronomy, Basra
University. Killed 10 April 2006. He worked in the field of honeybee production. Lecturers and
students called for a
20
demonstration to protest for his assassination. [Source: al-Basrah, April 11, 2006].
241. Waled Kamel: Lecturer at the College of Arts at Basra University. Killed 8 May 2006. Other two
lecturers were injured during the attack, one of them seriously. [Source: al-Quds al-Arabi, May 9,
2006].
242. Ahmad Abdul Kader Abdullah: Lecturer in the College of Sciences, Basra University. His body was
found June 9, 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, June 10, 2006].
243. Kasem Yusuf Yakub: Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, Basra University. Killed 13 June
2006 at the university gate. [Sources: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 14 June 2006 and al-Quds
al-Arabi, June 16, 2006].
244. Ahmad Abdul Wadir Abdullah: Professor of the College of Chemistry, Basra University. Killed 10
June 2006. [Source: UNAMI report, May1 June 30, 2006].
245. Kathum Mashhout: Lecturer in edaphology at the College of Agriculture, Basra University. Killed
in Basra in December 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 12 December
2006].
246. Mohammed Aziz Alwan: Lecturer in artistic design at the College of Fine Arts, Basra University.
Killed by armed men 26 May 2007 while walking in the city. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources,
June 1, 2007].
247. Firas Abdul Zahra: Lecturer at the College of Physical Education, Basra University. Killed at
home by armed men July18, 2007. His wife was injured in the attack. [Source: Iraqi university sources
to the BRussells Tribunal, August 26, 2007].
248. Muayad Ahmad Jalaf: Lecturer at the College of Arts, Basra University. Kidnapped 10 September
2007 by a group of armed men that was driving three cars, one of them with a government license plate.
He was found dead in a city suburb the next day. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells
Tribunal, September 12, 2007].
249. Khaled Naser al-Miyahi: PhD in medicine, Professor of neurosurgery at Basra University. He was
assassinated in March 2008 [exact date unknown]. His body was found after his being kidnapped by a
group of armed men in the streets of Basra. There were no ransom demands, according to information
provided by Baghdad's Center for Human Rights.[Source: al-Basrah, March 12, 2008].
250. Youssef Salman: PhD engineering professor at Basra University. He was shot dead in 2006 when
driving home from the University with three other colleagues, who were spared, according to the
information provided by her widow to France24, in an phone interview [Source: France24, July 4, 2008].
Technical Institute of Basra
251. Mohammed Kasem: PhD in engineering, lecturer at the Technical Institute of Basra. Killed on
January 1, 2004.
252. Sabah Hachim Yaber: Lecturer at the Technical Institute of Basra. Date unknown.
21
253. Salah Abdelaziz Hashim: PhD and lecturer in fine arts at the Technical Institute of Basra.
Kidnapped in 4 April 2006. He was found shot dead the next day. According to other sources, Dr Hashim
was machine-gunned from a vehicle, injuring also a number of students. [Sources: CEOSI university
Iraqi sources, April 6, 2006, Az-Zaman, April 6, 2006, and al-Quds al-Arabi, April 7, 2006].
TIKRIT
Tikrit University
254. Basem al-Mudares: PhD in chemical sciences and lecturer in the College of Sciences, Tikrit
University. His body was found mutilated in the city of Samarra 21 July 2004.
255. Fathal Mosa Hussein Al Akili: PhD and professor at the College of Physical Education, Tikrit
University. Assassinated June 27, 2004.
256. Mahmoud Ibrahim Hussein: PhD in biological sciences and lecturer at the College of Education
Sciences, Tikrit University. Killed September 3, 2004.
257. Madloul Albazi Tikrit University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of
University Lecturers report, March 2006].
258. Mojbil Achaij Issa al-Jabouri: Lecturer in international law at the College of Law, Tikrit
University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
259. Damin Husein al-Abidi: Lecturer in international law at College of Law, Tikrit University.
[Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
260. Harit Abdel Yabar As Samrai: PhD student at the College of Engineering, Tikrit University.
[Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
261. Farhan Mahmud: Lecturer at the College of Theology, Tikrit University. Disappeared after being
kidnapped 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, November 26, 2006].
262. Mustafa Khudhr Qasim: Professor at Tikrit University. Department and college unknown. His body
was found beheaded in al-Mulawatha, eastern Mosul, 21 November 2007. [Sources: al-Mosul, November 22,
2007, and Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI, November 22-25, 2007].
263. Taha AbdulRazak al-Ani: PhD in Islamic Studies, he was professor at Tikrit University. His body
was found shot dead in a car on a highway near al-Adel, a Baghdad suburb. Also, the body of Sheikh
Mahmoud Talb Latif al-Jumaily, member of the Commission of Muslim Scientists, was found dead in the
same car last Thursday afternoon, May 15, 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources May 21, 2008].
264. Aiad Ibrahem Mohamed Al-Jebory: Neurosurgeon specialist at the College of Medicine in Tikrit
University. Picked up with his brother by military raid on his village in Al Haweja on the night of
6th March 2011. His body was delivered the following day to Tikrit Hospital. His brother fate is
unknown. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, March 10, 2011].
DIYALAH
22
Baquba University
265. Taleb Ibrahim al-Daher: PhD in physical sciences, professor and dean at the College of Sciences,
Baquba University. Killed December 21, 2004.
266. Lez Mecchan: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed 19 April 2006
with his wife and another colleague. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
267. Mis Mecchan: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Wife of Professor Lez
Mecchan, also assassinated. Both were killed with another colleague 19 April 2006. [Sources: DPC and
EFE, 19 April 2006].
268. Salam Ali Husein: Taught at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed 19 April
2006 with two other colleagues. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
269. Meshhin Hardan Madhlom al-Dulaimi: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college
unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source:
CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
270. Abdul Salam Ali al-Mehdawi: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown.
Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI
university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
271. Mais Ganem Mahmoud: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the
end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi
sources, 10 May 2006].
272. Satar Jabar Akool: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the
end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi
sources, 10 May 2006].
273. Mohammed Abdual Redah al-Tamemmi: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic Language and head of the
College of Education, Baquba University. Killed 19 August 2006 together with Professor Kreem Slman
al-Hamed al-Sadey, 70 years old, of the same Department. A third lecturer from the same department
escaped the attack carried out by a group of four armed men Students and lecturers demonstrated
against his and other lecturers' deaths. [Source: World Socialist, 12 September 2006, citing the Iraqi
newspaper Az-Zaman, CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
274. Karim al-Saadi: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed August
2006. Students and lecturers demonstrated against his and other lecturers' deaths. [Source: World
Socialist, 12 September 2006, citing the Iraqi newspaper Az-Zaman].
275. Kreem Slman al-Hamed al-Sadey: Professor in the Department of Arabic Language at the College of
Education, Baquba University. He was 70 years old when killed 19 August 2006. In the attack Mohammed
Abdual Redah al-Tamemmi, head of Education Department was also killed. A third lecturer from the same
department escaped the attack of a group of four armed men. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources,
25 December 2006].
23
276. Hasan Ahmad: Lecturer in the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed December 8, 2006.
[Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, December 2006].
277. Ahmed Mehawish Hasan: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic at the College of Education, Baquba
University. Killed in December [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25
December 2006].
278. Walhan Hamid Fares al-Rubai: Dean of the College of Physical Education, Baquba University.
Al-Rubai was shot by a group of armed men in his office 1 February 2007. According to some sources his
son was also killed. [Source: Reuters and Islammemo, 1-3 February 2007 respectively, and CEOSI
university Iraqi sources, 2 February 2007].
279. Abdul Ghabur al-Qasi: Lecturer in history at Baquba University. His body was found by the police
10 April 2007 in Diyalah River, which crosses the city, with 31 other bodies of kidnapped people.
[Source: Az-Zaman, 11 April 2007].
280. Jamal Mustafa: Professor and head of the History Department, College of Education Sciences,
Baquba University. Kidnapped at home in the city of Baquba 29 October 2007 by a group of armed men
driving in three vehicles. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, 30 October
2007].
281. Ismail Khalil Al-Mahdawi: professor at Al-Assmai Faculty of Education, Diyalah University. Died
after serious injuries sustained due to exposure to fire arms equipped with silencers on 4 June, 2011,
while he was on his way back home in Katoun area, western Baquba (Diyalah Governorate) according to a
security sources. Dr. Al-Mahdawi was released two months ago after five-year detention at the US
forces in Iraq. He was rushed to Baquba General Hospital. [Sources: Baghdad TV; Aswat Al-Iraq, College
of Education Al-Assmai, Al-Forat TV, on June 4 & 5, 2011.]
282. Abbas Fadhil al-Dulaimi: Pressident of Diyalah University has been injured when targeted by a
landmine near an intersection of roads and bridges in Bakoabah, Diyalah, on Tursday, January 13, 2013.
The explosion killed two and wounded three of his security and body guards [Source: CEOSI's Iraqi
sources]
AL-ANBAR
Ramadi University
283. Abdel Karim Mejlef Saleh: PhD in philology, lecturer at the College of Education Sciences,
al-Anbar University.
284. Abdel Majed Hamed al-Karboli: Lecturer at Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date
unknown].
285. Ahmad Abdl Hadi al-Rawi: PhD in biology, professor in the School of Agronomy, al- Anbar
University. Date unknown.
286. Ahmad Abdul Alrahman Hameid al-Khbissy: PhD in Medicine, Professor of College of Medicine,
al-Anbar University. Date unknown.
287. Ahmed Abbas al-Weis: professor at Ramadi University, al-Anbar. The attackers were dressed in
military outfit when they shot the professor near his home in al- Zeidan district on August 25, 2009.
[Source: Khaleej Times Online, 25 August 2009].
24
288. Ahmed Saadi Zaidan: PhD in education sciences, Ramadi University. Killed February 2005 [exact
date unknown].
289. Hamed Faisal Antar: Lecturer in the College of Law, Ramadi University. Killed December 2005
[exact date unknown].
290. Naser Abdel Karem Mejlef al-Dulaimi: Department of Physics, College of Education, Ramadi
University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
291. Raad Okhssin al-Binow: PhD in surgery, lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Anbar University.
Date unknown.
292. Shakir Mahmmoud Jasim: PhD in agronomy, lecturer in the School of Agronomy, al- Anbar University.
Date unknown.
293. Nabil Hujazi: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, Ramadi University. Killed in June 2006 [exact
date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 20 June 2006, confirmed by Iraqi Ministry of
Higher Education].
294. Nasar al-Fahdawi: Lecturer at Ramadi University. Department and college unknown. Killed 16
January 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, December 2006].
295. Khaled Jubair al-Dulaimi: Lecturer at the College of Engineering, Ramadi University. Killed 27
April 2007. [Source: Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal, 3 May 2007].
Fallujah University
296. Saad al-Mashhadani: University professor in Fallujah [Unknown Department]. Saad al-Mashhadani was
critically wounded on 26 December, 2009 in an attack that killed his brother and wounded two of his
security guards. [Source: The Washington Post, December 27, 2009].
297. Khalil Khalaf Jassim: Dean of Business and Economics College in Anbar University was assassinated
in an armed attack last May 4, in al-Nazizah area, central Fallujah, according to a police source in
Anbar province. Unidentified gunmen attacked his car, killing him on the spot Security forces cordoned
off the crime scene and began an inspection in searching of militants, while the body was transferred
to the Forensic Medicine Department. [Source, Shafaq News, May 4, 2013]
NAJAF
Kufa University
298. Khawla Mohammed Taqi Zwain: PhD in medicine, lecturer at College of Medicine, Kufa University.
Killed May 12, 2006.
299. Shahlaa al-Nasrawi: Lecturer in the College of Law, Kufa University. Assassinated 22 August 2007
by members of a sectarian militia. [Source: CEOSI University Iraqi sources, 27 August 2007].
300. Adel Abdul Hadi: Professor of philosophy, Kufa University's College of Arts. Killed by a group of
armed men 28 October 2007 when returning home from university. [Source: Iraqi University sources to
the BRussells Tribunal, October 30, 2007].
SALAH AL-DEEN
University of Salah al-Deen
25
301. Sabah Bahaa Al-Deen: Dr. Sabah is a faculty member at Salah Aldeen University's College of
Agriculture. He was killed by a car bomb stuck on his car last Wednesday Dec 12 when he was leaving
the College. (Source: Aswat Al- Iraq).
KARBALA
University of Karbala
302. Kasem Mohammed Ad Dayni: Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, College of Pedagogy, Karbala
University. Killed April 17, 2006. [Source:
http://www.albadeeliraq.com]
.
OPEN UNIVERSITY
303. Kareem Ahmed al-Timmi: Head of the Department of Arabic Language in the College of Education at
the Open University. Killed in Baghdad, February 22, 2007.
COMMISSION OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
[CTE is an academic body that belongs to the Higher Education Ministry. Its headquarters are located
in al-Mansur, Baghdad neighborhood. Almost twenty Technical Superior Institutes, booth from the
capital and Central and Southern provinces, are dependent on this body].
304. Aamir Ibrahim Hamza: Bachelor in electronic engineering, lecturer at the Technical Institute.
Killed August 17, 2004.
305. Mohammed Abd al-Hussein Wahed: PhD in tourism, lecturer at the Institute of Administration.
Assassinated January 9, 2004.
306. Mohammed Saleh Mahdi: Bachelor in sciences, lecturer at the Cancer Research Centre. Killed
November 2005.
INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS
307. Emad Sarsam: PhD in surgery and member of the Arab Council of Medicine. Date unknown.
308. Faiz Ghani Aziz: PhD in agronomy, director general of the Iraqi Company of Vegetable Oil. Killed
September 2003.
309. Isam Said Abd al-Halim: Geologic consultant at the Ministry of Construction. Date unknown.
310. Kamal al-Jarrah: Degree in English philology, researcher and writer and director general at the
Ministry of Education. Date unknown.
311. Raad Abdul-Latif al-Saadi: PhD in Arabic language, consultant in higher education and scientific
research at the Ministry of Education. Killed April 28, 2005.
312. Shakier al-Khafayi: PhD in administration, head of the Department of Normalization and Quality at
the Iraq Council. Date unknown.
313. Wajeeh Mahjoub: PhD in physical education, director general of physical education at the Ministry
of Education. Killed Abril 9, 2003.
314. Wissam al-Hashimi: PhD in petrogeology, president of the Arab Union of Geologists, expert in
Iraqi reservoirs, he worked for the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum. Assassinated August 24, 2005.
26
UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION UNKNOWN
315. Amir Mizhir al-Dayni: Professor of telecommunication engineering. Date unknown.
316. Khaled Ibrahim Said: PhD in physics. Date unknown.
317. Mohammed al-Adramli: PhD in chemical sciences. Date unknown.
318. Mohammed Munim al-Izmerly: PhD in chemical sciences. He was tortured and killed by US troops. His
body was sent to the Baghdad morgue. The cause of death was initially registered as ―brainstem
compression‖. Date unknown.
319. Nafi [or Nafia] Aboud: Professor of Arabic literature. Date unknown.
320. Ali Zedan Al-Saigh: PhD in Medicine and lecturer on Oncological Surgery (unknown university). Ali
Zedan Al-Saigh was assassinated at Al-Harthia district (Bagdad) on June 29, 2010 after returning
recently to Iraq. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, June 30, 2010]
321. Adnan Meki: Specialty and University unknown. According to police sources, his corpse was found
on July 13, 2010 with signals of stabbing at his home in Al-Qaddisiya neighborhood, western Baghdad.
[Source: Al-Rafadan website, July14, 2010].
322. Unknown Identity: Specialty and University unknown. On July 14, 2010, unidentified gunmen riding
in a car shot a university professor dead as he was leaving his home in the University District, West
Baghdad, according to the report of an official security source. [Source: AKnews, July 14, 2010].
323. Mohamed Ali El-Din (Al-Diin) Al-Heeti: Professor in Pharmacy, unknown University. Mohamed Ali
El-Din Al-Heeti was killed the afternoon of the 14th August, 2010 in the area of Al-Numaniya (north of
Al-Wasat governorate) in an attack by unknown armed men. The professor came back to Iraq a few months
ago to Iraq after a period of studies in George Washington University in the USA. [Source: Association
of Muslim Scholars, 15 August, 2010.]
OTHER CASES
324. Khalel al-Zahawi [or Khalil al-Zahawi]: Born in 1946, al-Zahawi was considered the most important
calligraphist in Iraq and among the most important in the Arab-Muslim world. He worked as a lecturer
in calligraphy in several Arab countries during the 1990s. He was killed 19 May 2007 in Baghdad by a
group of armed men. He was buried in Diyalah, where he was born. [Source: BBC News, 22 May 2007. His
biography is available on Wikipedia].
Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists
overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians
and their proxies.
Some
might argue that the overthrow of the Shah was simply the unseating of a brutal US-imposed
tyrant whose regime was about as merciless as that of Pinochet, the Sauds, or any of the other despots that
the US has installed and supported over the years.
The difference between my 'some' and your 'some' is that mine would be closer to the truth.
If the Chinese imposed a brutal and oppressive puppet regime on Australia, I would go so far as to
support the whackballs from the Westboro Baptists if they were the group capable of overthrowing the puppet
regime.
If you wouldn't do the same for your own neck of the woods, I am sure that there is as perfectly good
explanation.
The US does have a puppet regime (albeit one that doesn't register on the brutality scale yet) it's not
Chinese, of course.
@Rich
'Well, yes, every member of every military is a legitimate target. Especially a general. If it sounds
logical to you, that's because not only is it logical, it's common sense '
That's why we were cool
with Pearl Harbor. Just military personnel. No harm, no foul.
So America, how does it feel to be the world's assassin? Gives the "War on Terror" a whole new meaning,
doesn't it? At least you have one last true friend, a great "Haver," who will watch your back.
@Alfred
This assessment of Trump's has been around for a while but how, specifically, would the US ever be made to
leave Iraq and Syria? The only theoretical possibility would consist of a combined effort of the Iraqi
government and people directed against the occupation force in that country. That would probably have to
play out as a popular uprising against the Americans. But what if American troops, cheered on by Zionist
circles back in the US, started to kill large numbers of Iraqis indiscriminately? Would the Iraqis have the
stomach for that? And how could Trump declare victory and leave Iraq under such circumstances?
At the time
of this writing, we have already seen the second round of killings of high-ranking Iranian and Iraqi
commanders in Iraq, all of them Shiah. If the Shiah are said to be calculating, then these Shiah commanders
have not been calculating this time, serving themselves on a platter to the Americans. The remaining
commanders will have to wise up to the new reality quickly and switch over to full Hezbollah mode if they do
not want to be wiped out altogether.
Aspects of the attack against the Aramco facility point to it having been an Israeli false flag at least
in part. Pictures showed several dome-shaped oil tanks, all of them having a big, circular hole punched into
them at zero deflection and precisely the same steep angle from precisely the same direction. This kind of
damage cannot be achieved using GPS guided drones. Either the Iranians possess an unknown stealth
capability, in which case the military equation in the Middle East changes drastically, or a false flag is
left as the only remaining possibility. Israel would be the most likely culprit for that; the objective
consists of duping Trump into war against Iran.
So, Trump may have been led to believe that Iran carried out the attack against the Aramco facility. Then
somebody suggested to him to kill the Iranian general and several other Iranians partly as an act of
revenge. Several Iraqi commanders also get slaughtered. Iraqi popular unrest boils over at the same time as
more American troops are poured into the country, a massacre of Iraqi Shiah ensues and Iran is forced to
react. That may be the calculation behind it all. The threat of impeachment and subsequent imprisonment does
the rest to gird Trump along.
Right now, there are severe strains on the financial system with the Fed bailing out the repo market and
also monetizing US debt at nearly 100%. The US is down to pure money printing; this mode of operation cannot
go on for long before the whole house of card comes crashing down. The powers that be may be reckoning that
the time for war against Iran is now or never.
So, the best course of action that heartland (Iran, Russia, China) may take may be to wait it out by
doing as little as possible.
@Maiasta
It remains to be seen if America will actually suffer a level of retaliation for the assassination that will
surprise them. So far I think evidence suggests the miscalculation was Soleimani's. His Sept 2019 drone
attacks on the main Saudi oil facilities were deliberately not very destructive, being intended as
indication of what Iran can do, but America will not permit anyone to be a threat hanging over Saudi Arabia.
The Wikileaks cables show that US diplomats thought Soleimani was behind or at least supplying lethal
assistance to attacks on US forces, and were willing to quietly negotiate with him. None of those putative
hundreds of American deaths mattered all that much in the grand scheme of things. Masterminding the drone
attack on Saudi oil was completely different, that was what made him a marked man.
@Alfred
Did you say there are credible rumors that Iran brought down PanAm 103 and Israel made it look like Libya in
order to throw off suspicions from Iran? And, you say, the proof is that "Since PA103, no Iranian civilian
aircraft of any sort has been attacked or threatened by the USA or any other country?" Are you some kind of
Intelligence Analyst? This is deep. Or are you really saying there are credible rumors that Israel brought
down PanAm 103 and made it look like Libya? Which, of course, is not so deep. And the proof is that
Andrei, if as you say the Persians have imagination, why not imagine making peace with Israel? you also
quoted before that politics is art of possible. well and good, peace is possible if there is realization and
imagination that Israel is really not going anywhere. an eye for eye will make everyone blind. gandi?
btw, with all the mahdi stuff going on, how much rational are the Persian leaders?
what say the cyber warriors and armchair generals on drone warfare? is it ethical? moral? right? just?
necessary? sane?
We all know perfectly well you haven't read it yourself.
Maybe we can start a go-fund-me page for Rich, and it can pay for his Koranic education, and then he can
be shipped over to Tehran to tell them just how wrong they are in his own kind of way. I'm sure they'll
listen, and drop everything to worship at the holy altar of
((Rich))
. And then he can reply back with
a big fat
"I told you so!"
.
@Kratoklastes
As if Afghanistan isn't inhospitable mountainous terrain? So somehow Iran's topography is worse is it? They
invaded Afghanistan without even controlling any neighbouring countries. Now that they have already invaded
Afghanistan and Iraq in preparation for the war on Iran, they could well roll in after a thorough aerial
pounding. So if they suffer great losses so what? Did they ever care about their own soldiers or citizens
that much anyway? If there's loot to be had they'll go for it.
This incident had one goal in mind and it was successful: Raising the price of crude by stirring up the Mid
East. Raising the oil price will raise the US stock market and re-elect Trump. Expect more of the same prior
to this year's elections. Same old, same old; people die, people win elections. Obama showed the way.
"Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo belong to a doomsday cult and may be trying to bring on the Apocalypse "
richardawkins.net
"Brought to Jesus the evangelical grip on the Trump administration"
theguardian.com
It's scary that a lobbyist for a major arms manufacturer and a true believer in the Apocalypse are both
advising a psychopath on US military action in the Middle East .
@Adrian
Yes, Wesley Clark spilled the beans. Seven nations to destroy is how the first Israel was formed.
Wesley said the nations that would be destroyed:
Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Iran.
Wesley says this is for nine eleven (false flag).
He said it would take 5 years to do so. 5 years was a guess since within 5 years is all it took to do WWI
and WWII.
Iran is the only nation of the seven mentioned that has not been messed up by ZUS, its friends and its
best friend Israel.
Nine eleven combo is a Kabbala theme. Nine is one less and eleven is one more than the Tree of Life
number ten of Yahweh. Thus, this combo represents chaos and destruction.
The 911 number was created in 1968. WTC was being built around that time.
Nine Eleven date in the Jewish calendar is 12.23. 5761. Notice the 12th Jewish month of Elul and the 23th
day of that month. The first Zion century began with the FED on 12. 23. 1913 of the Christian Calendar. This
second Zion Century began on 12.23 on the Jewish Calendar.
12.23 in the Jewish Calendar is the date of the second dove coming back to Noah with an olive branch.
12.25 two days later is the date of the when God (Yahweh) created the world. Six days later man was
created by Yahweh. That is the day of the Jewish New Year which celebrates Yahweh's creation of man. Thus,
the 6 million game comes from that. 6 represents man.
On 12.25. 5761 ( 9.13.2001) all the planes were "allowed" to fly again in the US. It was a creation of
"new" world after the end of the "flood of fear" like Yahweh did on that day in the Tanakh.
@BeenThereDunnit
Beware the false flag attack , if American servicemen or citizens get killed by "Iranians",it won't take
much to get the public behind a "decisive " attack on Iran , the objective would not be to defeat them but
to create another failed state for the benefit of Israel , we are good at that, just look at Syria , Yemen,
Libya , Afghanistan and Iraq .
"Israel made attack on Saudi oil fields"
streetwisereports.com
@Gleimhart Mantooso
Even if you are correct that Iranians do not have the capacity to defend themselves from the zionized US
military (armed on the Fed Reserve banksters' money), the ongoing war in the Middle East will be more
devastating for the US (and the EU) than for the natives who try to defend their families and their culture.
The moral death of the US is within reach.
The Jewish State has been running the famous Milgram experiment (dubbed "Nazi experiment") on
Palestinians for 70 years.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Whereas the Milgram experiment was terminated (due to its ugliness) in the US, the Milgram experiment has
been at the heart of Israel for 70 years. They, Israelis, have managed to create a new kind of people -- the
amoral hypocrites. Or perhaps, the ongoing Milgram study in Israel has exposed the true nature of Talmudism
("is this good for Jews?" -- then everything goes).
The impeachment proceedings of Trump pushed him to satisfy the deep state by making this idiotic move.
Netanyahu is also under investigation and should have been in jail. A war with IRAN is a nice way out of the
impasse.
@Rich
" the violent spread of Islam throughout the world"
-- Actually, there has been the violent spread of
zioconism throughout the world, including the Wars for Israel in the Middle East (and the flooding of Europe
with the dispossessed refugees and radicalized jihadies), the Jewish assault on the First Amendment in the
US, the physical assault and imprisonment of honest researchers in WWII on behalf of zionists (zionists
cannot tolerate factual information that does not agree with Elie Wiesel's inventions), the zionization of
US military, the blackmailing of persons in a position of power by Mossad (see Epstein-Maxwell saga of
underage prostitution), and a cherry on the top -- the casual attitude of zionist to all non-jews as
subhumans (see Gaza Ghetto, the suicided American veterans of the Wars for Israel, and the murdered
civilians in eastern Ukraine, courtesy the US-supported Banderites).
Who needs reading the Quaran when the Jewish State has been arming Ukrainian neo-Nazi and arming and
saving fanatical jihadi terrorists (including the murderous "white helmets") in Syria? Your quetching tribe
is nothing but a rapacious amoral predator working in cahoots with the worst scum among the mega-banksters
and mega-war-profiteers. At least you have already erected the numerous monuments (the Holobiz Museums) to
remind the non-Jews about Jewish depravity.
Join the Zionist Crusade!
Join the U.S military and fight for Israel.
Seven Islamic countries need to be destroyed for Greater Israel Project.
1.Afghanistan- check
2.Iraq-check
3.Sudan-check
4.Libya-check
5.Somalia-check
6.Syria-In Progress
7.Iran-TBA
@Kratoklastes
Those beheadings are fake, nothing more than cheap Hollywood stunts. All of the ISIS videos come from a
single source, Rita Katz/SITE, who is known to have Mossad connections.
Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists
overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians
and their proxies.
Of course those would be dumb bastards with no knowledge of history the CIA installed the Shah in a 1953
coup.
@Tulip
Kim Jong Un just called Trump a dotard a few weeks ago is testing more nuclear missiles and is back to
taunting the Trump Administration. That makes Trump look weak but because the N. Koreans have the ability to
massively retaliate against U.S. forces and because they are a nuclear power Trump does nothing but tweet.
If Iran had short range nuclear missiles that could reach Israel and Saudi Arabia they would be getting
far more respect and Trump would be treading lighter like he is with N. Korea.
@Maiasta
The interesting thing about Ostrovsky's book (and probably the real reason it generated controversy) is that
he admits that the Mossad relies on diaspora Jews for intelligence gathering, cover, etc. for running its
operations abroad.
@Colin Wright
Anyone with even a limited knowledge of the laws of war knows that a military base is a legitimate target.
That doesn't mean any nation that is attacked is going to be happy about it. For better or worse Pearl
Harbor was a legitimate target and the US was negligent in its defenses there. Of course, I believe the Nips
were sorry for that move in the end. Should've stuck to fighting poorly armed, divided Asian countries.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
On the other hand, Saddam simply sat on his fat *ss and watched how US built up fighting force of 150 000
men, planes and whatnot.
If Iran has any strategic sense it simply does not allow this to happen. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes are
the correct strategy. And then US is left only with carriers far from iranian shores and airbases in Jordan
or even further away. Of course, it can still destroy most of Iran's infrastructure eventually while
simultaneously watching how his client states in Gulf will be levelled to ground. But bringing land forces
to Iran without relying on friendly ports and airbases will be D-day scale operation much, much larger
than Desert Storm of Iraq Freedom.
"Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly."
That is exactly what zionazia wants Iran to do. Why does saker want the Iranians to do exactly what
israel wants them to do?
"Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons)"
Total nonsense. The neocons are overwhelmingly republicans, both leaders and followers. They got their
real start in the republican reagan regime and have increased their influence in each republican regime
since.
"Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to strike
Iran AND get rid of Trump."
LOL, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? The neocon trump is 100% israel's boy. In fact, he
should be considered an extension of the israeli likud political block, which is who backs and promotes
neoconnery in the usa. The neocon american media such fox and the various conservative talk radio networks
are neocon. They promote trump, demonize the democrats and are fanatical likud israeli loyalists.
"For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was
not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of
IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really
happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East."
Not credible, propaganda instead. The zionazis blamed Libya, Iran and Syria, depending on which served
their psywar needs of the moment. One saw the same zionazi strategy used after the 9/11 wtc attack. As the
zionazis attacked other countries, they justified it in their psywar as a response to that country's
"involvement" in 9/11. The air liner was likely destroyed through an israeli/western security service
falseflag act, like the later 9/11 falseflag.
This article posits some useful ideas, it also reinforces some zionazi policy goals and propaganda.
@Realist
Somewhat sad that your poor education has misinformed you about the origins of the Shah and the Pahlavi
dynasty. The Pahlavis came to power in 1925 when Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar dynasty who had ruled the
region since the late 18th century. The 1953 incident you refer to is the attempted communist takeover by
Mossadegh which was almost successful but prevented by the US and UK who helped keep the Pahlavis in power.
Is it a coup if there's an attempt to seize control of the government by communists but the king is able to
hold onto power? I don't think so. Shame the Tsar wasn't able to stop the Bolsheviks and their reign of
terror.
@Rich
"Somewhat sad your poor education blah blah blah"
Rich is a joo goblin pretending to be an aging boomerwaffen still fighting the big one from high atop his
barstool lookout down at the VFW lounge. Have another $2 double, Rich, and tell us again how you kicked ass
over there in 'Nam followed by your latest prostate troubles .
@Beefcake the Mighty
"the Mossad relies on diaspora Jews for intelligence gathering, cover, etc. for running its operations
abroad."
-- The ongoing mass slaughter in the Middle East and the triumph of Banderites (neo-Nazis) in
Ukraine are some of the glorious achievements of the Israel-firsters.
This is not the first time when the obnoxious tribe puts a lot of effort to cut a branch on which the
tribe perches. The disloyal treacherous scum of the Mega Group-Epstein-Maxwell kind has been at the ZUSA
wheel for some time already. The ziocons will not stop their bloody treachery until the US citizenry at
large begins taking actions against the dreamers of Eretz Israel.
Russia and Germany are examples of what can happen to a sovereign state when the "most moral and
victimized" are left to their ugly devices. The shameless AIPAC and 52 main Jewish American organizations
bear the principle responsibility for the ongoing wars that are becoming more dangerous with each day.
Is that what you thought when Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet?
Look, I'll keep it short because this gaggle is locked into some seriously delusion thinking.
Solemani was commanding an operation to put Trump in the position Carter was in with the hostage crisis.
Do you knuckleheads really think that Trump was going to fall for it?
Especially since it was so obvious. With the Ayatollah shouting that Trump "couldn't do a damn thing."
And Senator Murphy teeing up what was soon to come by declaring the POTUS "impotent."
That is just the latest, most desperate provocation, by Iran in coordination with the Democrats.
So killing Soleimani, along with those in the second airstrike, was anything but an escalation. This is
what Milley was signaling when he said "The ball is in Iran's court." Khamenei stupidly revealed beforehand
that he had sanctioned this plot. That constitutes enormous risk not only to the Iranian regime but the
Democrats colluding with them.
@Rich
Poor "Rich," we guess that you need to make a living, but do your superiors understand that your posts make
more harm to "Jewish cause" than any jihadis' activities?
Though the Jewish State is, of course, one of the main sponsors of fanatical jihad (because this is good
for Jews and bad for Syrians) and of the neo-nazi in Ukraine (because this is good for Jews and bad for
Russians).
Keep posting. The exposure of the sick logic of Israelis is educational.
That is exactly what zionazia wants Iran to do. Why does saker want the Iranians to do exactly what
israel wants them to do?
Iranians are very shrewd and they will never start a war with USA. At appropriate time Iran will
annihilate Israel and USA will be scratching their heads. What will USA do, after the annihilation of
Israel? Commit suicide for the sake of annihilated Israel?
Saker's Quote: "For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103
over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate
shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a
fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the
Middle-East."
Saker is showing his true colors, that he only cares for mother Russia. How can he post this stuff, while
he very well knows that when Iraq used chemicals, Iran refused to do so in return. Russia like USA will
intentionally kill civilians to achieve their goal, but Iran will NEVER intentionally kill innocent
civilians. Saker has been smoking too much lately, and forgetting that it is NOT spiritual to kill innocent
civilians. No, no and no, everything is not fair in war and love ..
Iran is ethical and has morals where as USSR and Russia seems to lack them .
The 1953 incident you refer to is the attempted communist takeover by Mossadegh which was almost
successful but prevented by the US and UK who helped keep the Pahlavis in power.
The US and UK were after Iranian oil. The Shah was their puppet plain and simple.
@Rich
But Rich, almost all the Communists are Jews and Mossadegh was not Jewish. How could he be a Communist? All
he did was nationalize the oil industry for Iranians instead of for the British. And you call Shiism
Medievalist, but isn't Judaism a stone age religion? Do you put those little boxes with magic amulets on
your head?
@Rich
You're certainly right, Rich, that any true Muslim is obligated to spread Islam by any means necessary,
including violence and intimidation -- our Quality Commenter Talha's eloquent and shrewd apologia to the
contrary notwithstanding. I wouldn't trust the people running Iran or any other Muslim country, and I'd not
let any Muslims settle in our lands.
BUT the us gov does seem to be consistently lying and trying to pick
a fight far from our shores. That dishonesty and belligerence is not obviated by the nature of the contrived
opponent. And they do seem to be doing it at the behest of Israel and its powerful domestic lobby and media,
often with no benefit to the American people, or affirmative harm to us.
Can't we both be realistic and not naive about Islam, AND not aggress or provoke a war?
@Colin Wright
That's a fair point, but there are similar conclusions drawn by long, detailed analyses of the koran by
ex-Muslims who are fluent in Arabic.
These are people who know both the Koran and the subsequent interpretive writings well. Doesn't mean
they're necessarily all correct, just that the very fearful and critical view of Islam that many of us find
persuasive, is NOT based only on selective or ill-informed readings of those texts.
@Robert Magill
I don't doubt that the elites behind the us gov would cause tension, violence, even war to profit from it,
through higher oil prices or otherwise.
As for the us stock market, though, how many of the 100 biggest,
500 biggest, or 5000 biggest publicly traded companies (by capitalization) would benefit from a spike in oil
and nat gas prices?
Wouldn't modt publicly traded US companies be harmed by the higher fuel prices causing higher prices for
groceries, clothes, and other goods that are shipped, flown, or trucked by vehicles burning fossil fuels?
Consumers wouldn't be able to afford to buy as much of those companies' goods and services after shelling
out exorbitant prices to fuel their cars and heat / cool their homes, paying more for non-locally sourced
groceries, etc. When the average American has to pay seven bucks for a gallon of gas, he will cut back on
other spending and/or borrow (charge) more to survive. That means many fewer people spending on luxuries
such as vacations and dining out and entertainment. More people postponing home renovation or repair,
forgoing medical or dental care, and so on.
As for the states and localities of the USA, some might benefit on balance from higher oil and gas
prices, but most definitely suffer from it. Much of Texas would benefit, including any state and local
governments getting extraction taxes, but none of the nine million people in New Jersey, the 20 million
people in Florida, and so on. I would wager that most US states are not net energy exporters but net energy
consumers, but I'll check for stats on that.
@Rich
US troops are only legitimate targets to the extent they are uninvited combatants in another country. Your
reasoning on this is bizarre.
My comment had nothing to do with dissing Israel or defending Iran, but
since you mention both, the US is entirely too subservient to the former since its inception and has been
screwing in the internal affairs of the latter for the better part of a century. When I said the US drew
first blood, I wasn't talking about last week.
@Not Raul
russia monitors all usa nukes, if they see any large scale nuclear attack they can not wait to make sure its
heading just south of their border or just north of it.
any large scale nuclear launch by the usa would trigger mad.
and im sure the nuclear armed muslim power right next door will not particularly enjoy having to deal with
the country smothered in fall out and the dead bodies of 80 million muslims.
Solemani was commanding an operation to put Trump in the position Carter was in with the hostage
crisis.
Trump's actions were proportionate and well considered. Instead of 'recapturing past glory', Khameni has
another massive failure to his name. The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.
The strike also impacts the thinking of Iranian military leaders. They now understand that if the
Ayatollah orders an irrational & unwinnable escalation, they may suffer personal consequences.
One thing could end this quickly and bloodlessly for all sides -- The IRGC removing the highly unpopular
Khameni, thus protecting the people of Iran. This will not happen tomorrow, but
Trump just took advantage
of Khameni's errors
to bring that day closer.
______
Of course, the paid Iranian shills posting here will decry this simple and obvious truth. Fortunately, no
one believes them.
@Beefcake the Mighty
The September 2019 attacks occurred in the very special context of Aramco's Initial Public Offering (IPO).
For the first time ever, Aramco, considered the largest company in the world in terms of valuation, was
about to sell 1.5% of its shares on the stock market.
The attacks on the Aramco facilities at the time
caused the total valuation to drop from an initial $2 trillion estimate to only 1,7 $trillion. So the
attacks were extremely convenient for some international financial institutions who wanted to
buy Aramco
shares on the cheap
.
The close relationship between such financial institutions and the Israeli government, who could have
carried the attacks and blame it on Iran, is of course a complete coincidence. Or so we are told.
@Beefcake the Mighty
The only explanation would be that the Israelis got wind of the impending attack. Then they used it as a
cover for their own attack. They may also have put themselves on alert, waiting for an attack having taking
place. Then they struck the same target in near real-time, using ready-made plans. Both possibilities would
certainly be far fetched. But they would not be completely illogical because oil installations being
targeted could be expected after all the prior drone attacks carried out by the Yemenis. OTOH, a quick
search on the Internet shows that GPS guidance has become considerably more precise in recent years. If the
Iranians are able to make use of such technology after all, then a war in the Middle East would become an
interesting proposition to say the least. The Americans can switch off GPS and they can jam GLONASS and the
other GPSes that exist. But that's not possible over the entire Middle East. That would be too costly both
in terms of the jamming itself and the losses incurred in the wider economy. GPS is terribly important in
these days. Everything depends on it from oil tankers navigating to excavators being guided along.
@A123
Thank Yahweh that your average, drooling, red-white-and-duh American is always ready to believe any simple
and obvious lie conjured by paid Israeli shills such as yourself.
Iran is in a no-win situation. If they do nothing and bide their time then I believe the Trump admin will
manufacture a casus belli for additional military action this time possibly striking targets inside Iran.
Trump's window is between now and the November 2020 election and his re-election is far from a lock given
the demographic changes in the electorate since 2016 which is why Iran may decide just wait things out.
The real question is if Russia will get involved to assist Iran or just sit on the sidelines and whine
and wimper about American aggression and violations of international law?
Others saw Donald Trump as a Dr. Strangelove when he was running for president but I thought that was
ridiculous since I saw Trump as more of a showman and entertainer but I now see that they were right and I
was wrong.
@ivegotrythm
I'm a Chrisrened and Confirmed Catholic and if those $99 DNA tests are accurate, I have no ashkenazi or
semitic ancestors. Just Europeans and Neanderthals in my family line. Not sure what I've written that seems
to trigger everyone into thinking I'm Jewish.
I will admit that growing up I did date a couple of secular Jewish gals and I did have a few Jews among
my childhood friends. That being said, I also have secular Muslim associates who are decent enough people. I
try to see things as clearly as I can and also from a patriotic American point of view. Guess that offends
many here who only want to live in an echo chamber where everyone has the same opinions.
@Anthony Aaron
What if Russia started to declassify documents and info they must have in their possession on 9/11?
That would
*really*
cause "dissension" in the US of A.
Also, what if Russia put some kind of screws on Israel?
With the two "countries'" (scare quos meant for the Jewish National State) long and somewhat troubled
association, there must be something the Russkies can do to scare the Zionists.
Actually, any 9/11 info would probably do both tricks at once.
@Biff
By the same token if you criticize those who are currently attacking Trump via the impeachment charade you
will be accused of being a "Trump supporter/lover/apologist/kissing Trump's sphincter (yes, this is at Moon
of Alabama, no less!).
This is the "Trump gotcha" equivalent of the MSM labeling anyone who advances a hypothesis besides the
"official" narrative of events such as Dallas or 9/11 a conspiracy theory.
@Paul holland
Yes, Iran's best move would be to take out Bibi himself or one of Trump's bosses in the US, like Adelson. If
Bibi himself is hit, Israel can't hide behind Trump's skirt any longer but will have to take the war to Iran
itself.
Trump's actions were proportionate and well considered. Instead of 'recapturing past glory', Khameni
has another massive failure to his name. The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.
Well, making himself part of the plot against Trump by shooting his mouth off ("You can't do a damn thing
about it.") must be deeply unsettling within the Iranian regime about his leadership.
I've long given the Iranians their resistance due but it's becoming clear they're overrated. The W Bush
and Obama administrations were gifts to Iran. It's impossible to overstate how thoroughly they overplayed
their hand with Obama on JCPOA.
The strike also impacts the thinking of Iranian military leaders. They now understand that if the
Ayatollah orders an irrational & unwinnable escalation, they may suffer personal consequences.
We have two fairly recent related analogues -- when Turkey shot down the Russian fighter and that lame
US-backed coup against Erdogan. In the first case, unsurprisingly because Putin knows what he's doing,
Russia extracted geopolitical gains for itself in return for letting Erdogan climb out of the tree. In the
latter, Obama acted pretty much like the 11 year old girl that he was throughout his figurehead terms. Trump
is still having to deal with the problem, all because Obama wouldn't give up the CIA Islamist living in PA,
an entirely reasonable demand to put a period on things.
No doubt, the Iranians have already been told we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Trump LOVES
making deals, particularly when he has the counter-party by the shorthairs.
The Saker forgets to mention the way this event went down. Trump walked into a room at the Mar-a-Lago where
he was met by a bunch of Neocons including Kuchner. They told him of Soleimani presenting a target of
opportunity and Trump ok'ed the attack. This paints a picture of Trump having lost every bit of control that
might still have been in his hands. He was visibly agitated when he went on TV. Probably he had begun to
realize what he has gotten himself into. The US then doubled down by striking a second time. You have to
pause your breath to take in what has happened. The US have officially killed government officials of a
country where they have stationed troops and that officially is an ally of the US. The US have also
officially killed officials of another country that were on an official, diplomatic visit to their ally.
Lots of uses of the word "official" here. But what it basically means is that all damns have broken. Total
chaos is now the order of the day. The US have resorted to naked violence in their dealings with the rest of
the world. Nobody is safe who cannot hold the US at gunpoint. It's the Wild West with nuclear weapons. It
was true before but now the US have begun acting on it completely overtly. And the US congress is in the
process of passing a bill that declares Russia a supporter of terrorism. You have to wonder what will happen
once this bill has passed and some high-ranking Russian official makes his next visit to Kaliningrad via
plane across the Baltic Sea.
@Kratoklastes
I put as much stock in your "expertise" as I do in that of all the other military geniuses on the internet,
which is to say, none at all.
@RadicalCenter
It is, of course, reasonable to wish to avoid another foreign adventure in a distant land. I'm of two minds
on the prospect. On the one hand, I agree that the US should turn its back on the Middle East, let them
settle their own differences. On the other hand, there is a legitimate argument that the day the US backs
down from these foreign entanglements, we lose the dollar as the world's reserve currency and this results
in extreme economic hardship in the US (as well as much of the rest of the world).
In the meantime, both major parties support our foreign entanglements, both firmly support Israel and no
one who is anti-Israel or anti-MIC is anywhere close to being elected to any high office in the country. So,
observing from that angle, the argument for withdrawal has no chance of winning, and the argument for
preventing the expansion of a loudly anti-US country from increasing its influence is not without merit. If
we're going to be there anyway, we might as well keep winning.
As far as the opinion that the US is acting at the behest of Israel, I think it's more a case of sharing
mutual interests at this time. Jews are a very rich and powerful ethnic group in this country, and will
continue to be for quite some time. Their support for Israel is not unlike the old Anglos who twice dragged
America into unnecessary wars against Germany for the benefit of merry old England. I'd rather all Americans
were more concerned with the future and security of the US, but that's not the way it is.
@Beefcake the Mighty
Because I dated a Jewish girl ? I don't think you know what a cuck is. Ask that fellow who picks up your
wife in the evening, then brings her home in the morning to explain the meaning of the word.
@Passer by
Two hundred and fifty million dollar exercise??? Wow and they got smoked in ten miunutes. Very telling.
Suicide bombers in zodiacs crazy to think of that..
Thanks for that.
I want to see the one where the Toronto Maple Leafs win a Stanley Cup .My team and maybe our year.
@Z-man
Yup.
Here's the insanity of it all. Here in Scotland and I presume the rest of the UK, there are certain branches
of Christianity who go out at the weekend, going around bars, giving leaflets on Jesus and engaging in
conversation with homosexuals. I've had a few debates with them, but they just make me laugh. I know their
bible better than them. Last time I asked them
"ever heard of the Talmud?"
They looked at me goggle
eyed. I told them, specifically what it stated about their Jesus and Mary and they said I was lying. They
stated that Jews would never do such things.
This is what we're dealing with. We're dealing with an
utterly ignorant Christian following who truly do believe the crap about Jews, because they're utterly
indoctrinated. The biggest problem isn't so much Judaism, it's the morons who wilfully follow the Jews, as
God's chosen, believing they do no wrong. Utterly and completely indoctrinated fools.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
Qassem Soleimani was indeed a celebrated Iranian general. He was known as an honorable man and talented
military commander.
As for 'Gleimhart Mantooso' -- never heard of her.
@BeenThereDunnit
Important point. Trump now threatens to hit 52 major Iranian sites if there is any retaliation for the
Soleimani assassination. The Russians will observe this precipitous escalation and factor it into the next
standoff between Russian and American forces. Russia will have to assume that 'Murka will escalate
massively, and will therefore be on a hair-trigger for the use of nuclear weapons. Massive escalation is now
the order of the day, and presages nuclear war.
If Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", and their goals require him out of
the way, "at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient
individual (say Pence or Pelosi)"
Scary thought: The neocons/Israel/DeepState/MIC/media have been going all out to either control and/or
get rid of Trump through Russiagate and now impeachment. Having succeeded in getting Trump to commit this
huge mistake, could they now decide it's worth going further than just impeachment to get rid of him, in
order to create a horrible false flag to pin on Iran, get Pence/Pelosi into power, and have the US destroy
Iran for Israel with media-orchestrated US public support?
Really wish Trump had had the sense to say no to this when they presented their murderous plan to him.
@Rich
Rich: You imply that "Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target." How on earth
could any s-a-n-e person arrive at your conclusion? Are you nucking futs??
This twisted thinking would imply that any member of a sovereign country's military, while visiting another
country on a peace mission, from your perspective, is a 'legitimate target'? With people like you, it is
little wonder that the world ends up with imbeciles like Trump.
Well help me doG
@Rurik
First comes the vote to expel the US forces, then when they don't leave, the constant pinprick attacks and ,
if available, taking out a high value US target and it all gets blamed on Iraq irregular forces
I try to see things as clearly as I can and also from a patriotic American point of view.
Perhaps you should consider having your eyes and hearing checked by a specialist. Also, some additional
education regarding the history of the United States of America starting with the Declaration of
Independence would appear to be long overdue. (Hint: The clue is in the word independence and the efforts
that patriots made to achieve it)
No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag la "USS
Liberty". Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities
in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any
USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they did
the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty
if you don't know about it)
I made a remark about the likelihood of a False Flag in another thread and was lumped in as "weak-minded"
and "know-it-all Unz-ite". LOL. (
https://www.unz.com/estriker/the-line-in-the-sand/
).
My comment on how Trump is stupid and a great scapegoat was also targeted because the person said Trump is
"playing a charade" and is all deep state. Well, I don't think so at all. Trump is a walking Ego stick and
an excellent scapegoat if anything goes wrong.
But seriously, how can anyone not see the immense gravity of the situation? My god, they murdered a
General, which is next to killing a President. This is a clear provocation and I agree 100% with the
possibilities that Saker brings up.
I'll take it further as well. There could be a nuke used against Iran in the event a False Flag of
massive proportions directed at civilians gets people onboard for a fight. They don't want to get bogged
down in a long war with Iran. My guess is Israel wants them out of the picture for a long time or for good.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
Well, annamaria is a much respected commenter here who often adds better information to those comments
lacking much of anything substantial, such as your own. Consider it a favour to you and bear in mind also
that a great many people read the comments without commenting themselves so they too are the beneficiaries
of her well researched contributions. Have a nice day.
All the options presented by Saker are viable and desirable. They don't even have to be limited to
either/or. The political option of hitting exclusively IsraHell with salvos of missiles would be another
option. Israel is, after all, the culprit behind the scenes.
Last time I asked them "ever heard of the Talmud?" They looked at me goggle eyed.
I too was ignorant of it until my later years.
An anecdotal story: Years ago at my 'office' Christmas party the one Jew in our group shared,
with his
goy coworkers
, that he was struggling with
The Talmud
. You see he was a very secular ok kind of
guy who liked to hang out with the 'un-chosen'. But he was now married to a very 'orthodox' woman and he had
to learn about the Talmud. He confessed that the 'manual' was not too kind to gentiles. He was at a
crossroad. I noticed the struggle he was going thru. I believe he stayed with his wife, I haven't seen him
in years.
Thanks to him I became even more 'woke' to the
truths
of Judaism.
As if Afghanistan isn't inhospitable mountainous terrain? So somehow Iran's topography is worse is it?
They invaded Afghanistan without even controlling any neighbouring countries.
Have you looked at where KOP is? By 2007 that was still a 'forward base'. It's only 100 miles from Kabul.
Also, while the US didn't explicitly 'control' Uzbekistan (which is where the initial force staged),
Karimov was a US ally and there is no love lost between the Uzbeks and the Pashto.
Today, the US controls only those parts of Afghanistan that the Taliban haven't decided to take back yet.
It's not clear why you would consider US strategy in Afghanistan as a good example it's now widely-known
to have been so bad that it required 17 years of official bullshit to cover its failure.
.
You've also missed about fifty key points of difference between Afghanistan and Iran.
The ones that most people don't need reminding about include
① Afghanistan had no organised military to speak of;
② it had absolutely no air defence capabilities and limited airspace monitoring;
③ its disorganised military was having a hard time with Dostum, Massoud and Hekmatyar;
④ the initial US insertion was about 6 SAD guys whose main role was to meet up with the Northern
Alliance; they, and the rest of TF Dagger arrived by helo from K-K in Uzbekistan (the US had always
supported Karimov) the TF Dagger insertion
is now the record for the longest helo insertion in military
history
;
⑤ Kandahar and Kabul had already fallen before FOB Rhino was established in other words, the Northern
Alliance plus US air power had done the job before ISAF even got its shit unpacked;
⑥ Notwithstanding the unseating of the Taliban,
The US lost
. They knew in 2001 that they were
losing, and lied about it for 17 years.
On ⑥: when you're a superpower,
if you fail to impose your Imperial Will on the place that is a LOSS
.
.
Ordinarily, in these sort of situations it's left as an exercise to work out which of those points are
critical in the new game (where the US tries to do the same thing in Iran).
But since most people are imbeciles, I'll put a thumb on the scales.
More below the fold. Read it or don't, but if you think of some counter-argument it's best to assume I've
already thought of it, coz I'm good at this. (The folks at JWAC probably don't know my name any more,
because the Yanks our crew helped train in the 90s have moved on since then).
[MORE]
In the case of Iran:
Re ①: Iran has a well-equipped professional military with an excellent senior staff. (That said:
Afghanistan didn't have much by way of
formal
military, but it did have
millions
of
people with battlefield experience against a technologically superior enemy about half of whom were
on the Taliban side).
Re ⑤: Ain't gonna happen because ④ can't happen.
④ is made orders of magnitude harder by !{②,③} (! is the 'NOT' operator, indicating that {} is
untrue in the Iranian case).
Dealing with !③ first: there is no domestic insurgency worth talking to in Iran certainly not one
that is remotely analogous to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001, which was basically a
full-fledged opponent in a civil war (which the NA won, with the aid of US air power). Whoever crosses
the threshold cannot rely on divided attention of the Iranian military.
OK, now !②. More convoluted requires more space.
Insertion of the whole force by rotor is really hard if the adversary has any significant air
defences. (At the time that the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban couldn't even rely on
regularly-updated satellite imagery to detect movements in US naval assets: now you can do that from
your phone, and if you're a government you have drones).
With a sophisticated enemy it's so hard to insert large numbers of boots by rotor, that it can be
ruled out.
So if you want to get boots on the ground
without
everyone having to traverse a mountain
range (exposing flanks and supply lines), you a need to get reliable control over a big lump of land
that has an airport on it capable of landing troop transports (or being converted to same).
(The passel of land has to be on the 'enemy' side of the mountains I put that in because some
readers went to US schools and geography is not a strong point.)
Controlling an air base would require a battalion on the ground on the bad-guy side of the hills.
You sure as fuck don't want to fight your way over the hills and then try to control an airbase.
Trying to get a battalion-sized presence in by rotorcraft would mean using MH-47s, which are slow
and (
ahem
) not very stealthy (actually, they're
very
not
stealthy) and the US
would require more than a battalion on the ground.
Airdrop? Same problem: if the incoming aircraft is detected, you know everything about manpower
disposition (troop size and position) before the men hit the ground.
Iran has the capability to see airborne things coming; it also has a range of solutions to make
airborne things lose their airborne-ness.
For mobile overwatch, Iran has AWACS 3 old Orions and some retroftted An-140s for maritime, and a
bunch of unarmed drones (they've been cranking out UAVs as fast as possible). They also have JY-14
medium-long range radar, which is handy because their range means that they can be lit up earlier than
short-range AA radar.
And if you don't think that they have an intel-sharing arrangement with Russia, you're not thinking
hard enough.
As far as making flying things stop flying, they have a fuckton of SAMs. A genuine fuckton
especially relative to what the US has faced in any engagement since Korea.
They have a similar fuckton of MANPADs: even primitive RPGs are bad news for helos, and MANPADs are
much more
worser
think of how badly "
Hind
vs
Stinger
" played out in the 80s, and
you are on roughly the right page
They also have a little over 1500 AA batteries (most of those will be dead on first contact, but
they're still a nuisance).
The Iranian Air Force itself forget it, it's irrelevant.
The first sign things are kicking off will be a bunch of TLAMs fucking up every airbase in Iran.
(Plus the obligatory US/NATO SOP war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure for electricity
generation, water treatment, sewage treatment, and telecommunications)
This is why Iran has fuck-all air-superiority assets: and a little over a hundred 1980s-level
offensive aircraft (about 150 of them: F14; Fulcrum; Su22, 24 and 25).
They learned from the experience of Iraq's Air Force in 1991: it was much much larger than Iran's
is now, but a shitload of it was destroyed on the ground due to the regime's appalling lack of
preparedness.
So from all that
⑥ is a foregone conclusion.
Some things that play no part in the conclusion:
ⓐ that I despise US* hypocritical bromides about freedom and 'democracy';
ⓑ that the US military is a bloated set of boondoggles run by grifters,with the mindset of a
20-something NPC who just watched '300';
ⓒ that the US has had its arse kicked by several sets of raggedy-ass peasants from 1968 onwards and
has underperformed in every peer engagement since 1789. (inb4 WWI and WWII they were on the winning
side
, but others e.g., the Soviets did the actual
winning
)
.
"
Topography matters
" doesn't mean that topography is
all
that matters. The gap
between combatants has to be
extremely
wide in order for technology and manpower to overcome
terrain.
In fact it's hard to know how wide the gap needs to be fortech/power to win, because all of the
'invade without properly considering terrain disadvantages
" has resulted in strategic losses for
the superior force at all times since WWII.
We can say that the gap has to be
wider
than "
Viet Cong vs US
" or "
Mujahedin vs
USSR
" or
USC/SNA vs US/UNOSOM
" or "
Taliban vs US/ISAF
".
.
People who are interested in how shit works in modern warfare need to read William Lind, or John
Robb or Arregun-Toft.
Start with the short-ish paper (which is now a book):
@Anonymous
I wonder whether, as you suggest, Trump hasn't just walked into a trap.
And has just figured out that this time, he's the patsy.
If such is the case, his best option might be to address the American people directly as to what has gone
down with this murder and sack Pompeo and Kushner. (Turn the former over to Iran???? Just kidding . . . but
depriving him of security would accomplish the same thing.)
The problem is that the vipers are within his own family: Ivanka and Jared Kushner. Stupidest thing he
could have done, having those two on his "diplomatic" and "advisory" staff.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
Are they treated as Julian Assange is in the UK or as Maria Butina was for a year-and-a-half in a US jail
forced to plead guilty for something she was not guilty of in the first place? Or as Manning is being held
in solitary confinement because he will not lie for a get-out-of-jail card? Are the Koreans subjected to
execution by black murderers while in their cells? Let us know when you have some evidence.
@the grand wazoo
Also, there is a large faction within the Democratic party who will never go to war for Israel, because they
simply don't like Jews. They may be fooled into hating Russia because they are white, but they'll side with
an underdog Iran over a belligerent Israel every time.
If the Democrats get control, they will effectively control the USA indefinitely, because they seem
perfectly happy to import all the Democratic voters they'll require to remain in power
The window for Jews to utilize the American state as their wrecking ball are limited. Trump might be the
best chance they will ever get. America is on such shaky footing on so many levels, they may implode
domestically before they can the job done.
So I would guess that the appropriate tit-for-tat splash would be LtGen Scott Berrier (G2 Intel).
Everyone's heard of that guy, right?
No I didn't know him but now we all do. Ok that would be tit for tat, but I would still go for a 4 Star.
(Grin)
Plus, if they splashed Pompous, the resulting fatberg would burn for longer than the Springfield tyre
fire. Nobody wants that.
LOL!!!
He is the most dispicable NEOCON stooge out there, even worse than 'Linda' Graham. Christian Zionists, the
personification of OXY
MORON
.
Ok, not Plump'eo but we gotta give the Iranians one real Neo-cohen, to scare the be-Jesus out of them (the
Jooz that is). (Grin)
@Desert Fox
"Israel and the ZUS want a nuclear war with Russia "
A few years ago I would have LOL 'd at such a proposition. Today, I scratch my head.
Is the US so completely
insane
as to attack a peer or (indeed) stronger nuclear power such as Russia?
I don't think so but .
@UninformedButCurious
Is Trump "disposable" ? Maybe. But unlikely.
Given that Tel Aviv is in charge (a synonym for "neocon") , & Trump has virtually tripped over his own
tongue in his haste to lick their boots (& other bodily parts) it wouldn't appear that Trump has yet lost
his value.
And in a more domestic sense --
Pence
! OMG, is there a political leader with less charisma? Pence
makes Corbyn look like Ronald Reagan.(People greatly under rate charisma & other subjective leadership
qualities)
So dumping Trump would have severe political repercussions.
@John Chuckman
Iran will "carefully plan a response, and that response may not be clear and unambiguous, and it might be
multi-faceted and done over time."
Agreed.
Hopefully Iran will respond largely through proxies. And also concentrate on non-military responses.
IE, putting maximum pressure on Iraq's parliament to force all US forces out of Iraq -- difficult, but that
would be a
huge
win. Of course, they'll still get the blame -- but should a cat in Patagonia die in
suspicious circumstances Iran would get the blame for that
too
.
As for
any
nuclear response by Iran, that truly would be "acting foolishly". Anything along nuclear
lines would be a perfect provocative to Israel /the US.
@Kratoklastes
I think the Iranian leadership and populace would be more convinced of the effectiveness of the Iranian
military if Soleimani had managed to keep himself alive.
@SeekerofthePresence
Not only that, he has even stated that among them are sites of great cultural importance. Do they want to
attack mosques? Some of those Iranian mosques are not only holy sites as such, they are marvels of
architecture. Attacking them would be a crime against the heritage of all mankind. That would be truly mad
but we will see, sadly. It would enrage Muslims to a degree not seen in living memory. They might "just"
attack sites commemorating the fallen of the war against Iraq. That would be nearly as bad.
Anyways,
refraining from any more threats, as Trump has demanded, is a near impossibility. What is a threat and what
not? Are red flags of revenge on display in Iran already a threat? The probability of war has to reckoned at
near 100% now.
The Iranians should disperse their assets urgently. Nuclear assets that can be dispersed have to be at
the top of the list. They should actually try to avoid making any more threats for now. Trump has
conveniently laid out his strategy to them, allowing them to have the war started by the Americans at a
point of time of their choosing. After a period of restraint, they should gradually start making slight
threats again, placing the ball in the American court. The dust will have settled somewhat by then, world
opinion will have realized how criminally the US have behaved by killing Iraqi and Iranian officials. The
later the war starts, the better for the Iranians. That explains why the US are escalating so heavily right
now.
If Iran really got hold of some Ukrainian nuclear warheads back when the Soviet Union dissolved, then the
time for testing one of them would be now.
The big question has to be how China and Russia position themselves. The Americans and Israelis seem to
think that Putin and Xi are weak enough internally to allow them to go through with it all. The true
battlefield will be Russian and and Chinese public opinion. If Putin and Xi can convince their peoples that
Iran has to be supported, then the equation would shift. They should at least start making weapon
deliveries. Russia could even claim that it has to protect the nuclear site in Busher where Russians work,
deploying S-400s manned by its own personnel. China could claim that war in the Persian Gulf would be too
much of a threat to its economy. Both claims would be true.
Perhaps they'll be able to gin up some popular riots and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.
That should be the best strategy for Iran to invoke the common heritage of the true monotheist faith we
share, of which there is much.
On a personal level, even if I have reservations about Shi'sm, and what I see as clear deviancy, I, and I
am sure many other true monotheist brothers, are still on the side of Iran, because my suspicion of Shi'sm
is far less than my visceral hatred for Whitey/Joonist Imperialism. May the Almighty One's wrath befall the
satanically evil pagan/godless Whitey/Joonist Imperialists, those avowed enemies of True Monotheism.
Iran should find ways to communicate with the Arab street directly using Whitey/Zionist Imperialist
tools like Twitter and Facebook, as long as it will be allowed. The irony is not lost on me.
Also, there is a large faction within the Democratic party who will never go to war for Israel,
because they simply don't like Jews.
They don't get to decide. The uppermost elites do. Lower-level Democrats are just rubber-stampers. They
may not like Israel but must still serve it. Jewish Money and Media compel them to.
I believe a not insignificant amount -- perhaps even the majority -- of pro-war Americans know this to be
true: That they and their progeny are mere cannon fodder for Zionist imperialism. But they simply don't
care or are even proud of dying for so "worthy" a cause. Never underestimate the persistent and
deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average
American.
This is so true. American Protestant Christianity Evangelicalism in particular has been warped and
modified by Zionism. Whereas for 1800 years Christians believed and preached that God took on human form and
that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity, the belief now seems to be that God is a real estate agent. I
think that even if Evangelicals were to find out that the Talmud teaches that in the Millennium every Jew is
to have 2,800 goyim as slaves, they would accept it.
@A123
Of course, the paid Iranian shills posting here will decry this simple and obvious truth. Fortunately, no
one believes them.
I was out of work for forty seven years (due to my issues with women, and my
extreme myopia, not to mention my body odour). So I was really happy to be offered a job as a cyber warrior
by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command under their blessed leader General Qasem Soleimani at what I
thought was a really good rate of pay.
Imagine my disillusion when I discovered how few pounds I could get for my Rials, thanks to the
continuing US economic sanctions. So, with a heavy heart I realised that I had no alternative other than to
go to work for Mossad to finance my sex offending.
People need to realize that the dynamic has changed completely. For Iran, patience is no longer an option.
Israel/USA will continue to attack. Seriously, look at Trump's 52 target tweet. It sounds like the ranting
of Hitler during his last days in the bunker. Not fighting back is the worst thing Iran can now do.
Regarding the court of public opinion: Iran had the sympathy of the majority of people in the world long
before the new year. It counts for nothing when it comes to avoiding war. All that matters is the western
media and the brainwashed western public. Iran can never win that PR fight. In fact, if you polled Americans
and gave them the option of ending the Iran problem by nuking them that the majority would support this
action. A large number of Canadians would also support this. More importantly, after such a nuclear attack
and 80 million dead Iranians the main thing westerners will care about is getting back to business as usual.
America will resort to a nuclear attack because it believes it can get away with it. What does Iran have to
lose?
I hope the following happens Monday:
1) the Houthis strike and shut down all Saudi oil production.
2) a cyber attack in the USA. Maybe take down the power grid. We know how much Americans love war when
they can sit in front of their tv and cheer on the US military. How much will they love it, or the people
who brought them this war, when they're stuck in their unheated homes in the middle of January?
I also hope they are seriously considering the following:
3) hitting every US military target in the region that could be used to bomb Iran.
4) Hizbollah and Syria launching attacks against Israel. The Israeli's are the real provocateurs. If they
pay no price they will continue to push for further aggression.
No matter what is done by Iran or its allies the retaliation by the US will be greater than what we've
seen so far. Even if nothing is done Israel/USA will create another incident for an excuse to attack again.
The war has started. One sure way for Iran to lose it is to not participate.
@Rich
World War I fought on behalf of ZIONISTS who influenced Jews in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet (the "brain
trust", and a certain Jewish man, STEPHEN WISE, known as the 'Red Rabbi' for his affinity for Communism!).
This deal was in exchange for Britain giving Palestine to the Zionist Jews (even though it wasn't even
Britain's to give at the time)! Surely you have heard of the BALFOUR DECLARATION, right? Quit spinning this
disingenuous pseudo-history!
World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt's cabinet was ALSO chock-full of
Zionists, and a certain Jewish man, now in his older years but still very influential, STEPHEN WISE yet
again, was also one of his closest advisors. And Churchill, who ALSO was bought and paid for by Zionist
interests, was in on this as well read Pat Buchanan's "Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War" for a
pretty mainstream take on this subject. But basically World War II was ALSO fought for Zionists, and what
was the result?
Britain: LOST THEIR EMPIRE
Zionists: CREATED THE COLONIALIST SETTLER STATE OF ISRAEL BY EVICTING PALESTINIANS THROUGH TERRORIST GROUPS
LIKE THE IRGUN
So WHO was that really done on behalf of???
You lot really need to quit spinning this nonsense here; it's just not going to work with anyone who's
educated and intelligent enough to research for themselves and it makes you and your cause look very
foolish.
@Rich
Why don't you go to Iran and tell the millions mourning in the streets there for this man who symbolised the
resistance to the evil Zionist World Order how 'wrong' they are
Or are all of them just horribly misguided and confused? Or maybe they're just 'evil' people who ought to be
destroyed? And we need to 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran'? How convenient!
For the record, some of those mourning
Soleimani's death the most are the ethnic Christian communities whom he so bravely defended from ISIS (who
we now know were supported by Israel and the 'rebel' forces that Zionists in the West helped fund). But I am
guessing your kind doesn't support the continued existence of some of the oldest Christian communities in
existence that are in the Middle East, because you probably cheered when their homes got bulldozed by the
Zionists in the Naqbamany of them still have the keys to their houses, by the way.
@Gleimhart Mantooso
I'm not a Muslim, nor am I inbred.
I honour Soleimani's sacrifice because he was one of the foremost defenders of Christians from ISIS, and the
ancient Christian communities in the Middle East are some of those grieving his murder the most. Do you not
care about them, or are you just that ignorant?
@animalogic
Part of Trump's plan is to rid Iraq of it's Iranian influence. It will be the Iranians ejected not the US.
He has eliminated Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Iraqi proxy forces and killed, arrested or forced into
hiding many other pro Iranian urgers.
The riots in the south of the country are largely about removing Iranian influence and the artificial
Sunni/Shia sectarian differences. Expect this social movement to be energised in a pro US way.
There will be no all out war in the middle east. No one in the ME is
any position to deal in such a fashion with the US and it would be suicidal to try. Dear leader in Iran has
only bad choices and even using proxies, he places his entire regime on a chopping block. Those 52 targets
were selected in a way that Iran's economy will be crushed quickly.
So let the Imams go ahead and try to get their blood revenge. They are only digging their own graves.
By the by, Soleimani was not murdered. He was a terrorist leader and got what he had coming to him.
@Quartermaster
No, it's not up to Iran if there will be a war, it is up to USA, and it wants the war, and there is nothing
Iran can do to prevent it except make the yanks and their stooges in the region pay the biggest price
possible given their own resources and resourcefulness. Did you people forget Iraq? After sanctions and
years of the USAF bombing targets to enforce those "no fly" zones, one set up in the south specifically to
protect the Shiites they're now turning on, they still went all out and invaded Iraq without Saddam having
done anything to provoke them, and in fact being most cooperative and even allowing inspectors into the
country to confirm that he had no WMDs. Unless of course you think Saddam brought down WTC on 911.
@BeenThereDunnit
Persia, Russia, and China all have a gift for long-term survival (though Russia and China are capable of
immediate and devastating action). As PCR has suggested, Russia will likely counsel Iran to bide it's time;
why attack a dinosaur already frothing at the mouth and collapsing under its own weight?
And as you
mention, there is much preparation Iran can do now. The battlespace has changed: Neocon Crazies (Pence,
Pompeo) are now making command decisions (the Soleimani hit, decision on 52 major follow-up strikes) at the
Pentagon.
Therefore Iran must be doubly cautious before moving. As Sun Tzu would say: If a stronger enemy goads you
to fight, then hold back and wait for the proper moment. Never do what the enemy wants or expects.
@Z-man
I found out about the talmud around 12 years ago now. I have to say I was shocked with what it stated
within, but that was also because I was Jew ignorant. This opened up the door to Judaism and what it was all
about.
I'm not religious. I do believe there was a man named Christ, a revolutionary and I struggle with the 'son
of God' concept. The jury is out on that. However what annoyed me was the fact that this was the major
teaching within Judaism and no one had ever heard about it. Were there anything remotely similar to this,
about Jews or blacks, there'd be a public outcry and heads would roll, yet millions of Christians openly
know about this and still support Judaism and see them as God's chosen. It just beggars belief.
"He confessed that the 'manual' was not too kind to gentiles."
There you go. From the very own horse's mouth. What more needs to be said? As stated, tell people to
forget about the online talmuds. They've been conveniently changed to remove the 'bad parts' within. Jews
doing what Jews do deceive.
@Kratoklastes
I take it as axiomatic that the U.S. Military could not successfully occupy Iran, and is very well aware of
that reality. Nor is there, as far as I can see, any overriding political reason to do so.
IMO, the primary objective of any U.S. attack on Iran would be:
To destroy Iran as a modern country,
and foreclose, if possible, any chance Iran could become a modern country in the foreseeable future.
To that end, look for the destruction of civilian infrastructure and cultural monuments, as others here
have postulated, and as was done in Iraq. The (unstated) aim would be to break the national will and destroy
the cultural identity of the Iranian people, using the specious claim of "fighting terrorism."
Look for the Great Mosque of Isfahan:
to be high on the target list, along with the Iranian parliament building and countless other non-military
objectives.
Is such an attack (by air power alone) likely to succeed?
A1. In the short term, yes.
A2. In the longer term, success is not guaranteed.
If experience in Europe, i.e. Germany, is any guide, I expect Iran could manage to rebuild itself in twenty
years or so.
In the meantime, the U.S. will have completed its transformation to a full-on outlaw nation, having
flagrantly violated the Nuremberg prohibition, which itself established, against "waging aggressive war,"
and become the groveling, depraved toady of a small, and otherwise insignificant, middle eastern "state"
founded upon the theft of land and resources from the indigenous population by a thugocracy of European
interlopers who claim some kind of "divine right of possession," or "land title from God," based on the
assertion that some members of their tribe lived in that area thousands of years ago.
In short, the U.S is now the titular head of an Evil Empire.
Long live the Resistance.
@Harbinger
I too was uninformed of
my
Catholic religion and that's funny because I went to Catholic administered
schools from grammar school to college. (Grin)
Were there anything remotely similar to this (The Talmud), about Jews or blacks, there'd be a public
outcry and heads would roll, yet millions of Christians openly know about this and still support Judaism
and see them as God's chosen.
It just beggars belief.
Vatican II had a lot to do with this 'accepting' of Jews. Christian Zionists are the biggest culprits
today.
forget about the online Talmuds. They've been conveniently changed to remove the 'bad parts' within.
Jews doing what Jews do deceive.
I'm sure.
I do believe there was a man named Christ, a revolutionary and I struggle with the 'son of God'
concept.
You gotta have
faith
.
See Brother Nathaniel, a converted Jew. A bit over the top when you
first see him, on the net, but a man of faith and truth.
@Harbinger
Alternative theory: Trump, like Nixon, is a genius.
Trump tweeted he wanted out of Syria. The military industrial complex said no. So Trump then said OK, I
going to give the military industrial complex what it wants 'good and hard' to quote HL Mencken. This is
kind of like how Nixon ended the US involvement in Vietnam, he forced to US military to confront North
Vietnamese regular army and everybody, including the military industrial complex, involved objected to it,
so the US had to leave.
@Quartermaster
Soleimani was fighting the terrorists who were created by the ZUS and Israel and Z-Britain and Z-NATO, these
being AL CIADA aka ISIS aka ISIL aka Daesh etc..
The middle east wars were brought on by the joint attack
on the WTC by Israel and the ZUS , to be blamed on the muslims , thus giving Israel and ZUS the excuse to
destroy the middle east for the zionists greater Israel project.
@Assad al-islam
Iranians are hardly shrewd. They ripped themselves a permanent asshole with us Americans in 1979 (and no, I
don't need a lecture on the Shah, since that doesn't magically make their actions shrewd). And they have
continued ever since by calling us "the great Satan" and chanting "death to America." They did themselves no
favors by shooting down our drone a few months ago, and they were tempting fate last week when they
arrogantly boasted "You (we Americans) can't do anything." It's like Michael Ledeen is their chief adviser.
None of that is shrewd. It is damned foolish.
And yes, I know that American foreign policy is damned
foolish, too (yet another thing I don't need anyone here to lecture me about). And I know that Israel is the
major cause of Middle East problems. But acknowledging all that doesn't mean that Iran is a noble, virtuous,
innocent party in the entire affair. So many people have the absurd mindset that "the enemy of my enemy is
my friend." Muslims are ever bit as supremacist as Jews are. And as long as that remains the case, people
are not going to be persuaded to pressure the American government to stop reading from the Neocon script.
Venerating Iran and lionizing the dead general is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people, and a big
part of that dynamic is Iran's fault.
@Not Raul
Lol now I didn't know that Russia was hundreds,thousands of mile away from Iran,thank for the heads up those
damnable Iranians have upped and moved their border again,tsk,tsk,tsk.!!!
@Rich
For Gods sake quit posting it only makes you out the fool.Now Iran elected a leader by means that we use
ourselves the ballot box,now what's wrong we that? then the democratic elected president states that Iran's
oil belongs to Iran and its people,you boys are out.
Now Churchill gets his undies in a twist whining but
wait England's industry runs on CHEAP Iranian oil (25 cent a barrel oil),so he calls up the M15 tells them
to join their partners in the C.I.A. and over throw that asshole who thinks that their oil belong to
them,and as they say the rest is history,I trust its the real history not the revised history you spout,!!
@Beefcake the Mighty
They oppose the shooting of Soleimani, and so do you. If I'm a cuck because my support of killing terrorist
Muslims also happens to be the same position as Bibi Netanyahu's , I guess following your logic, your
support of the same position as the commie trio I named, makes you a cuck. In fact I guess you also kneel in
front of AOC and that hijab wearing Ilhan Omar. Following your logic even further, you must be Al Sharpton's
shoe shine boy and Maxine Waters wig washer, since they also opposed the shooting.
Or, could it be that we
just have different viewpoints on an issue, and it's only a coincidence that some others share that opinion
in this case? I don't check with the Israeli embassy before I make my mind up and I'm open to changing my
mind if a convincing argument is made. Do you, since your opinion is exactly the same as theirs, check with
the DNC before forming an opinion?
Epsteinistan murders the general,
Threatens we will pummel you with more strikes.
Pimps himself to glories ephemeral,
World domination the jackboot he licks.
@Quartermaster
You are naive person. The US will have to fight the whole Shia world if it attacks Iran, including Iraq. You
live in the past and never realised the decline of the US in the world. You were just kicked by Iraq.
Legislation was accepted forcing the US to withdraw from Iraq and cease all kind of collaboration.
You can
forget about US companies operating there too, China and Russia will move there instead. Its resources and
arms market are lost to you. Americans are hated in the country and can't even leave the Embassy in safety.
We also learned today officialy from Iraq's Prime Minister Adil Abdul al Mahdi how Donald Trump uses
diplomacy:
US asked Iraq to mediate with Iran. Iraq PM asks Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him
the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport.
No options for Iran? Let's hope "someone" doesn't provide manpads to the Taliban. You lost aganist them
too, and soon will be kicked out from Afghanistan in humiliation.
Do you know who Muqtada Al Sadr is? The most influential person in Iraq, a country with huge oil and gas
reserves and young combat ready population rising fast. The man who kicked the arse of the US occupation of
Iraq. Muqtada Al Sadr demands the total removal of not only US troops, but the of US embassy and all US
diplomats in Iraq as well. And an Axis Of Resistance against the US by all Shia groups all around the world.
This will cut off supply lines to your remnants in Syria and put the few US soldiers there under siege,
hated by almost all sides. They won't make it in Syria for long.
Meanwhile, you managed to make the Turks hate you too. Just keep doing that.
Iran's FM said something interesting yeasterday: The end of Malign US Influence in West Asia has begun.
The US will be gradually kicked out from the region.
The 2020s will be a time of great power transition where the rest of the world rises and the US declines,
being kicked out from many places. You made a big mistake, making more and more enemies everywhere in the
world.
Iran, Russia and China should attacked the Achilles Hell of the US which is Gold. China should sell its
US$1.2 Trillion of US Treasury bonds and keep buying Gold. That will send the Gold price soaring to
US$10,000 an oz. Interest rates will spike and Wall St and the US$1.5 quadrillion Derivatives market will
collapse, bankrupting all major US banks.
-- The visceral ethnic hatred of the real bosses and the fabled
American incompetence of the profiteers-incharge do not have a place for any rationality.
"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard
Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish
investigator."
In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce
Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka, the Soviet secret
police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB. [Remember Holodomor in Ukraine? Add to the
Kaganovich fame of mass murderer the fame of Nuland-Kagan, the collaborator with Ukrainian neo-nazi and
promotor of the ongoing civil war in eastern Ukraine].
In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik
squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet
chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.
@Rich
Sadly, Ron Unz has been extremely negligent in omitting the inclusion of a MORON button. I really couldn't
label you a TROLL as that would in fact be complimentary towards you.
@Momus
Tel Aviv is home to zionist cowards who hide behind the US skirt while parasitizing on the body of the US.
Your attempt at presenting yourself as a brave warrior is ridiculous. After shooting the civilians
(including children of all ages) on the occupied territories, Israelis have got a delusional idea of being
the brave soldiers and military geniuses. Relax. Yours is an Epstein nation of Israel.
@BeenThereDunnit
"That explains why the US are escalating so heavily right now. "
The neocons probably want a spring war.
For themselves, and to do Bibi the most good.
Spring is the most convenient time for warmaking.
Nice weather.
If they are planning for this war, they are already well along in putting the logistics in place.
We are probably screwed.
I read somewhere fairly recently an analysis of why a spring war would "work" well for both the Dems and the
Repugs. But I cannot recall the rationales.
So it seems like all sides are angling and wangling to move Trump in the direction of a spring attack on
Iran.
As for ":Some of those Iranian mosques are not only holy sites as such, they are marvels of architecture.
Attacking them would be a crime against the heritage of all mankind. That would be truly mad but we will
see, sadly. It would enrage Muslims to a degree not seen in living memory."
It would make a LOT of people worldwide furious. Not just Muslims.
Bomb Isfahan? Shiraz? Tabriz? Our "leaders" are mad.
@Quartermaster
The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with Nuland-Kagan and Banderites. Oops.
The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with "white helmets." Oops.
The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with Bibi. Ooops.
The gullible "Quartermaster" has been trusting wholeheartedly the presstitutes of MSM and even became the
MSM's deputy on the Unz Forum to deliver the MSM lies. What's wrong with you?
Soleimani was extraordinarily effective when fighting the ISIS; hence the rabid hatred of Israelis and US
war profiteers towards the honorable man.
Too many Oops on your part, gullible "Quartermaster"
If I thought that America was responsible for every dastardly dirty crime in the world, I would applaud the
article. This article was written from the basis that America's involvement began with the death of a
terrorist, where is the history propelling Trump to act?
I smell a coward writing this article. What action would the author have recommended following the death of
a American contractor, send the killers more cash?
When Iran invaded the American embassy, did they not invade America? Are not embassies located of the soil
of the occupying nation? Did any of the embassy employees attack Iran or it's citizens? Does an invasion
constitute an act of war?
@Smith
Too say the "Jews" told him to do something without naming them is suspect. Support your argument with
facts, like names, how communicated, when, and how you came by this info.
@animalogic
The zionists hate Christians more than they hate any other religious group. If by launching a nuclear war,
it is guaranteed that Christians will cease to exist, you can be sure they will start a nuclear war. It's
not just me talking about, it's in their scriptures.
Zionists hate for Russia is purely because it's
predominantly white and Christian nation.
@Skeptikal
A spring war would give Iran plenty of time to prepare. It would also give Putin and Xi time to shore up
public opinion and deploy assistance. The Russians could even send some of their super-quiet Diesel subs to
the Gulf.
If this war goes through, Putin and Xi will come out very weak. Syria on a much grander scale
but without Russia and China doing anything about it.
It's all going to be a cakewalk, the Iranians will welcome the destruction of their country with open arms.
The Iranians won't dare to confront the US or we'll just turn their country into glass. lol
@whattheduck
Good but the Jews won't want complete destruction of the European races because then, no one will protect
them. Ideally they'll destroy Christianity while having a polyglot atheist white race serving them.
As I've said many times before the Jew power structure hates Russia, and specifically Putin, because he
re-established Orthodox Christianity to the
Motherland
which they tried to destroy in the communist
revolution.
PS. When I started reading on these sites, years ago, I found it almost amusing when people attacked
Vatican II. After all, I was indoctrinated as a youth that V-II was the best thing since sliced bread, 'the
Church had to become
modern
.' Needles to say I've become a fan of the SSPX and beyond, like the good
Bishop Williamson who said before he was excommunicated,
"[T]he people who hold world-wide power today
over politics and the media are people who want the godless New World Order, and" "they have fabricated a
hugely false version of World War Two history to go with a complete fabricated religion to replace
Christianity."
@Rich
" The Iranians could not defeat the ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein, but they can defeat the United States?
Preposterous."
Actually, it is the other way around !
And .. Saddam, had the almighty USA behind him; so, I must assume that your initial paragraph and the
entire comment, is pretty much a childish one.
By the way you articulated your comment, I wonder; what the heck are you reading these articles for, if you
do not have neither the knowledge or the understanding of these geopolitical themes.
As a friendly advise, I would suggest, getting a hot water bottle, seat in your armchair and watch
television.
he Iraqi parliament approved a measure that called for an end to the U.S. military presence
in Iraq. The prime minister spoke in favor of a departure of U.S. forces, and it seems very
likely that U.S. forces will be required to leave the country in the near future. The
president's response to this was in keeping with his cartoon imperialist attitudes about other
countries:
Trump threatens Iraq with sanctions if they expel US troops: "If they do ask us to leave,
if we don't do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they've never
seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."
Trump doesn't see other countries as genuinely sovereign, and he doesn't respect their
decisions when they run counter to what he wants, so his first instinct when they choose
something he dislikes is to punish them. Economic war has been his preferred method of
punishment, and he has applied this in the form of tariffs or sanctions depending on the
target. Iraq's government is sick of repeated U.S. violations of Iraqi sovereignty, and the
U.S. strikes over the last week have strengthened the existing movement to remove U.S. forces
from the country. One might think that Trump would jump at the chance to pull U.S. troops out
of Iraq and Syria that the Iraqi parliament's action gives him. It would have been better to
leave of our own accord before destroying the relationship with Baghdad, but it might be the
only good thing to come out of this disaster. It is telling that Trump's reaction to this news
is not to seize the opportunity but to threaten Iraq instead. Needless to say, there is
absolutely no legitimate basis for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and if Trump did this it would
be one more example of how the U.S. is flagrantly abusing its power to bully and attack smaller
states.
In another instance of the president's crude cartoon imperialism, he
repeated his threat to target Iran's cultural heritage sites:
President Trump on Sunday evening doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian
cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of one of its top generals,
breaking with his secretary of state over the issue.
Aboard Air Force One on his way back from his holiday trip to Florida, Mr. Trump
reiterated to reporters traveling with him the spirit of a Twitter post on Saturday, when he
said that the United States government had identified 52 sites for retaliation against Iran
if there were a response to Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani's death. Some, he tweeted, were of
"cultural" significance.
Such a move could be considered a war crime under international laws, but Mr. Trump
said Sunday that he was undeterred.
When o when will this man leave the stage? Who oh who will stand up against him and save
the world from this man? God have mercy on us all and deliver us from this anti-christ.
Trump really really enjoyed telling his "Black Jack Pershing's bullets dipped in pig's
blood" fairy tales during the campaign, and so did the rallygoers. He loves reveling in the
amoral gutter, and his base loves him unconditionally. Ailes, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity,
and now Trump: their aggresive, barbaric, venal leaders and spokesmen. Whaddayagonnado?
They can't help it. They follow the guy who calls the opposition within his own party
"human scum." Takes one to know one, right? That's right. Trump is a visceral hedonist, so
yes, he likes aggression.
As reactions are emerging around the world, it seems pretty clear that the US will be
almost completely isolated in this situation. Europe may finally be growing a spine.
Most interesting is the reaction from the UK. Dominic Raab initially made some
"balanced" remarks pointing out that Soleimani was a bad actor but counseling restraint.
The next day, presumably under directions from Boris Johnson, he retracted that and said
that the UK is on the same page as the US. This is a portent of things to come. I think
that most people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted to take back their
sovereignty from Brussels. But this weekend is probably the first step in the UK's march
towards becoming, in practical terms, a US colony. The UK's economy and other influence are
simply not large enough to stand alone against those of the US, the EU, and China. They
will be in something of a beggars can't be choosers position when negotiating trade deals
with these larger entities. They can expect the EU to do them no favors given their chaotic
dealings with them. China will probably take a pragmatic approach to them. Their best hope
for favorable treatment is with the United States, and Johnson has fawned over Trump enough
to have reason to believe it might happen. But it also entails that the UK will not be free
to dissent from US foreign policy in the slightest way. In fact, if we end up in a
conventional war with Iran, I suspect that the UK will be the only nation in the world that
sends troops there with us. (The UAE, Israel and the Saudis will, of course, cheer us on,
even goad us, but will not risk any of their own blood.) I wonder how Brexit supporters
will feel about that. At least Brussels never dragged them into any stupid wars.
Remember this date. It marks the date the UK began its journey from the frying pan into
the fire.
At this point the question is, can Trump have even a vaguely normal conversation about
anything? Certainly not foreign policy. Just how much of this manure can he spew before the
Republican Party responds? My guess is they've gone so far past the point of normal that
there's no coming back This is both sad and frightening.
One common response to Trump's threat to attack Iranian cultural sites is that the
military would not carry out such obviously illegal orders
I wouldn't put any hope in the US military disobeying such orders. It's not what they
are really trained for. They may pay lip service to having respect for laws of war but they
won't actually pay any attention to them. Respect for culture? Remember Dresden? The crude
barbarism of Sherman and Sheridan is the spirit of the US military.
As a conservative (not a Republican, but certainly not a Democrat) who cannot abide
thinking of any of the democratic candidates as President, I would love to see impeachment.
Mike Pence would be infinitely preferable as President to this little psychopathic bully.
Seriously, the last few days should principled non-interventionists know that Trump is
empjatically not one of us. He'd gladly sabotage the future of the United States on the
alter of his own ego.
"He sees war only in the crudest terms of plunder and atrocity."
It's a blunt but true observation. We spend most of our time justifying wars as noble
and moral, using euphemism to disguise the reality to ourselves and others. Two cheers for
being truthful.
I also note that destroying cultural monuments is claimed to be a war crime, while
inevitable civilian deaths are just acceptable collateral damage.
Let's not pretend that the long history of the imperial coveting of either Iraq's or
Iran's resources has ever been much more than plunder, often making use of atrocity. What
doesn't qualify as that, is great game imperialist jockeying for geostrategic advantage
against commercial rivals.
Of course "things" would be sacrosanct, while human lives are not, in the wholly
materialist calculus of warmongering.o
Attacking cultural-heritage sites, Pres. Trump? Like what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of
Bamyan? Or what ISIS did to ancient art, architecture, and artifacts in Mosul, Palmyra,
Raqqa, and more? What a barbarian!
Will Congress dare to eliminate funds for the occupation of Iraq and for attacking Iran?
Will all those that would vote for continuation of funding will be removed from office
through elections, in the very gerrymandered locales, in a FPTP system, with no ability to
leave work early to go to vote, with so many disenfranchised? The system is fully rigged to
be a dictatorship all but in name...
Another thing: Trump's decrying of the Iraqi war was merely a way he could rail at the
other Republican candidates. If the establishment was for it, he was against it. That's how
he works.
Maybe he fools himself into thinking he's got principles. Maybe he even thinks he has a
coherent foreign policy (or policy of any kind). But no, he's just narcissism and id all
the way down.
There's still no border wall. Still troops in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Planned
Parenthood is still funded.
Oh, but he waves the flag, doesn't he? That makes up for everything...right?
"... How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them. ..."
"... I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. ..."
How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them
into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's
request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how
depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all
in with Zionists and is one of them.
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder
cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of
the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous
grounds.
Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so
it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in
place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful
citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.
I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and
their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and
so many others before them to a place where the just repose.
"... "I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002. ..."
"... This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran, that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive allies, and say no . ..."
Now is the time for Republicans of conviction to stand together.
t speaks to the state of American politics when for three years the continued defense of
Donald Trump's record has been: "well, he hasn't started any new wars." Last week,
however, that may have finally changed.
In the most flagrant tit-for-tat since the United States initiated its economic war against
Iran in the spring of 2018, the Trump administration assassinated Major General Qasem
Soleimani, who for more than 20 years has led the Iranian Quds Force. The strategic mind behind
Iran's operations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East, Soleimani's death
via drone strike outside of Baghdad's airport is nothing short of a declaration of open warfare
between American and Iranian-allied forces in Iraq.
While the world waits for the Islamic Republic's inevitable response, the reaction on the
home front was organized in less than 36 hours. Saturday afternoon, almost 400 people gathered
on the muddy grass outside the White House in Washington, D.C., joined in solidarity by
simultaneous rallies in over 70 other U.S. cities.
The D.C. attendees and their co-demonstrators were expectedly progressive, but the
organizers made clear they were happy to work across political barriers for the cause of
peace.
"I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is
completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do
something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which
has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002.
Code Pink's Leonardo Flores, when asked what politicians he believed were on the side of the
peace movement, named Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican Senator Rand Paul. "I
don't think peace should be a left and right issue," he said. "I think it's an issue we can all
rally around. It's very clear too much of our money is going to foreign wars that don't benefit
the American people and we could be using that money in many different ways, giving it back to
the American people, whether it's investing in social spending or giving direct tax cuts."
This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran,
that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive
allies, and say no .
It's happened before. In 2013, when the Obama administration was ready for regime change in
Syria, Americans, both left and right, made clear they didn't want to see their sons and
daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters die so the American government could
install the likes of Abu Mohammed al-Julani in Damascus.
Of course, it was much easier for Republicans to stand up to a Democratic president going to
war. "It's been really unfortunate that so much of politics now is driven on a partisan basis,"
opined Eric Garris, director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, in an interview with TAC .
"Whether you're for or against war and how strongly you might be against war is driven by
partisan points of view."
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the movement that saw millions march against George
W. Bush's war in Iraq disappeared overnight (excluding a handful of stalwart organizations like
Code Pink). Non-interventionist Republicans can't repeat that mistake. They have to show that
if an American president wants to start an unconstitutional, immoral war, it's the principle
that matters, not the R or D next to their names.
Garris said the reason Antiwar.com was founded in 1995 was to bridge this partisan divide by
putting people like Daniel Ellsberg and Pat Buchanan side by side for the same cause. "These
coalitions are only effective if you try to bring in a broad coalition of people," he said. "I
want to see rallies of thousands of people in Omaha, Nebraska, and things like that, where
they're reaching out to middle America and to the people that are actually going to reach the
unconverted."
The right is in the best position it's been in decades to accomplish this. "I don't know if
you saw Tucker Carlson Tonight , but it was quite amazing to watch that kind of
antiwar sentiment on Fox News," Garris said. "You would not have seen [that] in recent history.
And certainly the emergence of The American Conservative magazine has been a really
strong signal and leader in terms of bringing about the values of the Old Right like
non-interventionism to a conservative audience."
It's the anti-war right, in the Republican tradition of La Follette, Taft, Paul, and
Buchanan, that has the power to stop middle America from following Trump into a conflict with
Iran. But it's both sides, working together as Americans, that can finally end the endless
wars.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to
The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
I also recommend reading the SOFA with Iraq which is a masterpiece of semantic and
legalistic deception- (and they have one year to actually get out after termination of the
"agreement")
Talking about deception, James Corbett did a brilliant exposé of the "difficulties of
crisis initiation" vs. Iran
After watching this enlightening video, reading the transcript of the "special briefing on
Iraq" by the State Dept. is like "stepping thru the looking glass" into a surreal world of
self-delusion, ("believing six impossible things before breakfast"), here is an example: (SSD
stands for senior state department official "One, Two or Three" (whose names apparently have to
be kept secret )
QUESTION: Thank you. Could you take us through the – so you – could you take us
through the diplomatic strategy for DE-ESCALATION? I mean, after the strike, what are the
main elements of our diplomatic plan to --
SSD OFFICIAL ONE: [SSD official Three] can both talk about this.
SSD OFFICIAL THREE: Yeah, first of all, we're stressing that we want to stay on in Iraq.
We have an important mission there, the coalition. We just spoke with most of the key
coalition members this morning, making that message to them. They also took the – well,
you need to de-escalate. We raised the point – and [SSD official One] can talk about
this is more detail – that we are ready to talk with the Iranians. We've tried to do
this in the past. That's on the table.
And again, the point I took with them, and I'll take it again here today: We cannot promise
that we have BROKEN the circle of violence. What I can say from my experience with Qasem
Soleimani is it is less likely that we will see this now than it was before, and if we do see
an increase in violence, it probably will not be as devilishly ingenious. Other than Usama
bin Ladin, he's the only guy – with Cafe Milano – a senior terrorist leader
around the Middle East who has tried to seriously plot in detail a mass casualty event on
American soil. Let him rest in peace.
"We did not wish to re-examine, condemn, and confront the violence in the
extra-constitutional power structure that finally ascended to hegemony over our citizenry and
over much of the world "
„I have never declared the covert actions of the U.S. intelligence agencies to be
incompetent. They are almost invariably and unerringly competent in murdering, individually and
massively, in defense of U.S. military dominance and empire."
(Vincent J. Salandria, author of The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State
Crimes )
These days the murdering takes place in "overt" action a barbaric act sold to the world as
"self-defense"
A Final thought:
Is there a more cowardly , dastardly act (by the "best military in the world") than
to tear apart a renowned military commander who fought the real war "on terror" (against
ruthless imperialism), with a drone??
Teevee coverage of the recent events in the ME has been predictable. Those who hated Trump
continue to hate him, etc.
A few observations:
1. I had hoped that Trump's decision to kill an Iranian general engaged in a diplomatic
mission (among other things) while the man was on the soil of a supposed ally of the US was
something Trump pulled out of his fundament either inspired by war movies or on the
recommendation of "our greatest ally" but I am informed that in fact some idiot in the DoD
included this option in the list of possibilities that was briefed to the CinC in Florida. The
decision process in such matters requires that when options are demanded by the CinC the JCS
prepares a list supported for each option by fully formulated documentation that enables the
president to approve one (or none) and then sign the required operational order. Trump himself
chose the death option. I would hold General Milley (CJCS) personally responsible for not
striking this option from the list before it reached the CinC.
2. The Iranians are a subtle people. IMO they will bide their time whilst working out the
"bestest" way to inflict some injury on the US and/or Israel. When the retaliation comes it
will be imaginative and painful.
3. Trump is now threatening the Iraqis with severe sanctions if they try to enforce their
parliamentary decree against the future presence of foreign (US mostly) troops on their soil.
IMO a refusal to leave risks a substantial Shia (at least) uprising against the US forces in
Iraq. We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged
in logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are
something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat forces in
Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army National
Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever devilment the
Iranians might be able to arrange.
4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major
airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from
there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country. It
is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through there.
The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.
5. Trump's strategery appears to be based on the concept that the Iraqis will submit to our
imperial demands. "We will see." pl
Apart from those you mention, what about Kushner, Netanyahu´s agent in Oval Office?
Or what about the siamesian creature Esper-Pompeo? It seems Pompeo was bomabrding he Donald
since months ago on Soleimani...One sees the face of Pompeo when graduating and WP and you
immediately feel a chill in your spine...There it is a guy who will not stop at anything so
as to go up...
Of course, I do not discard a master puppet behind him...but I would look for more in
Herzliya of whatever the name is...I doubt the Rothschilds are beihn Pompeo, otherwise he
would not look so ambitious, he already would show so calm and confident like Macron...
Yes, it's Ben Norton and the Gray Zone providing more in-depth info about
the peace mission Soleimani was conducting. Don't miss the NY Times extract provided at the
linked tweet:
"Iraq's efforts at brokering peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran were going very
smoothly... until the US empire blew it all to pieces by murdering a top Iranian general and
Iraqi commander."
Very clearly to me at least, Iran's Hope proposal was beginning to be acted upon, and as I
wrote two days ago, that couldn't be allowed to stand. Thus, how Iran responds is further
complicated by the initial success of their initiative--provided the Saudi position was
genuine and not a feint. Recall the HOPE proposal allowed for outside participation which
back in September I wrote it would be wise for Trump to applaud and promote--IF--he genuinely
desired Peace. Now the equation's been changed. The goal is now to completely oust the Evil
Outlaw US Empire from the region, but that can still be accomplished through the HOPE
proposal.
Now Zarif's been barred by the usual shitheads from attending the UNSC. IMO, the UNGA must
reconsider Russia's request to relocate numerous UN activities as the Evil Outlaw US Empire
has effectively ceded its position within the UN and clearly doesn't belong there.
US officials
said the majority stood with Washington "in stark contrast to the United Nations Security
Council's silence due to two permanent members – Russia and China – not allowing a
statement to proceed."
This after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a day after Soleimani's death that the US had launched
an "illegal power" move which should instead be based on dialogue with Tehran.
Forbes characterized Russian objections within the context of the UN
further :
He [Lavrov] said that the actions of a UN member state to eliminate officials of another
UN member state on the territory of a third sovereign state "flagrantly violate the
principles of international law and deserve condemnation."
Similarly China has stood against Washington's unilateral military action, with Chinese
Foreign Minister Wang Yi
saying the US must not "abuse force" and instead pursue mutual dialogue.
"The dangerous US military operation violates the basic norms of international relations and
will aggravate regional tensions and turbulence," Wang told Javad Zarif in a phone call days
ago.
Diplomatically speaking, the US faces an uphill battle on the UN National Security Council,
considering its already provoked the ire of two of its formidable members, who increasingly
find themselves in close cooperation blocking US initiatives.
Interesting. Look what Iranian General fought alongside the Americans when fighting the
Taliban. More and more convinced Israel owns the US and our foreign policy.
Hey jerkoff, look who a certain Iranian General fought alongside the US when fighting the
Taliban. Your projection and deception have all the hallmarks of a dirty ***.
Maybe, just maybe, China and Russia blocked the United Nations Security council statement
because it accused Iran of having provoked the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad.
Of some reason or another ZH does not tell us what the declaration said.
What part of "We don't have the money to fight endless wars" doesn't the MIC
understand?
Homeless people everywhere, bums outside every big box store parking lot, opiod epidemic
in our towns, low wage "jobs" everywhere, schools where are children are sitting in trailers
to study, tens of millions with no access to proper medication or health care, and the
assholes traitors want to waste BILLIONS on useless chest thumping all over the word.
The situation is like an drunk, impotent man walking around threatening to rape ladies up
and down the street.
Sad what has become of this one truly great nation.
The Neocons are not rational actors in any normal sense of the word. They would destroy
and/or enslave every person on this planet if they thought they could pull it off and it
would be to their benefit.
"... According to the Western media, General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' élite Al-Quods force, was preparing an operation intended to win back Iraqi public opinion ..."
"... The strategy attributed to General Soleimani is in no way consistent with his well-known modus operandi , nor with that of the Iranian secret services. Quite the contrary, it is strangely reminiscent of US Ambassador John Negroponte's rationale: foment an Iraqi civil war as a means of stifling the Iraqi Resistance. ..."
"... Other interpretations of the events are of course possible, starting with a US desire to seize on the mutual paralysis of the Iranian government forces and the Revolutionary Guards. ..."
According to the Western media, General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards' élite Al-Quods force, was preparing an operation intended to win
back Iraqi public opinion. [ 1 ]
In the midst of the Shiite community's escalating protests against Iranian influence over
the Iraqi political class, attacks have been allegedly carried out against US interests,
triggering a US response against Iraqi protesters, which in turn ignited Iraqi nationalism to
the detriment of the ongoing revolt.
It was, purportedly, in order to frustrate this plot that, on 2 January 2020, the United
States assassinated Qasem Soleimani and his loyal supporter Abu Mehdi al-Mouhandis. [
2 ] According
to the US, Iran had been forewarned through a statement delivered by US Defense Secretary Mark
Esper. [ 3
]
This narrative, even if logical, is hardly credible. The strategy attributed to General
Soleimani is in no way consistent with his well-known modus operandi , nor with that of
the Iranian secret services. Quite the contrary, it is strangely reminiscent of US Ambassador John Negroponte's
rationale: foment an Iraqi civil war as a means of stifling the Iraqi Resistance.
Other interpretations of the events are of course possible, starting with a US desire to
seize on the mutual paralysis of the Iranian government forces and the Revolutionary
Guards.
In their descriptions of Qassem Soleimani U.S. media fail to mention that Soleimani and the
U.S. fought on the same side. In 2001 Iran supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It
used its good relations with the Hazara Militia and the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which
both the CIA and Iran had supplied for years, to support the U.S. operation. The
Wikipedia entry for the 2001 uprising in Herat lists U.S.
General Tommy Franks and General Qassem Soleimani as allied commanders.
The collaboration ended in 2002 after George W. Bush named Iran as a member of his "
Axis of Evil ".
In 2015 the U.S. and Iran again collaborated. This time to defeat ISIS in Iraq. During the
battle to liberate Tikrit the U.S. air force flew in support of General Soleimani's ground
forces. Newsweek
reported at that time:
While western nations, including the U.S., were slow to react to ISIS's march across
northern Iraq, Soleimani was quick to play a more public role in Tehran's efforts to tackle
the terror group. For example, the commander was seen in pictures with militiamen in the
northern Iraqi town of Amerli when it was recaptured from ISIS last September.
...
Top U.S. general Martin Dempsey has said that the involvement of Iran in the fight against
ISIS in Iraq could be a positive step, as long as the situation does not descend into
sectarianism, because of fears surrounding how Shia militias may treat the remaining Sunni
population of Tikrit if it is recaptured. The military chief also claimed that almost two
thirds of the 30,000 offensive were Iranian-backed militiamen, meaning that without Iranian
assistance and Soleimani's guidance, the offensive on Tikrit may not have been possible.
Iran is not responsible for the
U.S. casualties in Iraq. George W. Bush is. What made Soleimani "bad" in the eyes of the U.S.
was his support for the resistance against the Zionist occupation of Palestine. It was Israel
that wanted him 'removed'. The media explanations for Trump's decision fail to explain that
point.
Elias Magnier also reported in his latest tweet that Soleimani encouraged Muqtada
El Sadr to cooperate with the Americans in order to achieve stability in Iraq. And the
Americans (on the orders of the Israelis) kill him in the most violent fashion possible.
On Friday's broadcast of Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends," network contributor Geraldo Rivera clashed with show
co-host Brian Kilmeade over Quds Force Supreme Commander Qasem Soleimani being killed in an airstrike directed by
President Donald Trump.
"I fear the worst," Rivera said. "You're going to see the U.S. markets go crazy today. You're going to see the
price of oil spiking today. This is a very, very big deal."
Kilmeade said, "I don't know if you heard. This isn't about his resum of blood and death. It is about what was
next. We stopped the next attack. That's what I think you're missing."
Rivera replied, "By what credible source can you predict what the next Iranian move would be?"
Kilmeade said, "The Secretary of State and American intelligence provided that material."
Rivera added, "Don't for a minute start cheering this on. What you have done, what we have done, we have unleashed
-- "
Kilmeade insisted, "I will cheer it on. I will cheer it on. I am elated."
Rivera said, "Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like!"
Kilmeade said, "That is not true. And don't even say that!"
Iraq will have to ask another country to provide air support. Iran can't do it. But Russia has those capabilities. I wonder if
relations b/w Iran + Russia will warm in 2020.
Iran has declared it will no longer abide by any of the
restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal.
In a statement it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment,
the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development.
The statement came after a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran.
Tensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in
Baghdad.
Reports from Baghdad say the US embassy compound there was targeted in an attack on Sunday
evening. A source told the BBC that four rounds of "indirect fire " had been launched in the
direction of the embassy. There are no reports of casualties.
Under the 2015 accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in
international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
US President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018, saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a
new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development
of ballistic missiles.
Iran refused and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement.
About 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic
State (IS) group. The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday's vote.
Mr Trump has again threatened Iran that the US will strike back in the event of retaliation for
Soleimani's death, this time saying it could do so "perhaps in a disproportionate manner".
Image
Copyright @realDonaldTrump
@realDonaldTrump
Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160~/news/world-middle-east-51001167" width="465" height="279"> <span>Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@realDonaldTrump</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump">Report</a></div> </figure>
The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, on life support ever since the Trump administration abandoned
it in May 2018, may now be in its final death throes.
Donald Trump, throughout his presidential campaign and then as president, has never failed to
rail against what he calls his predecessor President Barack Obama's "bad deal". But all of its
other signatories - the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany and the EU - believe that it still has
merit.
The agreement, known as the JCPOA, constrained Iran's nuclear programme for a set period in a
largely verifiable way but its greatest significance - even more so given the current crisis - is
that it helped to avert an imminent war. Before its signature there was mounting concern about
Tehran's nuclear activities and every chance that Israel (or possibly Israel and the US in tandem)
might attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Since the US withdrawal, Iran has successively been breaching some of the key constraints of the
JCPOA. Now it appears to be throwing these constraints over altogether. What matters now is
precisely what it decides to do. Will it up its level of uranium enrichment, for example, to 20%?
This would reduce significantly the time it would take Tehran to obtain suitable material for a
bomb. Will it continue to abide by enhanced international inspection measures?
We are now at the destination the Trump administration clearly hoped for in May 2018 but the
major powers, while deeply unhappy about Iran's breaches of the deal, are also shocked at the
controversial decision by Mr Trump to kill the head of Iran's Quds Force, a decision that has again
brought the US and Iran to the brink of war.
What did Iran say?
Iran had been expected to announce its latest stance on the nuclear agreement this weekend,
before news of Soleimani's death.
A statement broadcast on state TV said the country would no longer respect any limits laid down
in the 2015 deal.
"Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical
needs," the statement said.
Enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons.
The statement did not, however, say that Iran was withdrawing from the agreement and it added
that Iran would continue to co-operate with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
https://emp.bbc.com/emp/SMPj/2.29.5/iframe.html
'Nothing off limits for US' Hezbollah warns
US
Exit player
Media caption
'Nothing
off limits for US' Hezbollah warns US
The statement added that Iran was
ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement.
Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its
income under US sanctions.
Iran has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.
Sanctions have caused Iran's oil exports to collapse and the value of its currency to plummet,
and sent its inflation rate soaring.
How has the international community reacted?
The other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia - tried to keep
the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018.
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif,
to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani
assassination.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime
Minister Boris Johnson to work towards de-escalation in the Middle East, a German government
spokesman was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.
"... Several days after Efraim Inbar's paper was published, David M. Weinberg, director of public affairs at the BESA Center, wrote a similarly-themed op-ed titled "Should ISIS be wiped out?" in Israel Hayom, a free and widely read right-wing newspaper funded by conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson that strongly favors the agenda of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . ..."
"... On his website, Weinberg includes BESA in a list of resources for " hasbara ," or pro-Israel propaganda. It is joined by the ostensible civil rights organization the Anti-Defamation League and other pro-Israel think tanks, such as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). ..."
"... In the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA and U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia armed, trained and funded Islamic fundamentalists in their fight against the Soviet Union and Afghanistan's Soviet-backed socialist government. These U.S.-backed rebels, known as the mujahideen, were the predecessors of al-Qaida and the Taliban. ..."
The director of an Israeli think tank backed by the US government and NATO, BESA, wrote that ISIS "can be a
useful tool in undermining" Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, and Russia and should not be defeated.
By Ben Norton /
Salon
According to a US-backed think tank that does contract work for NATO and the Israeli government, the West should
not destroy ISIS, the fascist Islamist extremist group that is committing genocide and ethnically cleansing minority
groups in Syria and Iraq.
Why? The so-called Islamic State "can be a useful tool in undermining" Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Russia, argues
the think tank's director.
"The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose," wrote Efraim Inbar in "The Destruction of Islamic
State Is a Strategic Mistake," a
paper
published
on Aug. 2.
By cooperating with Russia to fight the genocidal extremist group, the United States is committing a "strategic
folly" that will "enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis," Inbar argued, implying that Russia, Iran and
Syria are forming a strategic alliance to dominate the Middle East.
"The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction," he added. "A weak IS is,
counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS."
US government and NATO support for ISIS-whitewashing Israeli think tank
Efraim Inbar, an influential Israeli scholar, is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, a
think tank that says its
mission
is
to advance "a realist, conservative, and Zionist agenda in the search for security and peace for Israel."
The think tank, known by its acronym BESA, is affiliated with Israel's Bar Ilan University and has been
supported
by the U.S. embassy in Israel, the NATO Mediterranean Initiative, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International
Affairs, and the Israeli government itself.
BESA also says it "conducts specialized research on contract to the Israeli foreign affairs and defense
establishment, and for NATO."
In his paper, Inbar suggested that it would be a good idea to prolong the war in Syria, which has destroyed the
country, killing hundreds of thousands of people and displacing more than half the population.
'Stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests.'
As for the argument that defeating ISIS would make the Middle East more stable, Efraim Inbar maintained:
"Stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests."
"Instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change," he added.
Inbar stressed that the West's "main enemy" is not the self-declared Islamic State; it is Iran. He accused the
Obama administration of "inflat[ing] the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a 'responsible' actor that
will, supposedly, fight IS in the Middle East."
Despite Inbar's claims, Iran is a mortal enemy of ISIS, particularly because the Iranian government is founded on
Shia Islam, a branch that the Sunni extremists of ISIS consider a form of apostasy. ISIS and its affiliates have
massacred and ethnically cleansed Shia Muslims in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
Inbar noted that ISIS threatens the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. If the Syrian government
survives, Inbar argued, "Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots, might
find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin." Jabhat al-Nusra is Syria's al-Qaida affiliate, and
one of the most powerful rebel groups in the country. (It recently changed its name to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.)
Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based militia that receives weapons and support from Iran, is also "being seriously taxed
by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests," Inbar wrote.
"Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the
bad guys busy and less able to harm the good guys," Inbar explained.
More Israeli think tankers warn against defeating 'useful idiot' ISIS
Several days after Efraim Inbar's paper was published, David M. Weinberg, director of public affairs at the BESA
Center, wrote a similarly-themed
op-ed
titled "Should ISIS be wiped out?" in Israel Hayom, a free and widely read right-wing newspaper funded by
conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson that
strongly
favors
the agenda of Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu
.
In the piece, Weinberg defended his colleague's argument and referred to ISIS as a "useful idiot." He called the
U.S. nuclear deal with Iran "rotten" and argued that Iran and Russia pose a "far greater threat than the terrorist
nuisance of Islamic State."
Weinberg also described the BESA Center as "a place of intellectual ferment and policy creativity," without
disclosing that he is that think tank's director of public affairs.
After citing responses from two other associates of his think tank who disagree with their colleague, Weinberg
concluded by writing: "The only certain thing is that Ayatollah Khamenei is watching this quintessentially Western
open debate with amusement."
On his website, Weinberg includes BESA in a list of resources for "
hasbara
,"
or pro-Israel propaganda. It is joined by the ostensible civil rights organization the Anti-Defamation League and
other pro-Israel think tanks, such as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP).
Weinberg has
worked
extensively
with the Israeli government and served as a spokesman for Bar Ilan University. He also identifies
himself on his website as a "columnist and lobbyist who is a sharp critic of Israel's detractors and of post-Zionist
trends in Israel."
'Stress the "holy war" aspect': Long history of the US and Israel supporting Islamist extremists
Efraim Inbar boasts an array of accolades. He was a member of the political strategic committee for Israel's
National Planning Council, a member of the academic committee of the Israeli military's history department and the
chair of the committee for the national security curriculum at the Ministry of Education.
He also has a prestigious academic record, having taught at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown and lectured at Harvard,
MIT, Columbia, Oxford and Yale. Inbar served as a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and
was appointed as a Manfred Wrner NATO fellow.
The strategy Inbar and Weinberg have proposed, that of indirectly allowing a fascist Islamist group to continue
fighting Western enemies, is not necessarily a new one in American and Israeli foreign policy circles. It is
reminiscent of the U.S. Cold War policy of supporting far-right Islamist extremists in order to fight communists and
left-wing nationalists.
In the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA and U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
armed,
trained and funded Islamic fundamentalists
in their fight against the Soviet Union and Afghanistan's
Soviet-backed socialist government. These U.S.-backed rebels, known as the mujahideen, were the predecessors of
al-Qaida and the Taliban.
In the 1980s, Israel adopted a similar policy. It supported right-wing Islamist groups like Hamas in order to
undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, a coalition of various left-wing nationalist and communist
political parties.
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," Avner Cohen, a retired Israeli official who worked in Gaza for
more than 20 years,
told
The
Wall Street Journal.
As far back as 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower
insisted
to the CIA
that, in order to fight leftist movements in the Middle East, "We should do everything possible to
stress the 'holy war' aspect."
Pelosi hailed the killing just after news broke of Gaddafi's October 2011 death.
She released the following
statement
on her
Congressional website:
Today's news marks the next phase of Libya's march toward democracy. After decades of tyrannical rule in Libya,
the world is hopeful that the next generation of Libyan leaders will bring their country out of this dark chapter.
The strong action taken by the United States, led by President Obama, and NATO, the United Nations and the Arab
League proves the power of the world community working together.
Moscow has a vested interest in the state of affairs in the Persian Gulf; it has tried its best to
contain the impact that the U.S.-Iranian crisis could have on its own national security.
The third area of focus is connected with overlapping humanitarian and economic concerns that impact both Russia and Iran.
These concerns have been footholds in the history of mutual relationships since the time of Russian and Persian empires.
Nowadays both of the countries are trying to compensate for their failures by pursuing policies that promote their own and
unique civilizations. In this situation the humanitarian sphere is one of the strategic ones allowing to pursue long-term
aims. Of note, Russian-Iranian educational and cultural projects have doubled since the Trump administration announced its
strategy for Iran. While the United States has been focused on "bringing Iran to its knees," Russia has been focused on the
future. Economic ties between these two countries have been strengthening over the past few years, with bilateral trade
reaching $2 billion in 2018.
Hopefully, Russia and Iran will maintain a positive relationship despite their differences and past difficulties. For
example, in 2016 Russian forces were pushed off of a military base in Iran that it had used to conduct military operations
in Syria. The strategic shift happened after the Iranians squabbled over whether foreign forces should be allowed to use an
Iranian military base. Also, the two countries have had some disputes over the fate of Syria. Despite these issues, Russia
maintains a positive relationship with Iran, which it further confirmed during a June 25
meeting
between national security advisers John Bolton, Meir Ben-Shabbat and Nikolai Patrushev. During the meeting,
Patrushev, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, declared that Russia would continue to accommodate Iran's
interests in the Middle East because it remains "the ally and partner" of choice in Syria. Both countries are focused on
preventing further destabilization in the region, he said.
Nadya Glebova is a fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a MENA
researcher.
Like any state Russia is driven foremost by its own national security interests. Given Iran's
proximity to its own near-abroad it seems impossible it could stand by and watch the Islamic
Republic be destabilized or even overthrown. Moscow has vital interests to protect in the
region, as does China. And it seems Moscow, Beijing and Tehran for all their differences
have a common interest against what they fear as US encroachment. It is interest that
ultimately drives countries to war. A war between the US and this tripartite alliance will be
a world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Like any state Russia is driven foremost by its own national security interests.
You hit the nail on the head. I'm amazed that so many Americans fail to understand this
truism about what motivates Russia's actions in world affairs.
Sadly, too many Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that Russia's a US
vassal state, or a banana republic of some sort subject to the West's mandate.
It's plain and simple....our USA government uses TERRORISM to conduct our foreign policy
objectives...for the sake of the corrupt few in power and for our corrupt terrorist allies in
Israel, Saudi, Europe, etc....killing and starving innocent people the world over. We
overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953 to steal its oil and other resources....we need to address
all the terrorism our government and the CIA conducts IN OUR NAME...before we pretend to be
"victims" of other's doings......we have created the vast majority of the world's current
crisis for power and greed.....we do not support democracy....the USA supports TERRORISM
against innocent people all over the world to keep them in line!!!
Putin's Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6,
2020.
Putin's Hour Is At Hand
Paul Craig Roberts
Vladimir Putin is the most impressive leader on the world stage. He survived and arose from
a Russia corrupted by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years and reestablished Russia
as a world power. He dealt successfully with American/Israeli aggression against South Ossetia
and against Ukraine, incorporating at Crimea's request the Russian province back into Mother
Russia. He has tolerated endless insults and provocations from Washington and its empire
without responding in kind. He is conciliatory and a peacemaker from a position of
strength.
He knows that the American empire based as it is on arrogance and lies is failing
economically, socially, politically, and militarily. He understands that war serves no Russian
interest.
Washington's murder of Qasem Soleimani, a great Iranian leader, indeed, one of the rare
leaders in world history, has dimmed Trump's leadership and placed the limelight on Putin. The
stage is set for Putin and Russia to assume the leadership of the world.
Washington's murder of Soleimani is a criminal act that could start World War 3 just as the
Serbian murder of the Austrian Archduke set World War 1 in motion. Only Putin and Russia with
China's help can stop this war that Washington has set in motion.
Putin understood that the Washington/Israeli intended destabilization of Syria was aimed at
Russia. Without warning Russia intervened, defeated the Washington financed and armed proxy
forces, and restored stability to Syria.
Defeated, Washington and Israel have decided to bypass Syria and take the attack on Russia
directly to Iran. The destabilization of Iran serves both Washington and Israel. For Israel
Iran's demise stops support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has twice defeated
Israel's army and prevented Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. For Washington Iran's
demise allows CIA-supported jihadists to bring instability into the Russian Federation.
Unless Putin submits to American and Israeli will, he has no choice but to block any
Washington/Israeli attack on Iran.
The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's
protection. This protection should be formalized in a mutual defense treaty between Russia,
China, and Iran, with perhaps India and Turkey as members. This is hard for Putin to do,
because incompetent historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war. But an
alliance such as this would prevent war. Not even the insane criminal Netanyahu and the crazed
American neoconservatives would, even when completely drunk or deluded, declare war on Iran,
Russia, China, and if included in the alliance India and Turkey. It would mean the death of
America, Israel and any European country sufficiently stupid to participate.
If Putin is unable to free himself from the influence of incompetent historians, who in
effect are serving Washington, not Russian, interests, he has other options. He can calm down
Iran by giving Iran the best Russian air defense systems with Russian crews to train the
Iranians and whose presence serve as a warning to Washington and Israel that an attack on
Russian forces is an attack on Russia.
This done, Putin can then, not offer, but insist on mediating. This is Putin's role as there
is no other with the power, influence and objectivity to mediate.
Putin's job is not so much to rescue Iran as to get Trump out of a losing war that would
destroy Trump. Putin could set his own price. For example, Putin's price can be the revival of
the INF/START treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the removal of NATO from Russian
borders. In effect, Putin is positioned to demand whatever he wants.
Iranian missiles can sink any American vessels anywhere near Iran. Chinese missiles can sink
any American fleets anywhere near China. Russian missiles can sink American fleets anywhere in
the world. The ability of Washington to project power in the Middle East now that everyone,
Shia and Sunni and Washington's former proxies such as ISIS, hates Americans with a passion is
zero. The State Department has had to order Americans out of the Middle East. How does
Washingon count as a force in the Middle East when no American is safe there?
Of course Washington is stupid in its arrogance, and Putin, China, and Iran must take this
into consideration. A stupid government is capable of bringing ruin not only on itself but on
others.
So there are risks for Putin. But there are also risks for Putin failing to take charge. If
Washington and Israel attack Iran, which Israel will try to provoke by some false flag event as
sinking an American warship and blaming Iran, Russia will be at war anyway. Better for the
initiative to be in Putin's hands. And better for the world and life on Earth for Russia to be
in charge.
More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me
trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office
in the land!
The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis,
the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?
Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted
to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by
an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving
half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence.
Learn your history.
All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever
heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from
having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from
kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for
him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt
care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American
that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing
The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil.
The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the
Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung?
Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to
distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.
"... If the plan is/was to leave Syria and Iraq, it was not. In this case it was a screwed, albeit mafia-style, tactical move killing two birds with one stone. ..."
Most
of the attention in this recent attack by a US drone at the Baghdad Airport has been on it
killing Iranian Quds Force commander, Qasim (Qassem) Solmaini (Suleimani), supposedly plotting
an “imminent” attack on Americans as he flew a commercial airliner to Iraq at the
invitation of its government and passed through passport control. But much less attention has
been paid to the killing in that attack of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, commander of the Popular
Mobilization Forces in Iraq and reportedly an officer in the Iraqi military, as well as being,
according to Juan Cole, a Yazidi Kurd, although the PMF is identified as being a Shia militia
allied with Iran.
The problem here is that supposedly US leaders approved this strike because there were no
Iraqi officials in this group; it was supposedly “clean.” But there was
al-Muhandis, with his PMF also allied to a political faction, the Fath, who hold 48 seats in
the Iraqi parliament. The often anti-Iranian Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, has now joined with
Fath and other groups to demand a vote in the parliament to order a withdrawal of American
troops from Iraq.
... ... ...
There is much more that can be said about this, but among less noticed responses I note that
although Israeli PM Netanyahu made a strong statement supporting the attack, apparently he has
ordered his aides not to talk about it further, and the Israelis are worried about possible
escalation of this In KSA, “Bone-Saw” MbS has said nothing, although supposedly the
Saudi had sought to kill Solemaini themselves.
Oh, and of course Mike Pompeo announced that this move has made Americans “safe”
in the region, even as Americans have been urged to leave Iraq immediately. So, yeah, they will
be more safe by getting the heck out.
likbez , January 6, 2020 3:22 am
@Terry, January 5, 2020 10:37 pm
it is not clear to me that killing Solemaini was a mistake.
If the plan is/was to leave Syria and Iraq, it was not. In this case it was a screwed,
albeit mafia-style, tactical move killing two birds with one stone.
But a more plausible hypothesis is that it was spontaneous Trump-style overreaction on
siege of the US embassy which now start backfiring in a spectacular and very dangerous way,
because Iran views this as the declaration of war (and not without reasons, see below)
"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was
scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to
Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated
Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had
asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no
wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming."
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop
presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups
to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized .
He called for closure of the US embassy and forming united Shia paramilitary groups to
fight occupation which he named "Resistance legions"
More specifically, Sadr issues a statement with demands:
• close the US embassy
• end security deal immediately
• close US bases in a humiliating way
• protection of Iraq should be handed to the Resistance militias
• boycott of US products
Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .
Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American
status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .
If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to
do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .
The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues
to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be
quite late .
I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing
protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .
There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like
khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .
"... In other blowbacks from the murder of Soleimani the Qatar leaders are fuming over the use of a Qatar based reaper drone to launch the missiles and were controlled remotely by operators at the US Air Force base in Creech, Nevada. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1608386/middle-east ..."
"... The picture of the meeting between the Qatar FM and the Iranian FM showed the Qatar flag with the red replaced by black in respect. https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/04/01/2020/Qatar-Foreign-Minister-meets-Iranian-counterpart-in-Tehran ..."
"... It should be noted that Qatar owes a debt of honor to Iran for supplying need food goods to survive a blockade by KSA and the UAE. Likewise, Qatar has close ties with Turkey due to the presence of a couple thousand Turkish troops that prevented a KSA invasion and has been supplying a lot of LGN fuel to Turkey. ..."
Wow the iraq PM office just stated that The US government had asked Iraq to invite Soleimani
to iraq for face to face deescalation talks with the US then murdered in the airport. Even by
outlaw empire standards this was insane they murdered a diplomat on talks they invited him
to. US diplomacy has been on decline for decades but this is reckless terrorist diplomacy,
with a single action the US has lost the middle east and killed the value of US assurances
and diplomacy
The Soliemani assassination now looks even more abhorent. Now it looks like one of the oldest
and most abhorent types of war acts: a fake parley turned into a murder zone. What the people
who seem to have arranged this - presumably the US and Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia -
apparently did not expect was that Soleimani was to become a martyr in the eyes of his
people.
Mercouris suggests that Soleimani expected and planned on exactly this: that he would become
a martyr and a unifying symbol in the end. Presumably he did not know when it would happen
exactly, or perhaps he did have a sense. Several people here suggested as much and it doesn't
seem so farfetched now. I'm reminded of Martin Luther King's death, though of course
Soleimani was far from being a man of peace as MLK was. MLK seemed to know that he was soon
to become a martyr and he seemed to accept this as a necessary thing, even as perhaps the
best way for him to continue his work. Obi Wan Kenobi lol! ,
But there is a correlating thought I don't see anyone picking up on yet. If this was indeed
an ambush, possibly, then it was preplanned. Trump's reported veiled references to people at
his resort ('something huge is coming') also seem to point to this. In that case it seems
even more likely that the initial rocket attack was itself a false flag operation.
They invited all the Tibetan leaders to attend the peace conference.. As a gesture of
respect, everyone removed a single shot from their rifle which left the Tibetan security
guards single shot muskets defenceless when the British opened fire and ended the tibetan
political power and started drawing the new borders.. After a while the communists took over
when the british left and a leaderless tibetan homeland as their own.. China is one third the
Tibetan empire.. It was taken without any resistance at all.. China in 5000 years was never
able to conquer Tibet.. But like the US helping exterminate christians world wide.. The
british helps other cultures get destroyed..
3. If Saudi tricked Suleimani by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was
expecting a message by him on the mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get
targeted.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 5 2020 16:52 utc | 44
More likely, Saudi will be pissed off at Israel enough to have a serious impact on their
relations! All the more reason to patch up with Iran and go for the HOPE plan.
All the attention is focussed on how Trump has messed up so badly, which he has - but
Israel has messed itself up even more badly.
Posted by Naijaa_Man at the Saker site on January 05, 2020 · at 9:58 am EST/EDT
"From Iraq Prime Minister's speech in Parliament, I gathered that:
(1) Trump told the Prime Minister that he will attack Iraqi PMU Militias, The Prime Minister
objected and Trump ignored him
(2) After the US Embassy protests ended, Trump called the Prime Minister and thanked him for
successfully persuading Iraqi PMU Militias to withdraw from Embassy grounds and Green Zone.
Trump refused to apologize for defying the Prime Minister's request to respect Iraq
Sovereignty and strike the PMU militias
(3) Trump asked Iraq to be a mediator between USA/Saudi axis and the Iranians. The Prime
Minister agreed and communicated the message to Iran. The Prime Minister asked Americans to
stop conducting helicopter overflights above PMU military bases, Trump ignored him
(4) With respect to the mediation issue, Qassem Solemani was in Iraq to deliver a personal
message from Ayatollah Khamenei to the Prime Minister when the Americans assassinated
him."
So technically, The Iraqi parliament voted to "ask" the Iraqi government to end the
security agreement with the US, end the presence of foreign troops & the international
coalition's mandate against ISIS, even in Iraqi air space "for whatever reason."
The surge in US forces only occurred following the 2014 defeat of ISIS in the battle for
Latakia, Syria where the Obama Administration backed islamists (many imported from Libya)
were relocated into Iraq and joined former Saddam military forces to roll back Iraqi Shia
forces. http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISIS_Governance.pdf
As discussed in the latest Grayzone 2 hour discussion it was Qassem Soleimani who was key
to the defeat of the US/Israeli/KSA/UAE backed ISIS forces.
As reported in RT, "Iraqi parliament has voted to have foreign troops removed from the
country, heeding to a call from its caretaker prime minister. The move comes after US
assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of Iraqi militia The resolution, which
was passed anonymously, instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance
to the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS,
formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the
jihadists and can close its airspace to coalition aircraft."
According to Press TV, some
Western military presence may remain for training purposes. The resolution says Iraqi
military leadership has to report the number of foreign instructors that are necessary for
Iraqi national security At the same time, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had
turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty The
interim prime minister said after the incident that it was clear it was in the interest of
both the US and Iraq to end the presence of foreign forces on Iraqi soil
More specifically, Sadr issues a statement saying the partial end proposal was weak
anyway, with demands:
• close the US embassy
• end security deal immediately
• close US bases in a humiliating way
• protection of Iraq should be handed to the Resistance militias
• boycott of US products
Meanwhile, "Iraq's (Kurdish) President Barham Salih has threatened to step down rather
than approve a candidate for prime minister put forward by Iran-linked political parties,
pushing Baghdad deeper into political turmoil after nearly three months of anti-government
protests."
"Protesters have demanded that the next prime minister be someone unconnected to political
parties they accuse of corruption. Yet the Iran-linked Binaa parliamentary voting bloc has
nominated Asaad al-Edani, a former minister and governor of oil-rich Basra province. Binaa's
bloc is mostly made up of the Fatah party led by militia leader turned politician Hadi
al-Ameri, who is close to Tehran. The rival Sairoon bloc, headed by populist Shia cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr, said it would not participate in the process of nominating a new
premier." https://www.ft.com/content/50f09fe4-27f4-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134
However, "Out of an eagerness to spare blood and preserve civil peace, I apologize for not
naming Edani prime minister," the letter continued. "I am ready to submit my resignation to
parliament." https://time.com/5755588/iraq-president-resignation/
My take is that the best way to minimize further violence would for the US to accept
Muqtada al-Sadr demands.
In other blowbacks from the murder of Soleimani the Qatar leaders are fuming over the use
of a Qatar based reaper drone to launch the missiles and were controlled remotely by
operators at the US Air Force base in Creech, Nevada. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1608386/middle-east
It should be noted that Qatar owes a debt of honor to Iran for supplying need food goods
to survive a blockade by KSA and the UAE. Likewise, Qatar has close ties with Turkey due to
the presence of a couple thousand Turkish troops that prevented a KSA invasion and has been
supplying a lot of LGN fuel to Turkey.
Today, the first blowback came as Al Shabab (backed by Qatar and the UAE) attacked for the
first time a US base in Kenya which came a few hours after the Qatari FM visited Teheran.
Link:
On a related note, Putin is scheduled to visit Turkey on January 8, 2020 to "officially"
open the Turkstream pipeline. Putin had better have extra security given the many murders
conducted for geopolitical gain by Western powers and their agents!
I close with a visionary French rock opera Starmania "story of an alternate reality where
a fascist millionaire famous for building skyscrapers is running for president on an
anti-immigration policy, and where the poor are getting more and more desperate for their
voices to be heard." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78LytR-6Xmk
Well that didnt take too long Marco Rubio (little Marco) is already calling on the US to
ignore the parliament's resolution and support a break away kurdistan in northern iraq
Trump is real clear. He has a target list of 52 sites. They will be hit if Iran does anything
at all. Or if Iran does nothing they will be hit. Paranoids invent slights and offenses. So
the bombs will fly, soon.
The only questions are what delivery systems, what armaments, how good are Iran's air
defences? I suspect Iran's air defences are quite good and plenty gets through anyway. So is
it nukes or "only" mini-nukes on the first round? Any way you look at it there will be a
second round. And then the next question. Can anyone or anything put the brakes on this
sequence of events?
Trump is just a second string gangster. The gangsters who are firmly in his camp are also
second string. The big boys have largely been absent, they don't much care who is US
President or how the little squabbles go. Wondering here if Rockefellers and Rothschilds and
the older families have good means for quickly getting a Hollywood rewrite on all these
antics or if the avalanche is now unstoppable.
As for the new information that Soleimani was lured and ambushed --- why would anyone do
diplomacy with US again? Even Lavrov has to wonder if he is safe anywhere. Ordinary diplomats
and functionaries at UN have to wonder if they are safe. Who would want to be so much as a
consular assistant?
Well that didnt take too long Marco Rubio (little Marco) is already calling on the US to
ignore the parliament's resolution and support a break away kurdistan in northern iraq
Forward @24. I believe yours is the correct interpretation. Israeli fingerprints are all over
this. Its the only thing that makes sense. Trump may have averted all hell by claiming
credit, but the truth will soon be out. And you can bet the farm that Iran already knows the
truth. This has already backfired spectacularly in uniting Sunni and Shia against the
US/Israel/Saudi. And we are still in the period of mourning. It hasn't begun yet.
@ oldhippie # 71 who wrote
"
Trump is just a second string gangster. The gangsters who are firmly in his camp are also
second string. The big boys have largely been absent, they don't much care who is US
President or how the little squabbles go. Wondering here if Rockefellers and Rothschilds and
the older families have good means for quickly getting a Hollywood rewrite on all these
antics or if the avalanche is now unstoppable.
"
I am of the opinion that what is going on is part of the elite script for our world and
only would be proven wrong if they go nuclear. This circus we have been seeing is the throw
America under the bus ploy while global private finance get to cull the heard and stay in
charge of human finance.....I hope they fail but having read The Shock Doctrine, I have had
this scenarion in my head for quite some time. Look at this forum and how many are of
faith....If the faith leaders back the God of Mammon core then think about how hard it would
be to eliminate......in spite of China's growing example.
It doesn't slow down from here, IMO, so we should have a pretty good read of what is
playing out in 6 months or so
Especially in times like these, people should remember what drives US foreign policy more
than anything else: maintaining the reserve-currency status of the US dollar. It's no
coincidence at all that the countries that the US establishment considers its biggest
adversaries are those countries which are resisting the dollar hegemony the most. The US
establishment may stop at nothing to maintain the dollar hegemony. Certainly it won't shy
away from such underhanded tactics as those employed in the assassination of Soleimani.
It's entirely predictable that the Iraqi parliament would order the withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq. And it's entirely predictable that the US will ignore that order. Likewise,
it's predictable that Iran will respond in some way against US military targets in the Middle
East, which will trigger US airstrikes against targets in Iran (as Trump has already
promised). At that point, it's war, plain and simple. Iran will most likely declare war on
the US after the airstrikes and then launch an all-out missile attack against as many US and
allied targets in the Middle East as possible. What happens beyond that is more difficult to
see. It may well become a case of "Apres nous, le deluge."
"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to
meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response
to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the
letter could be delivered by him. "
So if this report is correct, is there any word on whether the Saudi regime still stands
by this offer, and has Mahdi received it yet by another channel?
As for the vote, I've predicted in the last several threads that the US clearly is
throwing down the mask completely, will never abide by legal demands to leave, and will
resort to straight brute violence in an attempt to hold onto the country as a staging ground
for war. They'll try to force regime change if they can (though now that such a coup would be
directly engineered by the abominable occupier, it's hard to see what significant number of
Irakis would support it and serve in a puppet government. It would be like the fake,
zero-supported Mussolini retread regime the Germans installed after invading Italy in
1943.
Failing that, the US will try to wreck the place completely, turn it into total chaos.
Of course USA has threatened many times to nuke many contries, North Korea and China were
threatened many many times from the Mc Arthur times (1950) to just recently; of course North
Vietnam was repeatedly threatened with devastating nuclear attacks, and many others have been
subject to the same bully tactics that never ever worked and could have medium term
consequences, in the american citicens, difficult to predict.
Any nuclear unprovoked first strike attack of the USA to another country, to put it on their
kness, will be follow for a complete nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery
systems all around the world by nations and terrorist groups, and I think in few years it is
nos unthinkable some nuclear devices could explode in some american cities (by unknown
people).
China and Russia will prepare themselves all their allies for that eventuality bigly
Why do they think nuclear threats will work now with people with a martyrdom mentality
like Iran if it did not work in the past? why do the american military thinks the iranians
are so easy to scare? what do they think Iran and every Shia group in the world will do next
in the case of a nuke attack on Iran soil?
The world will be x1000 more dangerous for the american people.
Even nuking failed made Japan surrender, in fact was Zhukov crushing defeat of the
japanese Manchuria army and the fear that would be the Soviet Union who invades Japan and put
a red flag in the emperor's palace (you know uncle Joe was less fearful of soldiers' losses
than the americans counterpart).
The statement by the Iranian government regarding the measure reads:
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, in the fifth step in reducing its commitments, discards the
last key component of its limitations in the JCPOA, which is the "limit on the number of
centrifuges."
As such, the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program no longer faces any operational
restrictions, including enrichment capacity, percentage of enrichment, amount of enriched
material, and research and development.
From here on, Iran's nuclear program will be developed solely based on its technical
needs.
If the sanctions are lifted and Iran benefits from its interests enshrined in the JCPOA,
the Islamic Republic is ready to return to its commitments.
Iran's cooperation with the IAEA will continue as before.
With reference to Iran's defense capability, it has been noted elsewhere that Iran purchased
the Russian S500 system which is currently being rolled out. Inquiring minds would predict
that delivery is accelerated. Also, Iraq was considering the S 400 system and, again this
could be predicted to be an unpublished immediate decision. Looks like Erdogan was right to
stand his ground regarding the S400s.
Discussions appear to assume that Iran is relatively isolated politically. Perhaps
forgetting that they are allied in a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China, are an
applicant for the Shanghai Cooperative Association and a dialogue partner with the BRICS.
This covers considerable ground geostratically with players who are reflective, disciplined
and play a long game in attaining their goals. More probably than not engaged in dialogues
which are never revealed in media voices. Retaliation and revenge will be international,
ranging far beyond the middle east.
Posted by: Jose Garcia | Jan 5 2020 18:56 utc | 84
An election campaign with US soldiers getting killed by Iranian proxies with a
decentralized command structure? With a big explosion in October? Considering a "surge"
AGAIN?
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of
Trump directly in premeditated murder cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent
to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of the peace makers, for
they shall be called the sons of God.
I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his
administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. Where that will lead in terms of the
rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so it is
difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a
provisional government to be put in place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds
apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful citizens
coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is
heinous.
I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general
as well as his friend from Iraq and their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is
the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and so many others before
them to a place where the just repose.
The empire feeling it necessary to burn its assets like our resident bunny's credibility by
forcing the spin control beyond its limit is an indication of desperation (thank you bevin
@89 for bringing attention to that)
We can take pleasure from circumstances spinning out of the evil empire's control, but
keep in mind that means the empire's behavior will become more desperate and irrational the
further control slips from its grasp. More irrational and psychotic behavior from the empire
puts all of humanity in danger. It also makes analysis of that behavior more of a
challenge.
I fear oldhippie @71 might be correct. Even if Iran does nothing, the empire's psychotic
delusions are now so intense that America may lash out spastically anyway.
This is an interesting post which outlines the complexity of such situation and unpredictable
development of events after the initial crime
Notable quotes:
"... America's naive belief in the miracle of the assassination fantasy, especially when applied in the Middle East, reminds me of an Alzheimer's patient who believes in magic beans but fails to remember that the beans never sprout. We keep on planting the same seed and look anxiously for a beanstalk that never sprouts. ..."
"... We were no longer "peacekeepers." We chose sides and were fighting against Palestinians and Shia and, indirectly, Iran. A hotbed of military activity was the Hezbollah bases in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon. The recently deceased Soleimani, along with the members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), trained and equipped Hezbollah to battle the Christian controlled government in Beirut. ..."
"... We justify/excuse our act because Suleimani was really, really bad. Of course, we have trouble precisely defining the line that someone must cross in order to be "really, really bad." There are many instances in our history where we embraced really, really bad people (Joseph Stalin comes to mind) in order to pursue a goal important to us. Kim Jong Un, who also is responsible for the death of at least one innocent American, is another suspected bad guy who has gotten the pass to sit with President Trump rather than take a Hell Fire up the caboose. ..."
"... This latest strike is likely to come back to haunt us. We should not be surprised in the future if other countries, such as Russia and China, embrace our new doctrine of assassinating people we say are "imminent" threats. I used to believe that our moral authority counted for something. I no longer believe that to be true. I remain eager to be proven wrong, but if history is any guide, we have not learned the lessons we need to in order to create a better future. ..."
America's naive belief in the
miracle of the assassination fantasy, especially when applied in the Middle East, reminds me of
an Alzheimer's patient who believes in magic beans but fails to remember that the beans never
sprout. We keep on planting the same seed and look anxiously for a beanstalk that never
sprouts.
Killing Qassem Soleimani is the latest meaningless chapter in this blood soaked narrative of
revenge and retribution against a "bad" guy. Killing a "bad" guy makes us feel proud and
provides the emotional equivalent of a sugar rush. But there is no compelling evidence that
these killings actually advance the cause of peace or coerce the other bad guys into hiding in
a cave and praying that we go away.
Let me take you for a walk down memory lane. Let's start in Beirut in 1982--that's 38 years
ago. In other words, if you are younger than 45 this is likely to be new to you. The United
States during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan decided to send troops to Lebanon in late 1982 in
order to help "calm" a civil war. In June 1982, the Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon with
the intention of rooting out the PLO. The next two months witnessed furious battles in West
Beirut. Despite the raging civil war, the Lebanese held a Presidential election in August 1982
and Bachir Gemayel emerged the victor. Gemayel was famous in Lebanon for leading the most
powerful militia in Lebanon, which ferociously and successfully battled the Palestine
Liberation Organization and the Syrian Army. But his victory was short-lived. On 14 September a
bomb exploded in his Beirut
Phalange headquarters, killing Gemayel along with 26 others.
Two days later, Gemayel's party took revenge in the in the Sabra neighborhood and the
adjacent Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon, where several thousand Palestinians and
Lebanese Shiites lived. That massacre left between 500 and 3500 dead. The killing took place as
Israeli forces stood by and observed. The Israelis did nothing to stop the murder of women and
children.
That event created a deep thirst among both Palestinian and Shia leaders for revenge and the
war in Lebanon intensified. About a week after the massacre in Sabra and Shatila, the U.S. 32nd
Marine Amphibious Unit arrived in Beirut as part of a multinational "peacekeeping" force. But
instead of keeping the peace, U.S. troops fought on the side of Gemayel's Phalange party.
One of the targets for U.S. naval gunfire were Syrian backed forces fighting on behalf of
Palestinians and Shias .
Two United States Navy ships off Beirut fired dozens of shells today in support of Lebanese
Army units defending the town of Suk al Gharb on a ridge overlooking Beirut. It was the first
direct military support of the Lebanese Army by United States forces.
The cruiser Virginia and the destroyer John Rodgers, both guided missile warships, moved to
within nearly a mile of shore to fire five-inch shells at Syrian-backed Druse militiamen and
Palestinian guerrillas who were attacking army positions.
We were no longer "peacekeepers." We chose sides and were fighting against Palestinians and
Shia and, indirectly, Iran. A hotbed of military activity was the Hezbollah bases in the
Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon. The recently deceased Soleimani, along with the
members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), trained and equipped Hezbollah to
battle the Christian controlled government in Beirut.
Reagan's decision to fight against the Iranian supported forces had tragic consequences.
In April of 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was virtually destroyed by a truck bomb.
On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber detonated a one-half-ton pickup truck laden with
2,000 pounds of TNT near the front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people,
including 17 Americans. It was the deadliest attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission to date, and
changed the way the U.S. Department of State secured its resources and executed its missions
overseas.
At 6:22 on Sunday morning Oct. 23, 1983, a 19-ton yellow Mercedes stake-bed truck entered
a public parking lot at the heart of Beirut International Airport. The lot was adjacent to the
headquarters of the U.S. 8th Marine Regiment's 1st Battalion, where some 350 American service
members lay asleep in a four-story concrete aviation administration building that had been
successively occupied by various combatants in the ongoing Lebanese Civil War. . . .
Sergeant of the guard Stephen Russell was alone at his sandbag-and-plywood post at the
front of the building but facing inside. Hearing a revving engine, he turned to see the
Mercedes truck barreling straight toward him. He instinctively bolted through the lobby toward
the building's rear entrance, repeatedly yelling, "Hit the deck! Hit the deck!" It was futile
gesture, given that nearly everyone was still asleep. As Russell dashed out the rear entrance,
he looked over his shoulder and saw the truck slam through his post, smash through the entrance
and come to a halt in the midst of the lobby. After an ominous pause of a second or two, the
truck erupted in a massive explosion -- so powerful that it lifted the building in the air,
shearing off its steel-reinforced concrete support columns (each 15 feet in circumference) and
collapsing the structure. Crushed to death within the resulting mountain of rubble were 241
U.S. military personnel -- 220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors and three Army soldiers. More than 100
others were injured. It was worst single-day death toll for the Marines since the World War II
Battle of Iwo Jima.
Looking back at these events with the benefit of 37 years of experience, we can see that
assassinations by both sides (U.S. and Iran) did little to create an unambiguous victory or
achieve peace.
Hezbollah also employed another tactic that limited the military response of the United
States--hostage taking. Between 1982 and 1992, elements of Hezbollah in direct contact with
Iran's Revolutionary Guard kidnapped 104 foreign hostages . The most
notable of these were the CIA Chief of Station in Beirut, William Buckley, and Marine Lt
Colonel Rich Higgins (Higgins was later promoted to Colonel while in captivity). Buckley was
nabbed on 16 March 1984 and Higgins on February 17, 1988, while serving as the Chief, Observer
Group Lebanon and Senior Military Observer, United Nations Military Observer Group, United
Nations Truce Supervision Organization. Both men were executed by their Hezbollah captors.
None of this stopped the cycle of violence. In February 1992, Israeli forces launched a raid
into southern Lebanon and "assassinated" Sayyed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah's secretary general,
had led a commemoration marking the eighth anniversary of the assassination of Sheikh Ragheb
Harb. (Nicholas Blanford. "Warriors of God."
https://books.apple.com/us/book/warriors-of-god/id422547646)
Then we have Imad Mughniyeh, the founding member of Lebanon's Islamic Jihad Organization and
number two in Hezbollah's leadership. He was believed to be responsible for bombing the Marine
barracks in Beirut, two US embassy bombings, and the kidnapping of dozens of foreigners in
Lebanon in the 1982-1992 period. He also was indicted in Argentina for his alleged role in the
1992 Israeli embassy attack in Buenos Aires.
In February 2008, Mughniyeh was killed on the night of the 12th by a car bomb in Damascus,
Syria, which was planned in a joint operation by the CIA and Mossad.
It is worth nothing that Hezbollah and Iran dramatically shifted after 1995 from the
retaliatory terrorist strikes that were their calling card during the 1980s. As the Shias
carried out fewer terrorist attacks, Sunnis, principally Osama Bin Laden, ratcheted up
attacks--the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the coordinated bombings of U.S Embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. There is
controversy surrounding who to blame for the bombing of the US military based in Dharan, Saudi
Arabia in 1995. The FBI concluded it was Hezbollah and blamed Mugniyeh. But other intelligence
pointed to Al Qaeda.
Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States has done a lot of killing of
terrorists, real and imagined. Yet, the threat of terrorism has not been erased.
Before we get too excited about the effectiveness of assassination, it would be useful to
recall the dismal record of this method during the last 38 years. It has not made the world
safer or more stable.
The killing of Suleimani is likely to put Iran back in the business of attacking our
embassies and military installations. I also believe kidnapping of Americans will be back in
vogue. And these actions, as in the past, will be met with further U.S. retaliation and the
cycle of violence will continue to spin furiously.
There is another effect now that the United States has openly embraced the "Jamal Khashoggi
solution." The Saudis decreed Khashoggi a "bad" man and a terrorist threat. To their way of
thinking that gave them the excuse to chop him up on the sovereign soil of another country. In
this case, Turkey. We have now basically done the very thing that we condemned the Saudis for.
Yes, I know, Khashoggi was a journalist and Soleimani was a "terrorist." But the Saudis saw a
terrorist. Consider this as a corollary to the saying, "beauty is in the eye of the
beholder."
We justify/excuse our act because Suleimani was really, really bad. Of course, we have
trouble precisely defining the line that someone must cross in order to be "really, really
bad." There are many instances in our history where we embraced really, really bad people
(Joseph Stalin comes to mind) in order to pursue a goal important to us. Kim Jong Un, who also
is responsible for the death of at least one innocent American, is another suspected bad guy
who has gotten the pass to sit with President Trump rather than take a Hell Fire up the
caboose.
This latest strike is likely to come back to haunt us. We should not be surprised in the
future if other countries, such as Russia and China, embrace our new doctrine of assassinating
people we say are "imminent" threats. I used to believe that our moral authority counted for
something. I no longer believe that to be true. I remain eager to be proven wrong, but if
history is any guide, we have not learned the lessons we need to in order to create a better
future.
The number 52 refers to the hostages in Iran at the beginning of the revolution. Trump has
always used that to rally his idiotic base and sell any lemon he can think of in that
context. How dare they take "Americans" as hostages, is the attitude of this moron? And in
his childish brain he wants revenge for what happened 40 hears ago.
When the Iranian students took them hostage, it was a tense and chaotic time and nobody
knew who was in charge, including "the people in charge". But they kept them, they housed
them and fed them in a house arrest setting. Pretty much treated them as a guests, albeit
unwanted guests. Youtube is full of videos of ordinary Iranians bringing them food and books
and pleading with the guards to treat them well.
Unlike us, who we have a different take on hostages and "guests". We send them to the
Caribbean, give them orange jump suits, water board them, play loud heavy metal music 16
hours a day and keep them without food., without charge and without trial.
And in the end, these so called 52 hostages were used as a political pun by Jim Baker and
his team for the election of Reagan and he made sure they were not released until Carter had
been defeated and released on the day of inauguration. How convenient and coincidental.
Unfortunately, the sheep who comprise the bulk of the 30% Trump base, and perhaps many
more on the democratic side, will always buy this lemon with their warped sense of
patriotism.
This
summary by sputniknews (RIA novosti) of the US in Iraq since about 2011 is very concise
but decent and could be perfect for anyone in the US and elsewhere who doesn't know or
understand the situation.
So the Sunni's are going to be ticked off Trump took on Iran?
The Sunni man-in-the-street is much more likely to set aside his differences with the
Shi'a, than to takes sides with the kufar .
Think of it this way: if China invaded the US, which side would most Canadians
support?
Also, think about close-to-theatre demographics.
Iraq will be the US military 'boots on the ground' staging area in any conventional war
against Iran. Shi'a opinion will make all the difference.
Land warfare is significantly harder if your primary staging area is knee-deep in people
who are very sympathetic to the other side.
So consider
2/3rds of the Iraqi Muslim population are Shi'ite . They are concentrated in the
South-East of Iraq. Shi'a are a majority of the population of Baghdad, where the decent-sized
airports are (ignore USAB Ayn Al Asad: landing US forces in the middle of Iraq and driving
all the way to the Iranian border would be retarded).
So Baghdad would become a very (ahem) problematic staging area – especially
if Sistani and Sadr start to rile up the Shia (and Sadr has been doing that since Soleimani's
assassination).
The Sunni are split roughly 50/50 between Arabs and Kurds; the Kurds have no strong
affection for the Arabs, Sunni or otherwise.
So the only place the US has a relatively high proportion of friendlies (even assuming no
fraternity-of-convenience between Iraqiyyun and Jazirani ) is in Iraqi
Kurdistan.
Iraqi Kurdistan borders Iran sounds like a plan!
Well
You might look at a Google Map and think – " Well, all the Kurds are in the
North-East, so the US could just stage from Erbil or Kirkuk and have a straight shot to
TeheranU!S!A!!U!S!A! ".
Meanwhile there are people who have DEMs of the region (so can say things about
topography), and who understand how hard it is to transport men, WATER, artillery and armour
over mountains – even if you own the airspace outright (which the US won't, in any
engagement with Iran).
Think " Korengal ", but with an opponent with 21st century weapons and near-peer
air defences.
The effect of the latter on air-cav alone, should make people think really hard:
helicopters are critical in infil/exfil, medevac, resupply and operational overwatch –
and they are as slow as fuck and have pissweak countermeasures. 1Cav hasn't gone up against a
peer opponent since Korea.
.
Topologically The US has one logistically (almost-)non-suicidal option for 'boots on the
ground' invasion of Iran: everybody knows that.
That is why the US will resort to Hermann Göring fag-tardery, i.e., trying to rely on
air superiority to win a ground war.
For these reasons, the US will either lose or will use nuclear weapons – which will
hand Russia and China a moral victory, because it will permanently destroy US
self-hagiography about freedom and so forth.
.
And if the US attacks Iran, how long do you think it would take for a supertanker to be
sunk in the Straits?
Trick question – the correct response is " Which Straits? Hormuz or
Malacca ?"
The US has shown it can't protect Malacca without crashing into shipping: in a recent
display of historic comedic irony, the USS John McCain (named after Hanoi
Songbird 's Dad), showed itself to be as incompetent as the Songbird hisself, who
killed more US seamen than the Viet Cong.
And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited
beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions.
One must ask; Is the US presence in the ME really because of imperial ambition? At least
if it is I can understand. I mean, it's bad but that's what nations have done for centuries.
Or is America in the ME at Israel's insistence? Hers's the roll: Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq
2003, Libya in 2011, Syria shortly after that; not one of these countries threatened America,
not one. Yet we invaded these nations, and brutally murdered Qadhaffi and Hussain, and we did
it all based on lies dreamed up by Jewish dual citizens who call themselves American patriots
but who are really agents of Israel.
I'm not using the term neocons any longer, as the term is a lie, a mask. They are just a
large group of powerful dual citizen Jews many descended from Trotskyites that immigrated
from Russia in the 1930s. They hide their real intentions. And what are those intentions? To
protect Israel by scaring the American public through their propaganda organ known as the
MSM, scaring us into allowing a Trillion dollar military budget, and these forever wars. And
anyone who questions them is an anti-Semite. And, that's right from the mouth of Nathan
Perlmutter in his essay; "The Real Anti-Semite In America"
These parasitic dual citizen Jews and their Washington Think Tanks have to go. They are
liars and cowards who will fight for Israel to the last drop of blood spills from the last
American soldier. Trump knowingly, or not, is being used by these bastards. Today he's a
traitor and a liar too. Iran poses no threat to America. None Zilch
Rome was imperialist, Spain, England yes, but the US doesn't fit the definition. What does
fit is 'hired gun'. Right? So, who hired the USA? And, are they paying, or are they somehow
threatening us or blackmailing us?
"... After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US used the Northern Alliance to establish a foothold in Afghanistan and eventually drive the Taliban from power. Soleimani played a major role behind the scenes helping make the US-Northern Alliance partnership viable, including providing operational and intelligence support. ..."
"... "an Axis of Evil" ..."
"... The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 created another opportunity for Iranian-American cooperation, which the US promptly fumbled. While Iran had no desire for increased American military presence in the region, it found common cause with the US in removing its archenemy, Saddam Hussein, from power. ..."
"... Likewise, when the Islamic State erupted on the scene in 2014, it was Soleimani, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, who helped organize and equip various Shi'a militias under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Force. Soleimani went on to direct the PMF in a series of bloody battles that helped turn the tide against the Islamic State well before the US became decisively engaged in the fighting. Soleimani played a defining role in shaping the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11, positioning Iran to become a major power in the region, if not the major power. ..."
"... Soleimani's actions in accomplishing this outcome, however, were not part of a master Iranian plan for regional domination, but rather part and parcel of Iran's ability to react effectively to the mistakes made by the United States ..."
"... "maximum pressure" ..."
"... Murdered, Soleimani is transformed into a martyr-hero whose exploits will motivate those who seek to replicate them against an American foe void of the kind of self-constraint and wisdom born of experience. ..."
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union
as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf
War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. The US is unprepared for the consequences of
its assassination of Qassem Soleimani, if only because it knows nothing about the reality of
the man it murdered, and can't gauge the impact of his death on Iran or the Middle East. Qassem
Soleimani, an Iranian military commander whose paramilitary organization, known as the Quds
Force, helped position Iran as a modern regional power, was assassinated on January 3, 2020, on
order of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. American political leaders of both
major parties have been united in their description of Soleimani as an evil man whose death
should be celebrated, even while the consequences of his demise remain unknown.
The celebration of Soleimani's death, however, is born of an ignorance regarding the events
and actions that shaped the work he directed, and which defined the world in which he operated.
While the US has cast Soleimani as a byproduct of Iran's malign intent in the Middle East, the
reality is much starker: Soleimani is the direct result of America's irresponsibly aggressive
policies. In a world defined by cause-effect relationships, the link between Soleimani and the
United States is undeniable.
... ... ...
While senior Iranian military leadership advocated a massive punitive
expedition into western Afghanistan, Soleimani advised a more constrained response, with his
Quds Force providing training and material support to the Northern Alliance, an umbrella group
of forces opposed to the Taliban. Soleimani personally directed this effort, transforming the
Northern Alliance into an effective fighting force.
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US used the Northern Alliance to establish a
foothold in Afghanistan and eventually drive the Taliban from power. Soleimani played a major
role behind the scenes helping make the US-Northern Alliance partnership viable, including
providing operational and intelligence support.
The US-Iranian cooperation was short-lived; President Bush's designation of Iran as being
part of "an Axis of Evil" caused Iran to terminate its cooperation with the
Americans.
Training the anti-US Iraq rebels
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 created another opportunity for Iranian-American
cooperation, which the US promptly fumbled. While Iran had no desire for increased American
military presence in the region, it found common cause with the US in removing its archenemy,
Saddam Hussein, from power.
... ... ...
Likewise, when the Islamic State erupted on the scene in 2014, it was
Soleimani, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, who helped organize and equip various
Shi'a militias under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Force. Soleimani went on to
direct the PMF in a series of bloody battles that helped turn the tide against the Islamic
State well before the US became decisively engaged in the fighting. Soleimani played a defining
role in shaping the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11, positioning Iran to become a major
power in the region, if not the major power.
Soleimani's actions in accomplishing this outcome, however, were not part of a master
Iranian plan for regional domination, but rather part and parcel of Iran's ability to react
effectively to the mistakes made by the United States and its allies in implementing
policies of aggression in the region.
In the aftermath of the US withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement in 2018, and the
subsequent implementation of the so-called "maximum pressure" campaign of economic
sanctions and geo-political containment undertaken by the United States, Soleimani cautioned
President Trump against embarking down a path toward confrontation.
... ... ...
Murdered, Soleimani is transformed into a martyr-hero whose exploits will motivate those
who seek to replicate them against an American foe void of the kind of self-constraint and
wisdom born of experience.
Far from making the Middle East and the world a safer place to live and work, President
Trump's precipitous assassination of Qassem Soleimani has condemned yet another generation to
suffer the tragic consequences of American overreach in the post-9/11 era.
"... Iraq's parliament passed a resolution, urged by its caretaker prime minister, calling for the removal of foreign troops from the country, after the US' assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of an Iraqi militia. The non-binding resolution instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance from the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the jihadists and can close its airspace to coalition aircraft. ..."
"... Speaking at an emergency parliament session on Sunday, Iraq's caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation. ..."
"... Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stated in a letter that Iraq should go further and shut down the US embassy. ..."
Iraq's parliament passed a resolution, urged by its caretaker prime minister, calling for
the removal of foreign troops from the country, after the US' assassination of a top Iranian
general and a commander of an Iraqi militia. The non-binding resolution instructs the
government to cancel a request for military assistance from the US-led coalition, which was
issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly
defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the jihadists and can close its airspace
to coalition aircraft.
The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil
and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.
According to Press TV, some Western military presence may remain for training purposes. The
resolution says Iraqi military leadership has to report the number of foreign instructors that
are necessary for Iraqi national security.
At the same time, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security
Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty.
Speaking at an emergency parliament session on Sunday, Iraq's caretaker PM Adil Abdul
Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to
continue with the operation.
... ... ...
Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stated in a letter that Iraq should
go further and shut down the US embassy.
Some wondeer whether Isreal will exist in 25-50 year and it might be better emigrants from
Ukraine to move back.
Notable quotes:
"... John Kashis on CNN speaking from Ohio today reminded the host Wolf Blitzer that US under Trump scuttled and undermined a potential thaw in relations between US and Iran with Japan 's Abe mediating the contacts and subsequent meeting despite initially agreeing . Not unbelievable given what was done to NK. by Bolton gang . ..."
"... As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by Israeli agenda, ..."
@BLJohn
Kashis on CNN speaking from Ohio today reminded the host Wolf Blitzer that US under Trump
scuttled and undermined a potential thaw in relations between US and Iran with Japan 's Abe
mediating the contacts and subsequent meeting despite initially agreeing . Not unbelievable
given what was done to NK. by Bolton gang .
No Trump was not serious He thought he could billow smoke and scare Iranian like he
thought he could Venezuela and NK . Around this time last year this mean man bought and
raised by Zionists was exactly doing same thing to NK hoping they would fold.
Guess what Iran may not have nukes But it wont fold. Trump is psychopath a bully otherwise
he would have raised hell against Israel and against the overt bribing of him by Adelshon.
That is his character . He puffs and huffs . He knows sometimes those puffs might sway a reed
but he doesn't know it won't break or uproot them .
Trump is not honest even by his own standard .Patriotism or White nationalism is the cloak
he wears to hide this defect.
As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven
by Israeli agenda,
In fact, this crime and prompt approval of it by Bibi hurt Israeli interests a lot. This
was Bibi's agenda. Bibi hopes that a war with Iran would save him from a well-deserved prison
sentence. I hope not. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his miserable life.
"... So far we have aggression by sending of armed bands and irregulars; armed attack on the civilian population; a sneak attack in breach of the Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities; illegal war propaganda, to wit, fabricated chemical weapons attacks; and murder, a war crime in universal jurisdiction. ..."
"... Now we have one more compounding war crime: perfidy. Using the pretext of parley for ambush. ..."
Add one more war crime to the pile for when the SCO pulls Gina out of the fake rock and puts
her in the glass cage at Nuremberg II.
So far we have aggression by sending of armed bands and irregulars; armed attack on the
civilian population; a sneak attack in breach of the Convention relative to the Opening of
Hostilities; illegal war propaganda, to wit, fabricated chemical weapons attacks; and murder,
a war crime in universal jurisdiction.
Now we have one more compounding war crime: perfidy. Using the pretext of parley for
ambush.
When it's time to decapitate the CIA regime, the victors can really clean house. The US
used the purported Pearl Harbor sneak attack as legal justification for nuking Japan. That's
a handy precedent to have. No doubt there are some decent human beings inside the beltway,
but if Russia or China turn it into a sinkhole of molten basalt, no one will complain. The
USG's a cancer on the world. They've got to be put down like rabid dogs.
Most of the attention in this recent attack by a US drone at the Baghdad Airport has been on
it killing Iranian Quds Force commander, Qasim (Qassem) Solmaini (Suleimani), supposedly
plotting an "imminent" attack on Americans as he flew a commercial airliner to Iraq at the
invitation of its government and passed through passport control.
But much less attention has been paid to the killing in that attack of Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis, commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and reportedly an officer in
the Iraqi military, as well as being, according to Juan Cole, a Yazidi Kurd, although the PMF
is identified as being a Shia militia allied with Iran.
The problem here is that supposedly US leaders approved this strike because there were no
Iraqi officials in this group; it was supposedly "clean." But there was al-Muhandis, with his
PMF also allied to a political faction, the Fath, who hold 48 seats in the Iraqi parliament.
The often anti-Iranian Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, has now joined with Fath and other groups
to demand a vote in the parliament to order a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
It might be good for them to go, although Trump has just sent in 3,500 more Marines to
protect the US embassy that came under attack and protests after an earlier US attack on
pro-Iranian militias.
As an American who lives abroad, this is just a repainting of the target I've had on my back
for decades, compliments of people who live behind big defence perimeters and are surrounded
by teams of bodyguards.
Many lies (of course) and disinformation, but also clear policy.
Example: "Frankly, this war kicked off – people talk about the war. This war kicked
off when the JCPOA was entered into. It told the Iranians that they had free rein to develop
a Shia crescent that extended from Yemen to Iraq to Syria and into Lebanon, surrounding our
ally, Israel, and threatening American lives as well."
Pompeo refers to being at war with Iran. There has been no declaration of war by either
side.
The so-called Shia crescent is a major regional country developing regional allies,
regardless of the religous makeup of the various countries referred to. The implication is
that USA government will dictate the foreign policy of Middle East countries from Romes
headquarters 7,000 miles away.
It underscore that the policy is based on fear that Israel will be under military pressure
once regional countries have advanced missile systems, presuming that the foreign policy of
Iran is to militarily attack Israel.
USA knows this won't happen, but the occupied territories may well be sent arms by Iran.
Taking, in other words, a page from the USA government playbook, as it does exactly the same
thing. Evidence exhibit #1 = arms to so-called 'opposition' and to religous criminals in
Syria.
Israel is reaching a demographic (and water) crisis. It has no choice but to obey
International law and settle with the Arab population. It has been intransigent,
confrontational and obstructive for years. Now, it will be forcede to negotiate by the
realities of passing time.
Israel would do well to play fair and enter a genuine negotiation on fair terms (not a
one-sided diktat).
Iran would do well to abandon its 'maximum pressure' policy on Israel, recognize its right
to exist behind the Security Council agreed borders, and actively work diplomatically to
arrive at a fair solution.
Another example:
"In October of this year, George, the JCPOA, that nuclear deal, will permit arms trade with
Iran. That's crazy. That's crazy – have missiles and systems – high-end systems,
from China and Russia in Iran lawfully in October."
Pompeo is playing the definition game: 'our missiles = good. Your missiles = bad'.
Every country has a right to defend itself, no exceptions.
Which country has illegally invaded a sovereign country in the Middle East?
Which country illegally bombed the most developed country of the Middle East to a state of
infrastructural destitution?
So the USA foreign policy, it seems, is to prohibit sovereign Iran from developing any
means of defending itself with modern weaponry. Perhaps they will be 'allowed' to have
slingshots to defend themselves against USA government aggression.
The USA will have to change its foreign policy to accomodate new realities in the Middle
East. It's so-called allies, its Middle East NATO is a big fail. No suprise.
If it doesn't want to embrace the Iranian plan for all Gulf members to unites to police
the Gulf, maybe it should join the long-standing Russian effort for a multi-sided
consensus-driven Gulf peace plan.
"... Iran had every right not to renegotiate with US . Deal was deal. Trump could have left and followed the agreements . Instead his masters donors and his Jewish advisers made it sure that they could do through him what they all along wanted -- - ,strangling Iran through more sanctions. . ..."
@BLIran had
every right not to renegotiate with US . Deal was deal. Trump could have left and followed
the agreements . Instead his masters donors and his Jewish advisers made it sure that they
could do through him what they all along wanted -- - ,strangling Iran through more sanctions.
.
Iran didn't provoke unless killing the rebels and ISIS supported by Israel US Saud are
considered as acts of provocations . Unless Iran demanding implementation of JOPA was act of
defiance .
The lies about Iran killing 600 have been laid bare by Scott Horton in http://www.antiwar.com
CNN William Cohen is saying false flag and blamed enough Iran
Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he
is trying to avoid the responsibility.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
"... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
"... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
"... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the
killing of top Iranian
Gen.
Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an
imminent threat.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision
"will get us into what he calls
another
endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or
impulsively getting us into a major war."
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such
a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.
"I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes
manipulate
and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.
"That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have
an obligation to present the evidence."
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides
answers on "how this decision was reached ... then
this move is questionable
, to say the least."
"I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives
are at stake right now."
The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters
sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base
in Kirkuk.
The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling
Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting
the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said
Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.
"
We
took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani.
"We did not take action to start a war."
But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years
of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations,
which have led to U.S. deaths .
Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
Rival Shi'ite political leaders on Friday called for American troops to be expelled from Iraq
after a U.S. air strike in Baghdad killed a senior Iranian general, in an unusual show of
unity among factions that have squabbled for months.
How can the neocons and chickenhawks justify results like this No, Russia nd China are not
next Because they have nukes ad the means to deliver them. Trump can't even stop
groveling to North Korea.
"... As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by Israeli agenda, it is creating popular unity in Iran despite all the recent socio-economic turmoil, political unity in Iraq despite the faction fractures, provides the framework for expelling US forces from Iraq, strengthens the Shia Crescent, brings together Shia and Sunni in all of the Muslim world, will provide the opportunity for some traditional US allies (Germany, France) to devise a more independent foreign policy, and the list of unintended consequences goes on. ..."
"... Iran is not like the US, who let Israel murder its citizens in total impunity during 9/11; they will use this adverse event to re-shape the region at their advantage. ..."
@Colin Wright
The way President Trump's ME policy is seen by the people of the region (as summarised by
Hassan Nasrallah) is that his strategies led to utter and complete failure.
– He repudiated the JCPOA and applied sanctions, requiring Iran to beg for
negotiations; they completely ignored him.
– Lebanon's Hezbollah has tremendously improved their military capabilities against the
demented racist state North of Gaza.
– Iraq is breaking free.
– The US-led coalition has lost the war on Syria.
– President Trump has recently made a political somersault and was obliged to initiate
talks with the Talibans, talks he initially repudiated.
– He just further lost credibility by abandoning the US Kurd allies to be slaughtered
by Erdogan.
– The wretched, impoverished, powerless Palestinians have superbly ignored his "Deal of
the Century"; they did not even attend the meetings.
If this is success, I wonder how failure looks like.
As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by
Israeli agenda, it is creating popular unity in Iran despite all the recent socio-economic
turmoil, political unity in Iraq despite the faction fractures, provides the framework for
expelling US forces from Iraq, strengthens the Shia Crescent, brings together Shia and Sunni
in all of the Muslim world, will provide the opportunity for some traditional US allies
(Germany, France) to devise a more independent foreign policy, and the list of unintended
consequences goes on.
Only short-sighted Hasbara trolsl can think that the Solaimani murder is a success.
Iran is not like the US, who let Israel murder its citizens in total impunity during 9/11;
they will use this adverse event to re-shape the region at their advantage.
Israel is a short-sighted, greedy poker player; Iran is a profound, sophisticated chess
player who will win the long game.
@ChuckOrloski
At the time I thought that it might be justified, if Al Qaida actually did 9/11. Now I know
that Al Qaida was and is a CIA operation and have my doubts regarding its involvement in
9/11.
Even if it was, that was on direct orders of its American handlers.
What's more, now I
know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it
says. In fact, you can safely assume that everything it says is a lie and be right 99.9% of
the time.
So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now.
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
Looks like Trump administration buried the Treaty of non-proliferation once and for all. From now on only a country with
nuclear weapons can be viewed as a sovereign country.
Notable quotes:
"... To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran ..."
"... Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable". ..."
"... The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis. ..."
Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is
being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither
men can afford to do so, which makes it likely that a lot more people than just Maj. Gen.
Soleimani might be about to die.
To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not
abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event
in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating
tensions with Iran (despite believing that they're doing so in "self-defense)
Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict
on it in response to their actions could be "manageable".
The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons
safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable"
costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be
manipulated into a serious crisis.
"... This switch in US foreign policy was known in the White House of 2007 as "the redirection". It meant that Sunni jihadists like Al-Qaida and later al-Nusra were able to switch back to being valued allies of the United States. It redoubled the slavish tying of US foreign policy to Saudi interests. The axis was completed once Mohammad Bin Salman took control of Saudi Arabia. His predecessors had been coy about their de facto alliance with Israel. MBS felt no shyness about openly promoting Israeli interests, under the cloak of mutual alliance against Iran, calculating quite correctly that Arab street hatred of the Shia outweighed any solidarity with the Palestinians. Common enemies were easy for the USA/Saudi/Israeli alliance to identify; Iran, the Houthi, Assad and of course the Shia Hezbollah, the only military force to have given the Israelis a bloody nose. The Palestinians themselves are predominantly Sunni and their own Hamas was left friendless and isolated. ..."
"... Such precarious balance as there ever was in Iraq was upset this last two months when the US and Israelis transported more of their ISIL Sunni jihadists into Iraq, to escape the pincer of the Turkish, Russian and Syrian government forces. The Iranians were naturally not going to stand for this and Iranian militias were successfully destroying the ISIL remnants, which is why General Qassem Suleimani was in Iraq, why a US mercenary assisting ISIL was killed in an Iranian militia rocket attack, and why Syrian military representatives were being welcomed at Baghdad airport. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tel Aviv and Riyadh will also be celebrating today at the idea that their dream of the USA destroying their regional rival Iran, as Iraq and Libya were destroyed, is coming closer. The USA could do this. The impact of technology on modern warfare should not be underestimated. There is a great deal of wishful thinking that fantasizes about US military defeat, but it is simply unrealistic if the USA actually opted for full scale invasion. ..."
"... Technology is a far greater factor in warfare than it was in the 1960s. The USA could destroy Iran, but the cost and the ramifications would be enormous, and not only the entire Middle East but much of South Asia would be destabilized, including of course Pakistan. My reading of Trump remains that he is not a crazed Clinton-type war hawk and it will not happen. We all have to pray it does not. ..."
For the United States to abandon proxy warfare
and directly kill one of Iran's most senior political figures has changed international
politics in a fundamental way. It is a massive error. Its ramifications are profound and
complex.
There is also a lesson to be learned here in that this morning there will be excitement and
satisfaction in the palaces of Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Tehran. All of the political
elites will see prospects for gain from the new fluidity. While for ordinary people in all
those countries there is only the certainty of more conflict, death and economic loss, for the
political elite, the arms manufacturers, the military and security services and allied
interests, the hedge funds, speculators and oil companies, there are the sweet smells of cash
and power.
Tehran will be pleased because the USA has just definitively lost Iraq. Iraq has a Shia
majority and so naturally tends to ally with Iran. The only thing preventing that was the Arab
nationalism of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Socialist Party. Bush and Blair were certainly fully
informed that by destroying the BA'ath system they were creating an Iranian/Iraqi nexus, but
they decided that was containable. The "containment" consisted of a deliberate and profound
push across the Middle East to oppose Shia influence in proxy wars everywhere.
This is the root cause of the disastrous war in Yemen, where the Zaidi-Shia would have been
victorious long ago but for the sustained brutal aerial warfare on civilians carried out by the
Western powers through Saudi Arabia. This anti-Shia western policy included the unwavering
support for the Sunni Bahraini autocracy in the brutal suppression of its overwhelmingly Shia
population. And of course it included the sustained and disastrous attempt to overthrow the
Assad regime in Syria and replace it with pro-Saudi Sunni jihadists.
This switch in US foreign policy
was known in the White House of 2007 as "the redirection". It meant that Sunni jihadists like
Al-Qaida and later al-Nusra were able to switch back to being valued allies of the United
States. It redoubled the slavish tying of US foreign policy to Saudi interests. The axis was
completed once Mohammad Bin Salman took control of Saudi Arabia. His predecessors had been coy
about their de facto alliance with Israel. MBS felt no shyness about openly promoting Israeli
interests, under the cloak of mutual alliance against Iran, calculating quite correctly that
Arab street hatred of the Shia outweighed any solidarity with the Palestinians. Common enemies
were easy for the USA/Saudi/Israeli alliance to identify; Iran, the Houthi, Assad and of course
the Shia Hezbollah, the only military force to have given the Israelis a bloody nose. The
Palestinians themselves are predominantly Sunni and their own Hamas was left friendless and
isolated.
The principal difficulty of this policy for the USA of course is Iraq. Having imposed a
rough democracy on Iraq, the governments were always likely to be Shia dominated and highly
susceptible to Iranian influence. The USA had a continuing handle through dwindling occupying
forces and through control of the process which produced the government. They also provided
financial resources to partially restore the physical infrastructure the US and its allies had
themselves destroyed, and of course to fund a near infinite pool of corruption.
That US influence was balanced by strong Iranian aligned militia forces who were an
alternative source of strength to the government of Baghdad, and of course by the fact that the
center of Sunni tribal strength, the city of Falluja, had itself been obliterated by the United
States, three times, in an act of genocide of Iraqi Sunni population.
Through all this the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi had until now tiptoed with great
care. Pro-Iranian yet a long term American client, his government maintained a form of
impartiality based on an open hand to accept massive bribes from anybody. That is now over. He
is pro-Iranian now.
Such precarious balance as there ever was in Iraq was upset this last two months when the US
and Israelis transported more of their ISIL Sunni jihadists into Iraq, to escape the pincer of
the Turkish, Russian and Syrian government forces. The Iranians were naturally not going to
stand for this and Iranian militias were successfully destroying the ISIL remnants, which is
why General Qassem Suleimani was in Iraq, why a US mercenary assisting ISIL was killed in an
Iranian militia rocket attack, and why Syrian military representatives were being welcomed at
Baghdad airport.
It is five years since I was last in the Green Zone in Baghdad, but it is extraordinarily
heavily fortified with military barriers and checks every hundred yards, and there is no way
the crowd could have been allowed to attack the US Embassy without active Iraqi government
collusion. That profound political movement will have been set in stone by the US assassination
of Suleimani. Tehran will now have a grip on Iraq that could prove to be unshakable.
Nevertheless, Tel Aviv and Riyadh will also be celebrating today at the idea that their
dream of the USA destroying their regional rival Iran, as Iraq and Libya were destroyed, is
coming closer. The USA could do this. The impact of technology on modern warfare should not be
underestimated. There is a great deal of wishful thinking that fantasizes about US military
defeat, but it is simply unrealistic if the USA actually opted for full scale invasion.
Technology is a far greater factor in warfare than it was in the 1960s. The USA could destroy
Iran, but the cost and the ramifications would be enormous, and not only the entire Middle East
but much of South Asia would be destabilized, including of course Pakistan. My reading of Trump
remains that he is not a crazed Clinton-type war hawk and it will not happen. We all have to
pray it does not.
There will also today be rejoicing in Washington. There is nothing like an apparently
successful military attack in a US re-election campaign. The Benghazi Embassy disaster left a
deep scar upon the psyche of Trump's support base in particular, and the message that Trump
knows how to show the foreigners not to attack America is going down extremely well where it
counts, whatever wise people on CNN may say.
So what happens now? Consolidating power in Iraq and finishing the destruction of ISIL in
Iraq will be the wise advance that Iranian statesman can practically gain from these events.
But that is, of course, not enough to redeem national honor. Something quick and spectacular is
required for that. It is hard not to believe there must be a very real chance of action being
taken against shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, which Iran can do with little prior
preparation. Missile attacks on Saudi Arabia or Israel are also well within Iran's capability,
but it seems more probable that Iran will wish to strike a US target rather than a proxy. An
Ambassador may be assassinated. Further missile strikes against US outposts in Iraq are also
possible. All of these scenarios could very quickly lead to disastrous escalation.
In the short term, Trump in this situation needs either to pull out troops from Iraq or
massively to reinforce them. The UK does not have the latter option, having neither men nor
money, and should remove its 1400 troops now. Whether the "triumph" of killing Suleimani gives
Trump enough political cover for an early pullout – the wise move – I am unsure.
2020 is going to be a very dangerous year indeed.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He
was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the
University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from
his website .
"... As is evident from the yellow, green, red and black circles on the map below, which circles outline each missile's striking range, the overwhelming bulk of Iran's missile force has a range of 500 miles or less. These missiles are capable of hitting targets in the immediate vicinity of the Persian Gulf, or roughly the same area which encompasses the 35 military bases designated by American flags in the graphic above. ..."
"... Stated differently, Iran's extremely modest military capacities are not remotely about an offensive threat to the American homeland. They are overwhelmingly about defending itself in its own neighborhood, where Washington has been intervening and occupying with massive firepower and hostile intent for decades. ..."
"... So left to its own devices, Tehran would produce 5 million barrels per day from its abundant reserves. That's barely one-tenth of its present meager output, which is owing to Washington's vicious sanctions against any and all customers for its oil and potential investors in modernizing and expanding it production capacity. ..."
"... So if it's not ISIS or oil, exactly why does Washington maintain the circle of 35 bases displayed in the graphic above and keep thousands of US troops and other personnel in harms' way in the region? ..."
"... The answer, of course, is that the foreign policy apparatus of the US government is controlled by anti-Iran neocons and regime changers. We are still in Syria not to fight ISIS, which is gone, but to block Iran's land route to its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah); and we remain in Iraq solely to use it as a base for clandestine US and Israeli attacks on these allies and proxy forces. ..."
"... Likewise, the US military-industrial complex's greed and appetite for power and pelf is so voracious that it will embrace any and all missions anywhere on the planet – no matter how stupid or futile or immoral, as per the case of 19-years in Afghanistan – that keep the budgetary loot flowing. ..."
"... For crying out loud, Washington has been demonizing, ostracizing and economically attacking Iran for decades, and is now literally attempting to destroy its economy and society through is oil sanctions and its "maximum pressure" campaign that aims to bring the fate of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi to its top leaders in Tehran. ..."
"... That's why Secretary of State Pompeo's statement justifying the Donald's act of naked aggression is so hideous. ..."
"... Washington is putting the entire nation of Iran at risk in the very place where God or evolution, as the case may be, formed the peninsula on which it resides; and it is doing so without any Iranian provocation against the security of the American homeland whatsoever. ..."
"... "I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives," Pompeo told CNN. ..."
By the twisted logic of Imperial Washington you could
say the Iranians were asking for it. After all, they had the nerve to locate their country
right in the middle of 35 U.S. military bases!
Then again, your saner angels may ask: What in the hell is Washington doing with a massive
military footprint in a region and in a string of backwater countries that have virtually no
bearing on homeland security, safety and liberty?
In fact, Washington destroyed the former for no good reason and based on egregious Big Lies
about Saddam's nonexistent WMDs and sheltering of al-Qaeda. That turned Iraq into a failed
state hellhole pulsating with sectarian frictions and anti-American grievances – even as
the rump state of Iraq centered in Baghdad fell under the control of Iran-friendly Shiite
politicians and militias.
At the same time, Iran itself is zero threat to the American homeland. It's tiny $350
billion GDP amounts to 6 days of US annual output and its $20 billion defense budget is
equivalent to what the Pentagon wastes every 8 days.
Militarily, it has no blue water navy, an air force that could double as a cold war museum
and a short and medium range missile force that is self-evidently dedicated to defense and
deterrence in the region, not an attack on the USA way over on the yonder side of the deep blue
seas.
Its 300 or so active aircraft, for example, include 175 US F-4, F-5, F-14 and sundry
transports, helicopters and trainers purchased by the Shah during the 1970s and
kept together since the revolution with bailing wire and bubble gum. It also fields 60 or so
Soviet vintage MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su attack aircraft – plus a few dozen European and
Chinese planes of mostly ancient design.
Likewise, even its most advanced medium range cruise missile (Soumar) can barely get to
Rome, Italy, to say nothing of Rome, Georgia.
As is evident from the yellow, green, red and black circles on the map below, which circles
outline each missile's striking range, the overwhelming bulk of Iran's missile force has a
range of 500 miles or less. These missiles are capable of hitting targets in the immediate
vicinity of the Persian Gulf, or roughly the same area which encompasses the 35 military bases
designated by American flags in the graphic above.
Stated differently, Iran's extremely modest military capacities are not remotely about an
offensive threat to the American homeland. They are overwhelmingly about defending itself in
its own neighborhood, where Washington has been intervening and occupying with massive
firepower and hostile intent for decades.
Therein, of course, lies a hint. More than 13 years after Saddam's last hurrah on a Baghdad
gallows, the US still has upwards of 30,000 troops and contractors in the immediate vicinity of
the Persian Gulf. But why?
It can't be owing to ISIS. The Islamic State was never much more than a no count salient of
dusty, woebegone towns and villages on the Upper Euphrates straddling Western Iraq and
northeastern Syria that was destined to collapse on its own barbaric madness anyway; and which
was essentially dispatched by the Russian air force, Assad's military and the Shiite militia
forces organized by the dead man himself, Major General Soleimani.
Likewise, it should be obvious by now that it's not the oil, either. At the moment the US is
producing nearly 13 million barrels per day and is the world's leading oil producer –
well ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia; and is now actually a net exporter of crude for the
first time in three-quarters of a century.
Besides, the Fifth Fleet has never been the solution to oil security. The cure for high
prices is high prices – as the great US shale oil and Canadian heavy oil booms so
cogently demonstrate, among others.
And the route to global oil industry stability is peaceful commerce because virtually every
regime – regardless of politics and ideology – needs all the oil revenue it can
muster to fund its own rule and keep its population reasonably pacified.
Surely, there is no better case for the latter than that of Iran itself – with an
economy burdened by decades of war, sanctions and mis-rule and an 80-million population that
aspires to a western standard of living.
So left to its own devices, Tehran would produce 5 million barrels per day from its abundant
reserves. That's barely one-tenth of its present meager output, which is owing to Washington's
vicious sanctions against any and all customers for its oil and potential investors in
modernizing and expanding it production capacity.
So if it's not ISIS or oil, exactly why does Washington maintain the circle of 35 bases
displayed in the graphic above and keep thousands of US troops and other personnel in harms'
way in the region?
Or more to the moment, why has the Donald been unable to bring the forces home as he has so
often proclaimed to be his policy?
The answer, of course, is that the foreign policy apparatus of the US government is
controlled by anti-Iran neocons and regime changers. We are still in Syria not to fight ISIS,
which is gone, but to block Iran's land route to its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah);
and we remain in Iraq solely to use it as a base for clandestine US and Israeli attacks on
these allies and proxy forces.
These Washington instigated or conducted attacks on Iranian allies, in fact, are why there
was growing pressure in the Iraqi government to demand that the US finally leave. These
pressures will now become overwhelming in light of this week's US bombing of five PMF camps
(Popular Mobilization Forces) which are Shiite militias that have been integrated into the
Iraqi army and which are under the command of its prime minister, and last night's
assassination of their Deputy Commander along with Soleimani.
To be sure, Iran's choice of allies has nothing to do with America's homeland security: None
of the sovereign governments of Lebanon (where Hezbollah is the leading political party) or
Syria or even Iraq (which is an ostensible US ally) have protested these confession (i.e.
Shiite) based arrangements and the aid and benefits which flow from them.
That's because the so-called Shiite crescent is a bogeyman invented by Bibi Netanyahu and is
the excuse for his hysterical anti-Iranian foreign policy. The latter is not even designed to
enhance Israel's own security, but to vilify a "far enemy" that can keep his rightwing
coalition glued together and himself in power.
Likewise, the US military-industrial complex's greed and appetite for power and pelf is so
voracious that it will embrace any and all missions anywhere on the planet – no matter
how stupid or futile or immoral, as per the case of 19-years in Afghanistan – that keep
the budgetary loot flowing.
Accordingly, the Washington apparatus conspires to keep the 35 Mideast bases in place and to
trigger actions like last night's insane assassination of Iran's foremost military leader in
order to reify the threat and to periodically stoke tensions and counterattacks that keep
missions alive and the forces deployed.
Indeed, we are hard-pressed to imagine a more poignant case of the pot calling the kettle
black than Washington's claim that it had to retaliate owing to actual and expected Iranian
"aggression".
For crying out loud, Washington has been demonizing, ostracizing and economically attacking
Iran for decades, and is now literally attempting to destroy its economy and society through is
oil sanctions and its "maximum pressure" campaign that aims to bring the fate of Saddam Hussein
and Muammar Gaddafi to its top leaders in Tehran.
So do ya think a regime under a veritable existential threat might gravitate toward
retaliation as an alternative to extinction?
And we needs be clear about the matter of striking back in self defense. Washington's
current sanctions campaign against Iran is so aggressive and brutal that it constitutes war by
any other name.
When you surround a sovereign nation with an armada of land, sea and air-based high-tech
lethality and than declare outright economic war on it with a barely-disguised aim of regime
change, it must and will fight back however it can.
That's why Secretary of State Pompeo's statement justifying the Donald's act of naked
aggression is so hideous.
Washington is putting the entire nation of Iran at risk in the very place where God or
evolution, as the case may be, formed the peninsula on which it resides; and it is doing so
without any Iranian provocation against the security of the American homeland whatsoever.
But this neocon knucklehead has the gall to insist that when it comes to the actual
anti-Iranian belligerents (i.e. U.S. forces) Washington has bivouacked where they have no
business being at all, that not a hair on their head should come to harm.
That's Imperial arrogance of a kind rarely seen in a world history which is littered with
exactly that.
"I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should
know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American
lives," Pompeo told CNN.
The IRGC general had been "actively plotting" in the region to "take big action,
as he described it, that would have put hundreds of lives at risk," according to
Pompeo.
Undoubtedly, things will now spiral out of control because the Iranian regime must and will
retaliate for Soleimani's death. Indeed, by vaporizing the latter, the Donald has now also
vaporized any chance of actually implementing the "America First" policy upon which he ran, and
which was the principal basis for his freakish elevation to the Oval Office.
The fact is, the only decent thing Obama did on the foreign policy front was the Iran Nuke
Deal. Under the latter, Iran gave up a nuclear weapons capability it never had or wanted for
the return of billions of escrowed dollars (which belong to Tehran in the first place), while
putting itself in a straight-jacket of international inspections and controls that even Houdini
could not have broken free from.
But the Donald wantonly shit-canned this arrangement, not because Iran violated either the
letter or spirit of the deal, but because the neocons – led by his bubble-headed
son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu errand boy, Jared Kushner – blatantly lied to him about its
alleged defects.
Indeed, the resulting Washington pivot to the current "maximum pressure" aggression against
Iran is fast becoming the Empire most demented and shameful hour – even as it crystalizes
like rarely before the difference between homeland defense and imperial aggression.
Under the former, not one American serviceman, contractor or civilian official would be in
harms' way because the ring of hostile bases surrounding Iran would not exist nor would
Washington be waging economic warfare on what would otherwise be a prosperous 5 million barrel
per day oil trade with the world.
Only empires put their citizens needlessly in harms' way and thereby trap their leader's
into a cycle of violence which feeds upon itself.
The Donald is now yet another American president ensnared in the kind of tit-for-tat trap
that is the modus operandi of Empire First.
"... Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. ..."
"... The shmuck was elected to stop the unnecessary, and criminal, external wars for the Jews and protect the US from the internal Jewish war – through unchecked immigration – on the US citizens. ..."
"... Iran's response will certainly include legal redress, and the honor component of the US wrongful act can be quite adequately handled in state responsibility of satisfaction for internationally wrongful acts. The last couple times CIA faced Iran in the Hague (Oil Platforms and Aerial Incident,) Iran wiped the floor with the third-rate DoS shysters. ..."
"... Since this is so self-evidently disastrous for the US, why would the US civil/military command structure present this as an option? CIA doesn't like Trump – he tweaked them with a feint at ARCA compliance, and mocked their contempt for the national interest in a speech at Langley. ..."
"... Trump's been more insubordinate than any presidential figurehead since Nixon. So why not let him hold the bag for a crime big as the one Nixon got stuck with? CIA made Nixon their helpless patsy for their bombing of neutral Cambodia at great risk of general nuclear war. ..."
"... They purged him with a bill of impeachment that briefly included that crime. CIA never tries anything new, so now they'll make Trump their helpless patsy for murder at great risk of general nuclear war. The absurd existing bill of impeachment can easily incorporate murder as an inchoate crime, Trump's common plan and conspiracy for war, Nuremberg count 1. What does CIA get out of that? By personalizing aggression, CIA gets off the hook. ..."
WHAT COMES NEXT AFTER THE US ASSASSINATION OF QASSEM SOLEIMANI? THE OPTIONS.
The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu
Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani on Thursday
at 11:00 PM local time at Baghdad airport. Usually, when Soleimani was arriving in Baghdad,
security commander Abu Zeinab al-Lami, a deputy officer to al Muhandes, would have welcomed
him. This time, al-Lami was outside Iraq and al-Muhandes replaced him. The US plan was to
assassinate an Iranian General on Iraqi soil, not to kill a high-ranking Iraqi officer. By
killing al-Muhandes, the US violated its treaty obligation to respect the sovereignty of Iraq
and to limit its activity to training and offering intelligence to fight the "Islamic State",
ISIS. It has also violated its commitment to refrain from overflying Iraq without permission
of the Iraqi authorities.
Wow! Own goal! Are "evil" and "incompetent" synonymous?
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle
East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar.
True, and this mistake puts him firmly in the wastebasket where all other liar-politicians
reside.
The shmuck was elected to stop the unnecessary, and criminal, external wars for the Jews
and protect the US from the internal Jewish war – through unchecked immigration –
on the US citizens.
It's possible to overdo the focus on the personal here. سپاه has a
very deep bench and it's not subject to decapitation. Soleimani's murder will have no more
effect on the command structure than Pompeo's murder would: removing the primus inter pares
of a corps of brilliant strategists smarts a bit; and if the US lost Pompeo, one of many
delusional religious fanatics with community-college level training from a laughingstock
military academy, So what?
This murder is first and foremost an insult, of course. The CIA regime is much more of an
honor culture than Iran because these days the DO is stuffed with lumpen redneck jarheads.
But organizational aspects worldwide will determine the outcome.
Iran's response will certainly include legal redress, and the honor component of the US
wrongful act can be quite adequately handled in state responsibility of satisfaction for
internationally wrongful acts. The last couple times CIA faced Iran in the Hague (Oil
Platforms and Aerial Incident,) Iran wiped the floor with the third-rate DoS shysters.
And
for the first time the US faces Iran without their British dancing boys on the bench –
Britain got kicked off the ICJ bench for arbitrary actions of its own. So that's gonna cost
ya, $$$! The ICC can weigh in propria motu, and should do. Absent efficacious criminal
sanctions, Iran ally China has shown that you can take international criminal law into your
hands quite effectively (ask William Bennett and his wifey!) Iran's status in the SCO is an
additional degree of freedom. If Russia chooses to get involved, it can use its superior
missile technology to control escalation at every level. This is the perfect opportunity for
its doctrine of coercion to peace.
Since this is so self-evidently disastrous for the US, why would the US civil/military
command structure present this as an option? CIA doesn't like Trump – he tweaked them
with a feint at ARCA compliance, and mocked their contempt for the national interest in a
speech at Langley.
Trump's been more insubordinate than any presidential figurehead since
Nixon. So why not let him hold the bag for a crime big as the one Nixon got stuck with? CIA
made Nixon their helpless patsy for their bombing of neutral Cambodia at great risk of
general nuclear war.
They purged him with a bill of impeachment that briefly included that
crime. CIA never tries anything new, so now they'll make Trump their helpless patsy for
murder at great risk of general nuclear war. The absurd existing bill of impeachment can
easily incorporate murder as an inchoate crime, Trump's common plan and conspiracy for war,
Nuremberg count 1. What does CIA get out of that? By personalizing aggression, CIA gets off
the hook.
With the family jewels and inside knowledge of the JFK coup, Nixon graymailed CIA for a
pardon. They won't let Trump get away like that. The current status of international criminal
law requires that heads must roll. Just like Charles Taylor got put away for Israeli state
crimes against peace, the equally disposable Donald Trump will hold the bag for grave CIA
crimes.
To those who assured us there would be no war with Iran:
For the First time in it's History #Iran has Raised
The Red flag, IRAN has issued a terrifying warning to the US as it raised a red flag over
the Holy Dome Jamkarān Mosque as a symbol of a severe battle to come. pic.twitter.com/mnWgmu2eS4
Thanks, C&D. I'm very familiar with the two Alexes of the Duran Report. While I
think they provide very objective reporting on world events, they are also very reluctant
to touch the third rail, the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
Yes, it is far too easy and fashionable to pin it all on the "deep state" without ever
naming the Jew.
Wow! The idiot-in-chief just threatened Iran with bombing their cultural targets.
"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we
have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,
and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no
more threats!"
To those who assured us there would be no war with Iran:
I am one of those that did – and I stand by that assertion. Technically, we just
declared war on Iran, however, I expect there to be thousands of skirmishes, but nothing the
equivalent of the Iraq invasion.
If you listen to what Donald Trump said when he was campaigning, you will hear what the
majority of the American people want. Improved relations with Russia, exit from pointless
Middle East conflicts, greatly reduced immigration and a wall on the Southwest border, money
spent on the crumbling US infrastructure etc etc
Unfortunately, what the majority of the American people want matters very little if at
all. It's pretty much the same everywhere "democracy" and "democratic principles" reign.
It's a joke. A sick fucking game.
I don't believe Trump is a bad man. I believe he truly loves this country and it's people.
But he has surrounded himself with and trusted the wrong people from the beginning.
It pains me to say it, but NOTHING will change in this once great nation until there is
either collapse and/or revolution. The Deep State and it's (((Ruling Elite))) will then move
on to another host.
I find it hard to believe that with the history of so many recent false flag operations that
everyone is just assuming what is being presented is actually what happened. I personally
think it all is a little too convenient at this point in time. Israel has wanted a war with
Iran almost forever. While Netanyahu is having a bromance with Donald Trump and getting every
single thing he wants to the point of changing a make America great again to make Israel
great again, I find the whole thing extremely suspicious. It just seems like another War
being started for the benefit of Israel, business as usual.
Iranian Kataib Hezbollah is present in Iraq over the objections of many Arab citizens
(mostly Shia) who resent Persian interference.
So many lies in just one sentence. As always, you spread misinformation with lot of mumbo
jumbo. There is no such thing as Iranian Kataib Hezbollah. Kataib Hezbullah consist of Iraqi
volunteers. They may have been trained by Iran but they are still Iraqis.
You keep calling Khamenei a sociopath. The real sociopath is your hero Netanyahu.
You are one of the group of Zionist agents who are just waiting with canned comments for
the articles to appear. You are so predictable.
And please take that symbol off. By posting it does not make you a peace lover. You are
nothing but a war monger.
Developing- Operation Iran: The Pentagon is Deploying Troops to Saudi Arabia
(Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Rockwell Collins, L3
Engilitycorp mercenaries)
By C. Sorensen:
f'ing bastards .. who's commanding all these strikes?
Well, at least indirectly, according to Pepe Escobar, it is the usual suspects,
Israel/deep state, with a compliant US.
President Donald Trump may have issued the order. The U.S. Deep State may have ordered
him to issue the order. Or the usual suspects may have ordered them all.
According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, " Israel gave the U.S. the
coordinates for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the
repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves."
@A123
Obviously a (((Fellow American))). Remember the Liberty, Hymie. Still trying to destabilize
the ME with your golem. Maybe this time Bibi bit off more than he can chew. The cost of human
life and suffering is no doubt immaterial for a politician desperate to stay in power.. and
out of prison. Once again the Jewish lobby is causing an uproar. Only three things are
certain; death, taxes and Israel getting the US into Middle Eastern wars
How does the US justify carrying out assassinations within the territory of a friendly power
without even obtaining the consent of that power? Don't we at least pretend to respect Iraq's
sovereignty?
@ra And
backing Trump has what purpose? Would he pay your rent if you were laid off? Then he is just
a picture on your wall. Just like jock sniffers idolize apeletes, and masturbaters luvs their
porn performers, political groupies actually imagine that their favorite political crush
gives a shit about them. If one isn't a multimillionaire, then they matter not at all to the
political class. Have to bring something to the party other than bootlicking. There are
plenty of those in higher places than a broke ass
fan. Meanwhile grow the f ** k up. Trump isn't your friend. Unless you're name is Adelson or
Netanyahu anyway
Another striking aspect of all this is that while I suspect doubts about this are very
widespread among the actual people, the mainstream media seem to be all but unanimous in
their approval.
Trump is threatening to attack 52 Iranian cultural sites. He doesn't seem to care that many
of these are world heritage sites and it is a war crime to destroy them.
If @realDonaldTrump hits holy
sites in #Iran , no place
for any American in the world will be safe. It will be an all-ou-war.
In one day, thousands were killed in #Iraq after the
destruction of Zarqawi (like Trump today) destroyed Shia Holy Shrine in Samarra.
@Cloak And
Dagger Perhaps if Russia gave one of these missile to Iran peace would breakout ..lol.
Hypersonic Missiles Are a Game Changer
No existing defenses can stop such weapons -- which is why everyone wants them.
Last week, President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced the deployment of the Avangard,
among the first in a new class of missiles capable of reaching hypersonic velocity --
something no missile can currently achieve, aside from an ICBM during reentry
Such weapons have long been an object of desire by Russian, Chinese and American military
leaders, for obvious reasons: Launched from any of these countries, they could reach any
other within minutes. No existing defenses, in the United States or elsewhere, can intercept
a missile that can move so fast while maneuvering unpredictably.
Whether or not the Avangard can do what Mr. Putin says, the United States is rushing to match
it. We could soon find ourselves in a new arms race as deadly as the Cold War -- and at a
time when the world's arms control efforts look like relics of an inscrutable past and the
effort to renew the most important of them, a new START agreement, is foundering
Giraldi seldom comes up with any new facts to shed light on a situation. He just runs through
the same anti-neocon boilerplate. I agree with his boilerplate, but it's not enough to
justify reading his articles.
I'm not using the term neocons any longer, as the term is a lie, a mask. They are just a
large group of powerful dual citizen Jews many descended from Trotskyites that immigrated
from Russia in the 1930s.
@Bragadocious
Hey, Israeli hasbara, why didn't you read the above article carefully?
The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is
clearly on Donald Trump's hands as this war was never inevitable and served no U.S.
national interest.
One more time for you: this war [with Iran] serves no U.S. national interests. The
only "benefiting" party is the Jewish State, the bloody theocracy of obnoxious supremacists
known for their cowardice and deception. The Epstein nation of Israel.
American veterans kill themselves every day, every hour. None of the dead veterans is
Jewish.
Here is how the usual schema works: First, the zionist scum finds kindred spirits among
the locals; see Cheney the Traitor, greedy Clintons, and the cowardly US brass thirsty for
money and comforts (exhibit one, Donny Rumsfeld). Second, the zionist scum arranges mass
media by putting the eager presstitutes on key positions in the previously honorable papers
and journals (exhibit one, The New Yorker). And voila, the war profiteers unite with Israel
firsters and get free hands to plunder whatever country they want to plunder. On the American
citizenry dime & limb.
It does not take much effort to recognize the extraordinary difference between the piggish
and thoroughly corrupt Bibi and the noble and valiant Soleimani.
@A123 Really?
How stupid can one get? Sir, it would behove all of us to read and understand history. Noone
likes the Ayatollahs but the only reason they are ruling Iran is because of the USA. And
everyone has the right to defend themselves – including the Iranians. Just look at our
behaviour and compare it to a bully. No difference at all!!
Unfortunately, it is very well established in the world that USA has degenerated from being a
good guy to a bully, assassin and a terrorist. We shall reap the whirlwind and the hurricane
. unfortunately it will be the common person who suffers always.
Rumour has it that 52 sites were chosen so that it corresponded to the number of major
Jewish-American organizations in America, lol!
I 'second' that LOL!!!
52 is for the fifty two embassy hostages from 1979. And he said he's going to hit cultural
sites in that 52 number. So you museum curators in Tehran 'watch out!'
On a serious note, I consider myself a patriotic American but I just can't root for my
country in this regard. Honestly it makes me feel bad but following the truth does not always
make you feel good. But it's the right thing to do.
Iran has been 'set up' since Donald got out of the nuclear deal. Tucker Carlson says Iran has
been the target for decades. I can just hope that the kinetic action is brief, loss of
American and Iranian life small and that, as Giraldi predicts, America will finally get out
of there, to the frustration of the Zionists.
But then we have the aforementioned Zionists and their Samson option it never ends.
Until Israel ends
Anti Iran war protest going on in cities , at WH, at Trump Hotels etc..
"The American people have had enough with U.S. wars and are rising up to demand peace with
Iran!" tweeted CodePink, an anti-war group that helped organize the nationwide
demonstrations.
I have found the guy to star in my assassination movie . an Iraq war vet you need to
hear:
From all indications, the Iranian general was a revered man inside and outside Iran.
The arrogant ignorance on this site tweeters between alarming and comedic.
The rank and file MUST gnash their teeth and wail over this terrorist's death. There are
more Secret Police in Iran than the Stasi had. If they don't show grief, their family members
or they will pay the price.
Do you know any Persians? They detest living under a brutal theocracy. They don't care
about Soleimani. They care about their children, jobs and being happy.
They act the fool in the street to mourn his death because it is expected, it's a way to
let off steam and it's social.
Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't
even have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the
Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for
days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.
Michael "FASTER PLEASE!" Ledeen? Yes, I don't doubt. And as regards a Mossad false flag:
Giraldi writes that the Iraqi PM will inevitably "ask American forces to leave." THAT should
be the greenest of green lights for Trump to withdraw them from that bottomless hellhole
except who wants them there forevermore?
I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good
Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the
Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their
hearts' content.
Verily. Alas, look for Congress now to reauthorize those thoroughly corrupt FISA courts,
so that honorable American heroes and patriots such as Gums Page and Peter Strzok can thwart
evil Iran terrorists before they perpetrate their dastardly acts against innocent Americans.
Now, remind me of the nationalities of those who committed the 9/11/2001 atrocities
again?
All glory, praise, and honor to Our Lord Jesus Christ -- may He and St Michael ever watch
over those of us redeemed by Him.
@vespasian
Qaani is a Muslim name. Not likely Jewish.
Times of Israel says Qaani was Soleimani's deputy.
Khamenei appointed / anointed Qaani to step into Soleimani's place. Why would Khamenei do
this if he wanted to eradicate Soleimani's style?
Khamenei echoes Achmadinejad's call that "zionism will disappear from the pages of
history." Not a Jewish sentiment.
Pahlavi broke down the ghettoes and hired a lot of Jews, but there is no indication that
Pahlavi was Jewish. His physiognomy is so typically Persian he's practically a caricature of
the breed.
in other words, you're full of crap.
Leave propagandistic mimetics to the cretins who know how to do it.
There's a rumor that part of Israel's Samson option includes nuclear bombs hidden in 25
American cities. Veterans Today has mentioned it several times. Is it true? Maybe. Maybe
someone should find out.
It would end Democrat prattle about presidential elections by popular vote in lieu of
electoral college.
Giraldi is maybe little bit somber here, so I do have to say no.
Irani thinkers know that the affair is just a thick worm on the hook.
They will do what they did before consolidate She_ite power in the Levant to end any
cooperation of states with the great Satan there.
The quote is from a 24 Oct 2004 article "Jews, Israel and America" in the New York
Times by Thomas L. Friedman. Friedman proceeds to criticize the Bush admin for inept
communications in Iraq. One wonders which will be found first: the weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, or the real killers of Ron and Nicole by OJ Simpson.
Once the US began seriously enforcing sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the US effectively
declared war on Iran. Iran has done what it could, but its response has been limited.
After you have already attempted and partially succeeded in wrecking a country's economy,
what does a drone strike add to the situation?
The incident makes very little sense for the US, which is vulnerable in Iraq. Iran is
still under severe economic siege, so not much has really changed there either.
Everyone seems to want this to be a major inflection point, but why would Iran suddenly
become stupid? Maybe Trump has changed, but he has resisted number of attempts to get him to
sign on to military adventures.
News flash: Pence says Suleimani aided the 9/11 highjackers.
Let us see what else can we accuse him of masterminding.
1. Gulf of Tonkin incident
2. Bombing of Laos
3. Sabotaging the space shuttle
4. JFK Assassination
5. And yes, of course, starting the American Civil War.
This guy is nuts and this is what we will get as a result of Trump's impeachment.
2) The issue of #Jerusalem
seems to have been a critical point of Shamrani's anger. His second-most recent of his
tweets (just before his will) was an RT of Trump's December 2017 Jerusalem speech, made
sometime in the last 48 hours. pic.twitter.com/wjP7FMzZXW
A few days after John Bolton was sacked as Trump's national security adviser, Soleimani
humiliated the US by a blatantly Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities, which Pompeo
called an act of war.
Shill better. You people say this over and over, but don't give a logical reason we should
believe it, and why even give us Pompeo's opinion?
The murder of General Qasem Soleimani shows that, nothing on this scale of U.S. violence,
criminality and violation of international law has been seen before, not even in Nazi
Germany. The assassination of two well-known leaders is an act of Terrorism. It was a
cowardice act, because the two leaders were travelling in public. What the US regime gained
from this premeditated murder?
As I stated in several articles, we live under a brutal form of Fascism that has no
equivalent in human history. There are no longer the rules of law and civilised norms. It is
a barbaric, lawless, rogue, terrorising and distinctly global AngloZionist Fascism.
"
COME on, we are waiting for you. We are the real men on the scene, as far as you are
concerned. You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start
the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end," Qassem Soleimani said in a fiery
July 2018 speech directed at Trump
Not exactly taking the heat out of the situation in which Iran is confronting the world's
most powerful country. A good state has to know its limitations, as Mearsheimer says.
He had flown into to town to attend the funerals of the 26 Iraqi militiamen that we
Americans had killed earlier in the week!
Most interesting. I wonder if those militiamen were maybe killed in the expectation that
he would fly in to attend the funeral.
Really? How stupid can one get? Sir, it would behove all of us to read and understand
history. Noone likes the Ayatollahs but the only reason they are ruling Iran is because of
the USA. And everyone has the right to defend themselves – including the Iranians.
Just look at our behaviour and compare it to a bully. No difference at all!!
Unfortunately, it is very well established in the world that USA has degenerated from being
a good guy to a bully, assassin and a terrorist. We shall reap the whirlwind and the
hurricane . unfortunately it will be the common person who suffers always.
True that the only reason the Ayatollahs are ruling Iran is because of the USA's hatred of
democracy. Though the bull in the china shop grunts about democracy all the time it really
hates democracy. Better to install a single dictator who will take orders, rather than having
to bribe every elected member of a parliament and gamble that that will work.
Degenerated okay. A frightful country of gangster rule, a murderous thug as President,
giant levels or homelessness, giant prices of medicines, giant levels of police killings etc.
etc. and the economic hit-men who caused it to fall apart, crumbled infrastructure because
privatized, want to obey Israhell and pocket the worthless dollar, nothing else.
As an American who lives abroad, this is just a repainting of the target I've had on my
back for decades, compliments of people who live behind big defence perimeters and are
surrounded by teams of bodyguards.
There used to be a simple escape-clause: pretend to be Canadian.
As they've happily jumped on the War Bandwagon as well, that clause is now void.
@Johnny F.
Ive Rita Katz !! The lady who used to upload the vile movies of beheading even before the
Jihadists had uploaded . How come !!!
Israel usually knows when war would start against Libya Syria Iraq and against Iran . How
come!! Israel would claim that war will be soon. What gives!
Rita 's circle was playing same roles the cabal plays in agitating for wars .
Contra Madame Condolezza's (aka. "Condi") affirmation in 2006 that we were witnessing
"the
birth pangs of a New Middle East" when Israel went all Warshaw Ghetto on various pieces
of Palestine, these could be the REAL birth pangs of a New Middle East.
The flag used in the ceremony is called the 'Ya la-Tharat al-Husayn', which dates back
to the late 7th century. It was first raised after the Battle of Karbala in a call to
avenge the death of Imam Husayn ibn Ali, which became one of the key events that led to the
split between Shia and Sunni Islam. It has been reported that the red flag has never been
unfurled atop the Jamkaran (a major holy site since the early Middle Ages) until now.
You know shit is going down when it's getting Game of Thrones out there.
@Meimou It's
also unimportant whether some bureaucrat of the US says that this and that happening far away
is an "act of war" while engaging in acts of war like sanctions, targeted assassination of
lower-rung people, support of "regime change" operations laying waste to whole regions,
bombing of civvies in Yemen, bombing of selected targets all over the Middle East and on and
on.
@Meimou The
Embassy thing might not have been ordered by Soleimani, but the coup of of hitting Saudi oil
facilities would surely have to be authorised by him in his capacity as commander of all
Iranian paramilitary actions abroad. Yet this humiliation of the US forces in and around
Saudi Arabia came days after Trump had sacked Iran's greatest foe in the Administration, John
Bolton.
I think that if the interests of Iran was the objective paramount in Soleimani's mind, the
timing of the attack on Saudi oil facilities was a truly catastrophic failure of
comprehension. Michael Ledeen (Iran's biggest enemy in the US) must have been weeping tears
of gratitude. And that was only one of Soleimanis great mistakes, if fame was not his real
goal.
PATRICK Cockburn noted pro Iranian militia leaders were pointing to 'the failure of Trump
to retaliate after the drone attack on Saudi oil facilities earlier in September that
Washington had blamed on Iran' and a sign that Trunp would avoid a war. Moreover:
[T]here was a small demonstration in central Baghdad demanding jobs, public services and
an end to corruption. The security forces and the pro-Iranian paramilitaries opened fire,
killing and wounding many peaceful demonstrators. Though Qais al-Khazali later claimed that
he and other Hashd leaders were trying to thwart a US-Israeli conspiracy, he had said
nothing to me about it. It seemed likely that General Soleimani, wrongly suspected that the
paltry demonstrations were a real threat and had ordered the pro-Iranian paramilitaries to
open fire and put a plan for suppressing the demonstrations into operation disastrous for
Iranian influence in Iraq. [ ]
General Soleimani died in the wake of his greatest failure and misjudgement
Not only did he strengthen the hand of anti Iran opinion in the White House by making
Trump look stupid, Soleimani's Baghdad massacre of protesting Shiite Arabs was a wedge
in the Iraqi– Iranian Shia alliance. Soleimani acted as if he was controlled by Ledeen,
and yet also worked on the higher plane of US divide and rule grand strategy for the Middle
East a la Kissinger.
I sense desperation from Washington.
What has been accomplished in the middle-east since the 'war on terror' began?
Pick any goal, real or not and evaluate the success from the beginning of the century:
Terrorism down?
Israel safer?
Better access to oil and gas for U.S. companies?
Democracy on the rise?
Stronger strategic position in the region?
Russia and China kept at bay?
Trade opportunities?
Status of the dollar?
Relations to allies in Europe and elsewhere?
All I see is negatives, perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Is it getting better or worse, is time on the U.S. side in this struggle? I can't see it.
If I was running this show I would be desperate too. And perhaps for the people actually
running the show, the biggest problem is how to exit the stage and guard Israel at the same
time.
@geokat62 If
Israel has over 500 nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them (this according to
former President Jimmy Carter), AND Israel has refused ALL inspections by the IAEA , then
this is a legitimate threat to Iran.
The world should see that Iran has a right to defend itself with nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon and White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata'ib
Hezbollah attack on a U.S. installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on
claimed militia targets in Syria and also inside Iraq.
But clearly this attack was much longer in the planning because of the prisoner exchange
between the US and Iran on December 12th ( https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-hopes-prisoner-exchange-will-lead-broader-discussion-iran
). Obviously, that exchange took place in order not to leave any potential hostages in Iran
when the escalation was triggered. All the excuses for the assassination were later tailored
to fit the story as it developed.
Also, there is the State Department and Pompeo's own quote which purports that the attacks
were not in retaliation for something but in order to forestall future attacks (as if this
could ever be justifiable).
What this indicates to me, is that, contrary to the peddled story, a major escalation was
planned, which started with a prisoner exchange, the next step was adopting the Israeli
strategy of using completely disproportionate responses in order to trigger some ever
increasing responses from the Iranians. Stage 1: One rocket attack (probably staged by
US-Israeli secret services); response: 23 soldiers killed by US. Stage 2: embassy protests,
no casualties; response: Soleimani and Iraqui official killed.
Pompeo's excuse that the assassination of Soleimani was not for previous action on the
general's part but in order to prevent some great escalation which he was planning, was more
likely one of the stories they sold each other, Trump, and the public, in order to create
some 'plausible' deniability for the plan. What friggin' criminals!
Not sure why so many commenters engage hasbara clowns like A123. Why engage people who
aren't debating in good faith?
True thoughts and wise words, my friend.
All those hasbara clowns are on my 'Commneters to Ignore' list. They can say
whateva they want [freedom of speech], but I don't have to waste my time reading or
commenting on it.
@TKK Why then
are there large protests from the Persian community in Los Angeles? They don't have to worry
about secret police. Personally I think he was a good man because he helped destroy ISIS.
@jack daniels
I would imagine that, given Giraldi's background and experience, he is more than qualified to
offer his analysis of the circumstances, situation and possible consequences on the topic
under discussion and many people value that.
You don't have to agree at all but making empty comments like that are just a waste of
your time.
Remember the Maine and 9/11 ! The yellow press and Alex Jones are already talking about
Iranian sleeper cells in the US , there will likely be a false flag attack on the "Homeland"
,with civilian casualties ,which will be blamed on Iran , as a result the public will be
propaganized into supporting "decisive" action against Iran .
@Bragadocious
As you well know, Supercilious, Hezbollah was the military force which handed the Israelis
their asses when they tried to invade Lebanon in 2006; Soleimani, being one of the organizers
of that resistance.
Subsequently, Israel used its complete control of its vassal, the US government, in order
to declare them a terrorist organization in 2009. The reason they did it then is the same
reason they want to destroy Iran, is in order to, among other things, have a free hand and
take southern Lebanon and be able to finally keep it.
Wow what an impressive bit of confusion. Giraldi says a big bunch of mistakes have been made
and the end result might be the US withdrawing its troops from over seas bases. In other
words a massive victory for the taxpayers and the rest of the world.
@TKK Crazy
TKK lay in hay & he done obey the Israeli way & thus ge doth say: "They (Persians)
act the fool in the street to mourn his death because it is expected, it's a way to let off
steam and it's social."
@John
Chuckman @123 is spot on. Soeimani and the aye are toller have had this coming for about
2 decades. Did they really think that a full scale attack on a US embassy would go unanswered
after the 2013 Benghazi atrocity?
The 2 main protagonists have been eliminated and so have various minor Iranian minions.
Many others have been arrested by US special forces and are being held.
The Iranians are paralysed because their strategic brain has gone and they have no good
retaliatory options.
If they missile a US warship Donald will destroy their nuclear program. That is his end game.
If they missile Tel Aviv the Israelis will strategically nuke them. The Iranians are shitting
bricks.
@Daniel Rich
Might we assume that the US has the coordinates of every Iranian facility cancerned with
their generational nuclear and missile program and the means to destroy them.
The US has all the good options. The very fact that Iran has done nothing a week after the
base attack and days after Soleimani's removal indicates they are paralysed with fear.
@Daniel Rich
Might we assume that the US has the coordinates of every Iranian facility cancerned with
their generational nuclear and missile program and the means to destroy them.
The US has all the good options. The very fact that Iran has done nothing a week after the
base attack and days after Soleimani's removal indicates they are paralysed with fear.
So who exactly are the blessed? The Christian/Hindoo/ whiteys/blackeys/brownies ? Those
who regularly contort their minds into pretzels trying to comprehend their pagan polytheist
mangods-worshipping faith?
You whitey idiots are such a confused lot that, at a spiritual level, you seem to be
splitting like the amoeba, all the time. It is hilarious, and it is pathetic.
Is that called a blessing in your pagan/godless kind's spiritual dictionary?
Lol!
The Almighty One has blessed us true monotheists with these 4 verses, and much much more.
If we get nothing else, these are enough;
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is
born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent." : 112
@TKK Dummy
TKK doth obey the Israeli way, and naturally, he lay down in all wet hay, & he done say:
"They (Persians) act the fool in the street to mourn his (Soleimani's) death because it is
expected, it's a way to let off steam and it's social."
Hey TKK! (Zigh)
Re, above; As you're aware, you are a low rent U.R. hasbarist.
Haha. You stupidly figure guys like me have forgotten the mind-numbing & week long
mourning pageant, extensively covered by ZUS TalmudVision,* for the ultra-Shabbos goy
anti-hero, Senator John McCain, who famously cackled "Bomb, bomb Iran."
* Credit creative geokat for spoton "TalmudVision."
Your use of the word Jew as a pejorative is childish and simple minded. Max Blumenthal is
a Jew .he very much appears to agree with the crux of Giraldi's article. Unz is a Jew, who
allows Giraldi to post articles like the one you are responding to do you hold him in
disdain?
@anon The
most vicious attack against me and my country I've witnessed came at the hands of young
American Jews from NYC. I'd been back for a few years from a combat role in Vietnam and, at a
party in our building where my wife and I were the only non-Jews, a bunch of Jews who'd just
returned from fighting for Israel in some capacity during its '73 war went after me with a
hatred that I can still feel to this day. They were saying that American soldiers suck and
how much better Israelis were in the field. It ended when a woman no less yelled at me, "All
we want is your money." This from supposed Americans. As they like to say, "We
Jews shit on you Christians." If you haven't worked on Wall Street with them, this may seem
academic. The hate is palpable.
I cannot understand how our higher ups bow and scrape before them, except to note the
baked in contradiction of American military leadership -- that those officers who're early on
identified for transfer to some HQ company are so selected because they're generally
order-taking martinets and the antithesis of warrior leaders, becoming in time the perfumed
princes we see paraded like trained poodles before the kosher cameras on TV to sell out their
country for Israel. I offer as proof their willingness to send Americans to do the dying and
suffering so good Israeli boys need not. Can you imagine anything more disgusting than a
putative man complying with crimes against humanity because he's afraid of neocons like Max
Boot or Fiona Hill and then has the gall to call it his sworn, patriotic duty? I can't.
All it need is getting a researchers on Fox and get him or her publish about the trauma
experienced from a distance from the killing of an adversary despite the killing wanted by
the Jews . Wordsmithing can follow New jargon will appear . People with those ideas will be
showcased and promoted to Harvard or Yale or to the Anti semitism society of the US Cabinet (
It is not there but it exists ) . Money will be earmarked to get few extra senate vote or
something like that .
@Daniel Rich
I have to hold my tongue or fear putting myself at risk, but to give you an idea of what I'm
thinking, I wish Iran all the luck in the world.
When those transfer tubes come home, filled with our dead soldiers, killed fighting endless
wars for Wall Street and Israel, will the flag draping the tube be one Made in the USA?
And how much money did Jared K make by shorting certain stocks? He would of known of the
coming murder of the Iranian general, I seriously doubt he would of let a money-making
opportunity like that pass.
The report says Israel was "on the verge" of assassinating Soleimani three years ago, near
Damascus, but the United States warned the Iranian leadership of the plan, revealing that
Israel was closely tracking the Iranian general.
It was Obama that warned Iran because the US Iran nuclear agreement was in effect and
Israel was trying everything possible to wreck it and just as they are doing now, to goad
Iran into war.
The way to stop Israel is to spill more Jewish blood than they can stand, and there may be
enough Muslims and Arabs willing to die themselves to do that.
Very upset at this news. It is an obvious escalation by the Israeli led USA and puppet Trump.
They have some excellent forms of blackmail going on Trump. He walked into this mess with his
big ego; and they saw him coming and are making the best use of this stupid man.
Our nation has already brought so much shame on itself for attacking the Middle East under
Bush and Obomber. I still have a photo of a little Iraqi boy who was laying in a hospital bed
with no legs or arms, just a head and torso left. He was a victim of USA Bombing (Shock &
Awe) in 2003 Baghdad. He looks at the camera with a look I have never seen before.
I wish all this will go away, but we all know it is about to get worse and all the
Israelis need to get the American population onboard for a new fight is a major False Flag.
So, be vigilant and careful. We have no idea where they will strike and then blame Iran.
To this day I remember Mr. Linh Dinh's saying on Unz Review, to paraphrase; Trump is a shill,
owned by the Jews/Israelis, on top of which they would never allow anyone who wouldn't grovel
before them to be president. He was obviously correct.
Be that as it may. I want war. Only a war in which the paper tiger that is the US gets
itself real bloody nose is there a possibility of ending Jew supremacist's control of my
county.
It is indeed a foolhardy move. I've taken a lot of grief for supporting Trump while always
pointing out his ways of frustrating and stringing the neo-cons along. My one desperate and
perhaps foolish hope is that being foiled in trying to extricate us from Syria, Afghanistan
and Iraq, he has agreed to this act(whether post or pre, and I suspect post) to allow
them(the neo-cons and MIC) enough rope to hang themselves. The Iraqi parliament will
certainly vote to have us leave. If my desperate hope is true, we will do so. If not, at
least it hastens the end of our imperial age, which I would greatly welcome, at best without
nuclear war.
Comments on ZH are mostly negative, so looks like Trump lost an additional part of
independents vote. He might also lost the election, because now impeachment is the most logical
way out of this situation, with Trump servings as a sacrificial lamp for the MIC and neocon (he
was neocon prostitute all his term (MIGA instead of MAGA), so nothing essentially changed)
At the same time, Iran itself is zero threat to the American homeland. It's tiny $350 billion
GDP amounts to 6 days of US annual output and its $20 billion defense budget is equivalent to
what the Pentagon wastes every 8 days.
The most dangerous reaction of Iran now is is that it it can hit any US target. That would be
profoundly stupid. The most dangerious reaction sis that it can quietly develop nuclear
weapons.
The principal difficulty of this policy for the USA of course is Iraq. Having imposed a
rough democracy on Iraq, the governments were always likely to be Shia dominated and highly
susceptible to Iranian influence. The USA had a continuing handle through dwindling occupying
forces and through control of the process which produced the government.
They also provided financial resources to partially restore the physical infrastructure the
US and its allies had themselves destroyed, and of course to fund a near infinite pool of
corruption.
* * *
Unlike his adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat,
the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig's blog has
no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on
voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the
every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions
to keep Craig's blog going are gratefully received .
Trump claims to have evidence of an Iran attack threat, but he won't let Congress or the
American people see it. A president who has lied tens of thousands of times about things
both big and small while in office is now expecting the American people to take his word
for it on Iran.
Defense Officials Say Trump Is Lying About Iran Threat
Although Trump has said he has 52 more targets, its really doubtful he knows what to do
beyond that, if the Iranians retaliate. Then, there is the big problem of the Russian and the
Chinese navies in the region of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. The U.S. is not in any winnable
situation, anyway you look at it. They will be forced to deploy more troops and materials to
the Middle East, and the money for all of that will come out of your Social Security checks,
and by reducing other entitlements, like Medicare, they will have to print more
money----meaning, the money you have in hand will be worth less. We had this very same
situation back in 1968-1969 with Vietnam, when the U.S. ran out of money to support the war
there, and we entered into an inflationary period in the early 1970's. We eventually lost
that war, if any one of you recall, and America was far better off then than what it is now.
Simply put, America is in no position to be going to war.
The orange genius is a clueless ignorant moron and like wax in the hand of his hawkish
advisors. With this imbecilic terrorist attack and loudmouth rhetoric afterwards he is now
basically forced to attack Iran whenever something looks like Iranian retaliation. Which is
basically an invitation to Tel Aviv to trigger the war at their discretion. Make Israel great
again!
Saddam Husein was a friend of the United States, fought against Iran, was part of the Bush
family. But when he decided to sell oil not only in dollars but also in euros, his country
was destroyed, and he himself was hanged for dubious reasons. It is dangerous to be an enemy
of the United States, but even more dangerous to be a friend of the United States. The USA is
a colony, since lobbying is not prohibited in the USA, and the fittest mass of lobbyists has
Israeli citizenship. They determine US foreign policy. So you are absolutely right, this is
not a country, it is a cancerous tumor. And she looks disgusting even in comparison with the
Saudis, they at least do not hypocritical in their atrocities.
Will a new bout of slaughter by the not so Great Satan and its vile little Satan be enough
to stop the inevitable civil war reloaded in Slumville when the Wall St Ponzi shitter finally
erupts and blows Trumptard's beautiful Washing town sewer with it?
Iran knows well, like China and Russia, that time is on their side. USSA is the most
bankrupt deadbeat in human history and its Saudi albatross and their collective fiat filth
IOU petroscrip toilet paper dollah can no longer be saved despite the wanton murder, genocide
and ravings of the Pentacon mobsters and their Agent Orange juice.
The so called Green Zone will be burned like Benghazi before it and it will happen when
USSA is least expecting it. Looking at Agent Orange's Soleimani gambit last week simply shows
how frightened the anglozionazi regime has in fact become in light of what these terrorists
call "the facts on the ground" i.e. the ongoing anglozionist war against the ruling Shia
majority inside Iraq. All the "boots on the ground" that USSA can now muster in the region
will only guarantee all the more bodybags that will be needed to ferry their remians back to
Slumville in the coming collap$e of all things USSAN.
In case any resident of Slumville still imagines that hired killer Agent Orange was not
ensnared in his best buddy Jeffrey Pedovore's Maralago Mossad kiddy **** show then why are
Pentacon hired killers from Slumville protecting Soleimani in this photo?
Russia, Russia, Russia, you know Putin's not a stupid. He's sounding very logical and
sane. Perhaps Iran could be the same. Sober sanity is a good thing for people and the
world.
We the people have no control over this. Cheering team A over team B is the preoccupation
of the peanut gallery. The deed has been done. What follows are the consequences. There are
muslim cultural centers all over the United States. We don't know if they are Shia or Sunni.
What we do know is that they have a mutual hatred of Christians. Expect the attacks on
Christians to escalate. Look to your people, their provisions and their security.
This is 40 years plus in the making. When the USA abandoned the Shah (not a nice guy)
during the Carter administration, two significant events occurred.
One, Iran went from a quasi-secular, pro-western nation, to one that in spite of, or
despite the wishes of its population, a vehemently anti-Western, and anti-USA nation, with
heavy religious leanings.
(And make no mistake, Iran has been interfering with, killing, and attacking the USA in
various ways for quite some time)
Two, because we (USA) needed a "player" in the middle east, we turned to the Saudis. Well
Saudi's (Arabs) are not Iranians (Persians), and we learned that, or should have, when a much
younger OBL issued his first "manifesto". (Which had nothing to do with Jews, but everything
to do with the stationing of US troops in the same country as Mecca and Medina)
Iran has a long history of being interfered by western powers (Most notably Britain. Ohhh
Britain). This leads to a duality: one, they can claim (at least until 1953 or so) that they
were being kept down financially by: {INSERT COUNTRY HERE}. There is some truth to that
(again - Britain). However, while claiming they are being kept weak, they can't get out of
their own way when it comes to running their own country. (Ostensibly, pre-1978 the
mercantile class, versus the people, versus the ruling class)
The United States has, in the past 40 years, handled Iran with kid gloves. You may not
like that statement, but when we are warning people to exit Oil platforms to minimize
casualties, I'm not lying. What happens next, militarily? I can't say. But unfortunately, it
will be the Iranian people who will suffer the most.
No matter who we get in the White House, they are always won over by the so-called
"Intelligence" services and the Pentagon. A little bit of kow-towing to them by staff and
others and they forget who they are and why they ran in the first place. In the case of
Trump, Netanyahu is an old friend. So did we ever expect any thing else? The Israelis think
they own us, and Netanyahu has aid so, so did Sharon. As for the end-of-timers, they think
they will be gathered in a cloud and watch while we all suffer nuclear war. With people like
this, who needs enemies?
Kiwikris , January 4, 2020 at 23:38
Pepe, while I respect your work hugely I must disagree with your assertion that Trump is
trapped by Impeachment. The "impeachment", until it's delivered to the Senate is a big fat
nothing. Even if it ever does make it to the Senate, I doubt VERY much if it will come to
anything & I believe Trump is not worried in the slightest. Donations to his re-election
campaign have skyrocketed, Zogbys latest poll (for what they are worth) shows his support up
across the board. And the Republicans control the Senate, not withstanding the potential
turncoat RINOs
Ron Johnson , January 4, 2020 at 18:26
Casey, swing voters will decide everything in 2020. Trump very well might keep his base,
but he could also lose the swing voters who believed him when he said he wanted peace. They
knew Hillary was a war monger, and they hoped for better with Trump. Now Trump has proven
himself to be just as blood thirsty, so that opens the door to anyone who can convincingly
argue that they are for peace, or at least for more restraint.
Robert Emmett , January 4, 2020 at 11:35
A little doggerel for some of those sharp toothed cats out there.
"Yeah, that was that cat alright."
ass faced men (pomp-a-don)
ass ass i' the-nation
passpass yer quid-
pro-quo-tay-shun
murderer had it comin'
screw turns harder
ain't no time
to bicker or to barter
just out of sight
in the dead of night
another screw turns loose
more money gets thrown
off the back of the caboose
run around town with open pockets
while men in hoods pull eyes out they sockets
best keep peepers & peeps at home
seal their names in a golden tome
help those in need act on yer own
ass-faced men are on the loose
Michael , January 4, 2020 at 20:58
"This the way the Roaring, Raging Twenties begin: not with a bang, but with the release of
whimpering dogs of war."
This is very poetic and deeply moving. I hope it will be remembered for the ages.
John Drake , January 4, 2020 at 11:05
Probably not a good time to be an American in the Mideast. I remember during Vietnam when
quite a few American tourists wore Canadian lapel pins abroad.
Trump is so stupid. With over 700 military bases abroad and dependency on Mideast oil he
doesn't understand how incredibly vulnerable US assets are.
This will probably further alienate US' so called allies (vassal states); as their leaders
will realize this is creating a lose-lose scenario. Except Britain which has almost equally,
mentally challenged leadership.
Looking on the bright side, another nail in the coffin of US hegemony is being forged.
And when is Israel going to haul Bibi away in cuffs?
paul , January 4, 2020 at 10:40
Let's see how fond of these murderous antics the Exceptional and Indispensable Folk feel
when the body bags start coming home and the $6 trillion already thrown down the rabbit hole
starts looking like chump change.
Moi , January 4, 2020 at 02:26
What makes the US the enemy of mankind is that, in their foreign policy, they are never
the architects of their own misfortune. Blowback on Americans is always someone else's fault
no matter how ham-fisted their machinations in the lead-up to an event.
Until the exceptionalists can say "mea culpa" of themselves the innocents of this world
will end up paying the price.
Ben Novick , January 4, 2020 at 00:29
Don't underestimate the US. We can annihilate half the world's population in the next
hour, if required.
Zhu , January 4, 2020 at 07:12
What good would that do?
Cornelius Pipe , January 4, 2020 at 07:32
Nope. All you can annihilate is yourselves. Should the US choose to use a nuclear bomb in
a world where nuclear weapons proliferate the US will find out why people in glass houses
should not throw stones. i.e. the US should think long and hard before it swaps Washington
for Tehran.
caseyf5 , January 4, 2020 at 07:36
Hello Ben Novick,
And will in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony Shaker , January 4, 2020 at 09:51
I don't know what this inane comment is meant to convey, but perhaps you should ponder
what you just wrote. What is your religion, exactly? There is an intolerable element of evil
in your words. What you are saying also is that, in the end, the US, which is no longer an
island in today's world, is being led by a death wish. Is that the apocalypse that the
howling lunatics of the pseudo-religious Church of Wealth presently unfurling itself on the
Evangelical crowd in America (and now Latin America) are waiting for? Everything the US does
another can do and do with growing efficiency.
Truth first , January 4, 2020 at 11:55
Sheeee!!
Apparently Ben does not realize that the US CANNOT annihilate "half the world's
population" without annihilating half of the US population.
Like a US patriot he is perfectly prepared to kill billions "if required". Only a
psychopath would ever consider killing billions of innocents "if required"
E depois fariam o que ! virariam zumbis 'sobre os escombros .como filmes de mad max.
kgw , January 4, 2020 at 13:51
We? Define "We,", Mr. Novick. I am a native of the U.S., and the only "We" that would act
in such a way are not aware of being human.
Mrs. Debra L. Carr de Legorreta , January 4, 2020 at 14:07
Ben Novick we cannot eliminate half the world's population without eliminating all of
it.
That's the problem. We have no sense of proportionality.
They kill one "contractor" we kill 25 militia members.
They trash one embassy, hurting no one; we murder their top general, murder several other top
officials, and we drone the heck out of a new group of protesters getting on their way to the
same embassy. Totally disproportionate.
Like you, these neocons are overly impressed with their toys and their self-righteousness.
They couldn't stomach brown people desecrating their pretty billion-dollar embassy in
Baghdad.
YOUR way of thinking IS the problem.
Your comments remind me of Hillary Clinton cackling on getting the news that Gaddafi had been
sodomized and murdered.
You proud? Is that what being a "patriot" means to you, that you can murder anyone you
want?
LJ , January 4, 2020 at 17:33
Hey Ben, Learn something. Look up Bomb Carbon. It is going to disappear in a few years so
government funded Scientists are doing a lot of testing and engaging in various kinds of
research trying to make good use of it while the fun lasts. . Bomb Carbon is short for a
radioactive by product of the nuclear explosions that were ended by the early 60's after the
ban on Testing of Nuclear weapons above ground like at Bikini Atoll, Area 51, etc. Now I
guess you think there's a good reason to create a whole lot more bomb carbon. It will be
great . Good for research? We got to keep those guys gainfully employed? We've got to keep
ahead of them damn Ruskies and the Chinese too , the ones that aren't already employed at
MIT, Lawrence Livermore Lab and elsewhere here in the Brigand Nation that assassinates with
impunity without regard to International Law or Borders then lies about it on TV. Well, since
we can't do it to American Indians anymore we got to find new victims?
This was a historic mistake. 650 million Shiites will not ever forget This. This man was a
hero and definitely expected assasination and martyrdom. Read about Twelvers. The Shia Branch
of Islam. Their religion is based on and centers around revering the 11 already martyred
Imans that were assassinated/murdered by unjust powers. I don't make this stuff up. This
plays right into what they believe. No Shiite could side with the USA on this. Not possible .
There are hundreds of millions of them.
This was a stupid decision by stupid men and unless the Democrats are just as stupid they are
going to resist this, come out against a Trump War and Trump is going to lose the election in
a landslide. Americans want No More War despite what the News Media and the Pentagon and yes
the Deep State say.
Trump- LOSER.
geeyp , January 3, 2020 at 23:27
At least where Pepe reports from, he has access to great food for our Last Supper, as some
portray this stupid action from President Trump and the all too eager Pentagon, who is the
only group to generously gain from this. Netanyahu may now think he does and we wouldn't want
him or expect him to think any other way.
Mark Stanley , January 3, 2020 at 19:35
Excellent Pepe, but disturbing
The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Happy New Year? Will Americans really swallow
this treble hook whole again?
I keep wondering how much insider or opportunistic trading goes on. Any one who knew about
this 10 minutes beforehand could simply go long oil, or gold. Quite predictable. The markets
are so volatile nowadays, over reacting to news events. Much of this is due to AI trading
systems that are programmed to react to news, and they get the feeds before anyone else and
react instantly–buy/sell. Deep state creeps certainly made a killing in the markets
today. No brainer there. It would be interesting to check out the volume on various options
and commodities contracts prior to the assassination. The term "elephant tracks" has been
used to identify massive buy/sell orders by unidentified players.
As an old hippy guy, I really thought our world would be a better place by now. Au contrere.
No matter what political system, the sociopaths continue to rise to the top like toxic
scum.
Jeff Harrison , January 3, 2020 at 18:12
I imagine that the Iranians will be able to demonstrate that the the US isn't the only
nation that can assassinate at a distance and I also suspect that Israel will discover a few
dead bodies of their own. I expect that the Iraqis will kick the US out of their country.
They certainly don't want to be the battle field for an Iran/US war either. The real question
will be – what will Russia's and China's response to this be?
Clark M Shanahan , January 3, 2020 at 22:13
I wish that calm heads shall prevail.
BTW: the Saudi's can expect payback, too.
rosemerry , January 4, 2020 at 13:17
There is an agreement between the USA and Iraq about US troops inside Iraq,and this act
has clearly broken it, and if the Iraqis do not kick all the US troops out they will get no
support from anyone. There is NO excuse to treat the government of an "allied, sovereign"
country in such a way, involving Iraqi government forces and militias as well, of course, as
Gen. Suleimani.
karlof1 , January 3, 2020 at 17:54
Wonder what the odds are on Pompeo, Trump, or Esper dying non-violently at some point in
the near future? IMO, Trump also killed his reelection. My other initial and subsequent
comments were made at Moon of Alabama and don't need repeating here. I will post this there
along with a few quotes from Pepe, whose Facebook is also jammed.
caseyf5 , January 4, 2020 at 07:41
Hello karlof1,
I vehemently disagree in your belief that the tRump will lose the 2020 election. His cult
followers think that war with Iran is a great thing!
Tom Kath , January 3, 2020 at 17:53
There can be no clearer DECLARATION OF WAR. Choose your sides and prepare to die
regardless which side you choose.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, right
(Credit: Wikimedia Commons).
Last October Yossi Cohen, head of Israel's Mossad, spoke openly about assassinating Iranian
general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps.
"He knows very well that his assassination is not impossible," Cohen said in an
interview. Soleimani had boasted that the Israel's tried to assassinate him in 2006 and
failed.
"With all due respect to his bluster," Cohen said, "he hasn't necessarily committed the
mistake yet that would place him on the prestigious list of Mossad's assassination
targets."
Soleimani's convoy was struck by U.S. missiles as he left a meeting at Baghdad's airport
amid anti-Iranian and anti-American demonstrations in Iraq. Supporters of an Iranian-backed
militia had agreed to withdraw
from the U.S. diplomatic compound in return for a promise that the government would allow a
parliamentary vote on expelling 5,000 U.S. troops from the country.
The Pentagon confirmed the military operation, which came "at the direction of the
president" and was "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans." The Pentagon claimed in a
statement that Gen. Soleimani was "actively developing plans to attack American diplomats
and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, under indictment for criminal charges, was the first
and only national leader to support Trump's action, while claiming that that Trump acted
entirely on his own.
"Just as Israel has the right to self-defense, the United States has exactly the same
right," Netanyahu
told reporters in Greece. "Qassem Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of American
citizens and other innocents, and he was planning more attacks."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed retaliation for the general's death, tweeting that
"Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime."
Capable Foe
Soleimani was the most capable foe of the United States and Israel in the region. As chief
of the
Al-Quds force, Soleimani was a master of Iran's asymmetric warfare strategy, using proxy
forces to bleed Iran's enemies, while preserving the government's ability to plausibly deny
involvement.
After the U.S. invasions of Iraq, he funded and trained anti-American militias that launched
low-level attacks on U.S. occupation forces, killing upward of 600 U.S. servicemen and
generating pressure for U.S. withdrawal.
In recent years, Soleimani led two successful Iranian military operations: the campaign to
drive ISIS out of western Iraq in 2015 and the campaign to crush the jihadist forces opposed to
Syria's Bashar al-Assad. The United States and Israel denounced Iran's role in both operations
but could not prevent Iran from claiming victory.
Soleimani had assumed a leading role in Iraqi politics in the past year. The anti-ISIS
campaign relied on Iraqi militias, which the Iranians supported with money, weapons, and
training. After ISIS was defeated, these militia maintained a prominent role in Iraq that many
resented, leading to demonstrations and rioting. Soleimani was seeking to stabilize the
government and channel the protests against the United States when he was killed.
In the same period, Israel pursued its program of targeted assassination. In the past decade
Mossad
assassinated at least five Iranian nuclear scientists, according to Israeli journalist
Ronen Bergman, in an effort to thwart Iran's nuclear program. Yossi Melman, another Israeli
journalist, says that Mossad has assassinated
60-70 enemies outside of its borders since its founding in 1947, though none as prominent
as Soleimani.
Israel also began striking at the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq last year. The United
States did the same on December 29, killing
19 fighters and prompting anti-American demonstrations as big as the anti-Iranian
demonstrations of a month ago.
Now the killing of Soleimani promises more unrest, if not open war. The idea that it will
deter Iranian attacks is foolish.
"This doesn't mean war," wrote former Defense Department official Andrew Exum, "It
will not lead to war, and it doesn't risk war. None of that.
It
is
war. "
The Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida reported a year ago that Washington had given Israel the
green light to assassinate Soleimani . Al-Jarida, which in recent years has broken
exclusive stories from Israel, quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that "there is an
American-Israeli agreement" that Soleimani is a "threat to the two countries' interests in the
region." It is generally assumed in the Arab world that the paper is used as an Israeli
platform for conveying messages to other countries in the Middle East.
Trump has now fulfilled the wishes of Mossad. After proclaiming his intention to end
America's " stupid endless wars," the
president has effectively declared war on the largest country in the region in solidarity with
Israel, the most unpopular country in the Middle East.
This article first appeared on Jefferson Morley's TheDeepStateBlog .
ast Friday, the Iranian-backed militia Kata'ib Hizbollah or KH launched yet another attack
against American forces in Iraq, resulting in the death of one American civilian, and injuries
to four American service members, as well as two of our partners in the Iraqi Security Forces.
This continues a string of attacks against bases with U.S. forces and Iraqi Security Forces. KH
has a strong linkage to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and has received lethal
aid, support, and direction from Iran.
Over the last couple of months Iranian-backed Shia militias have repeatedly attacked bases
hosting American forces in Iraq. These attacks have injured our partners in the Iraqi Security
Forces, but fortunately Americans were not casualties of these attacks until last week. On
November 9th, Iranian-backed Shia militias fired rockets at Q-West Air Base located in
North-West Iraq. On December 3rd, they conducted a rocket attack against Al Asad Air Base, and
on December 5th, they launched rockets against Balad Air Base. Finally, on December 9th, these
same militia groups fired rockets at the Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center located on the
Baghdad International Airport. It is clear that these attacks are being directed by the Iranian
regime, specifically IRGC leadership.
In response, U.S. leaders have repeatedly warned the Iranians and their Shia militia proxies
against further provocative actions. At the same time, we have urged the Iraqi government to
take all necessary steps to protect American forces in their country. I personally have spoken
to Iraqi leadership multiple times over recent months, urging them to do more.
After the attack last Friday, at the direction of the President, U.S. forces launched
defensive strikes against KH forces in Iraq and Syria. These attacks were aimed at reducing
KH's ability to launch additional attacks against U.S. personnel and to make it clear to Iran
and Iranian-backed militias that the United States will not hesitate to defend our forces in
the region.
On Tuesday, December 31st, at the instigation of Shia militias, violent rallies of members
of these militias outside the American embassy in Baghdad resulted in damage to exterior entry
facilities and buildings at the embassy compound. We know it was Iranian-backed Shia militias
because key leaders were spotted in the crowd and some militia members showed up wearing their
uniforms and carried the flags of their militia, including KH. We continue to urge the Iraqi
government to prevent further escalation. Leaders of the Iraqi government have condemned the
attack on the U.S. embassy, including the Iraqi president, prime minister, foreign minister,
and speaker of the parliament. Additionally, regional and international partners have condemned
the attacks on U.S. facilities, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain in the region, and the
E.U., Germany, France, and others around the globe.
On Tuesday, to ensure the security of the Americans at the embassy in Baghdad, we
immediately deployed Marines from Kuwait who arrived at the embassy in a matter of hours. We
also deployed a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division to ensure that we can provide
additional defensive support to the embassy in Baghdad or elsewhere in the region as
needed.
Let me speak directly to Iran and to our partners and allies. To Iran and its proxy
militias: we will not accept continued attacks against our personnel and forces in the region.
Attacks against us will be met with responses in the time, manner, and place of our choosing.
We urge the Iranian regime to end their malign activities.
To our partners and allies: we must stand together against the malign and destabilizing
actions of Iran. The 81 nations and member organizations of the Defeat ISIS Coalition are in
Iraq and Syria, and cooperating around the globe to defeat ISIS. We have worked closely with
our partners in the Iraqi Security Forces and Syrian Democratic Forces to roll-back the
so-called ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria and liberated millions of Iraqis and Syrians. NATO
nations are also in Iraq to assist with building the capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces.
Unlike the Iranians who continue to meddle in Iraq's internal affairs and seek to use
corruption to further Tehran's malign influence, the United States and our allies are committed
to an independent, stable, secure, and sovereign democratic Iraq that addresses the aspirations
and needs of the Iraqi people, who we see protesting for these very things and objecting to
Iran's malign influence. We call on our friends and allies to continue to work together to
reduce Iran's destabilizing influence so Iraq is governed by Iraqis without this interference
in its internal affairs. Mark T. Esper
After the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989 and the
death of the Soviet Union was confirmed two years later when Boris Yeltsin courageously stood
down the Red Army tanks in front of Moscow's White House, a dark era in human history came to
an end.
The world had descended into a 77-Year War, incepting with the mobilization of the armies of
old Europe in August 1914. If you want to count bodies, 150 million were killed by all the
depredations that germinated in the Great War, its foolish aftermath at Versailles, and the
march of history into World War II and the Cold War that followed inexorably thereupon.
Upwards of 8% of the human race was wiped out during that span. The toll encompassed the
madness of trench warfare during 1914-1918; the murderous regimes of Soviet and Nazi
totalitarianism that rose from the ashes of the Great War and Versailles; and then the carnage
of WWII and all the lesser (unnecessary) wars and invasions of the Cold War including Korea and
Vietnam.
At the end of the Cold War, therefore, the last embers of the fiery madness that had
incepted with the guns of August 1914 had finally burned out. Peace was at hand. Yet 28 years
later there is still no peace because Imperial Washington confounds it.
In fact, the War Party entrenched in the nation's capital is dedicated to economic interests
and ideological perversions that guarantee perpetual war. These forces ensure endless waste on
armaments; they cause the inestimable death and human suffering that stems from 21st-century
high-tech warfare; and they inherently generate terrorist blowback from those upon whom the War
Party inflicts its violent hegemony.
Worse still, Washington's great war machine and teeming national security industry is its
own agent of self-perpetuation. When it is not invading, occupying and regime changing, its
vast apparatus of internal policy bureaus and outside contractors, lobbies, think tanks and
NGOs is busy generating reasons for new imperial ventures.
So there was a virulent threat to peace still lurking on the Potomac after the 77-Year War
ended. The great general and President, Dwight Eisenhower, had called it the
"military-industrial complex" in his farewell address. But that memorable phrase had been
abbreviated by his speechwriters, who deleted the word "congressional" in a gesture of comity
to the legislative branch.
So restore Ike's deleted reference to the pork barrels and Sunday-afternoon warriors of
Capitol Hill and toss in the legions of Beltway busybodies who constituted the civilian
branches of the Cold War armada (CIA, State, AID, NED and the rest) and the circle would have
been complete. It constituted the most awesome machine of warfare and imperial hegemony since
the Roman legions bestrode most of the civilized world.
In a word, the real threat to peace circa 1991 was that the American Imperium would not go
away quietly into the good night.
In fact, during the past 28 years Imperial Washington has lost all memory that peace was
ever possible at the end of the Cold War. Today it is as feckless, misguided and bloodthirsty
as were Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna and London in August 1914.
A few months after that horrendous slaughter had been unleashed 105 years ago, however,
soldiers along the western front broke into spontaneous truces of Christmas celebration,
song and even exchange of gifts . For a brief moment they wondered why they were
juxtaposed in lethal combat along the jaws of hell.
A sudden cold snap had left the battlefield frozen, which was actually a relief for
troops wallowing in sodden mire. Along the Front, troops extracted themselves from their
trenches and dugouts, approaching each other warily, and then eagerly, across No Man's Land.
Greetings and handshakes were exchanged, as were gifts scavenged from care packages sent from
home. German souvenirs that ordinarily would have been obtained only through bloodshed –
such as spiked pickelhaube helmets, or Gott mit uns belt buckles – were bartered for
similar British trinkets. Carols were sung in German, English, and French. A few photographs
were taken of British and German officers standing alongside each other, unarmed, in No Man's
Land.
Near the Ypres salient, Germans and Scotsmen chased after wild hares that, once caught,
served as an unexpected Christmas feast. Perhaps the sudden exertion of chasing wild hares
prompted some of the soldiers to think of having a football match. Then again, little prompting
would have been necessary to inspire young, competitive men – many of whom were English
youth recruited off soccer fields – to stage a match. In any case, numerous accounts in
letters and journals attest to the fact that on Christmas 1914, German and English soldiers
played soccer on the frozen turf of No Man's Land.
British Field Artillery Lieutenant John Wedderburn-Maxwell described the event as
"probably the most extraordinary event of the whole war – a soldier's truce without any
higher sanction by officers and generals ."
The truth is, there was no good reason for the Great War. The world had stumbled into war
based on false narratives and the institutional imperatives of military mobilization plans,
alliances and treaties arrayed into a doomsday machine and petty short-term diplomatic
maneuvers and political calculus. Yet it took more than three-quarters of a century for all the
consequential impacts and evils to be purged from the life of the planet.
The peace that was lost last time has not been regained this time, however, and for the same
reasons. Historians can readily name the culprits from 105 years ago.
These include the German general staff's plan for a lightning mobilization and strike on the
western front called the Schlieffen Plan; the incompetence and intrigue in the court at St.
Petersburg; French President Poincare's anti-German irredentism owing to the 1871 loss of his
home province, Alsace-Lorraine; and the bloodthirsty cabal around Winston Churchill who forced
England into an unnecessary war, among countless others.
Since these casus belli of 1914 were criminally trivial in light of all that metastasized
thereafter, it might do well to name the institutions and false narratives that block the
return of peace today. The fact is, these impediments are even more contemptible than the
forces that crushed the Christmas truces one century ago.
IMPERIAL WASHINGTON – THE NEW GLOBAL MENACE
There is no peace on earth today for reasons mainly rooted in Imperial Washington –
not Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Damascus, Mosul or the rubble of Raqqa. Imperial Washington has
become a global menace owing to what didn't happen in 1991.
At that crucial inflection point, Bush the Elder should have declared "mission accomplished"
and parachuted into the great Ramstein air base in Germany to begin the demobilization of the
America's war machine.
So doing, he could have slashed the Pentagon budget from $600 billion to $250 billion (2015
$); demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons
development, procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network
of U.S. military bases; reduced the United States' standing armed forces from 1.5 million to a
few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world-disarmament and peace campaign, as did his
Republican predecessors during the 1920s.
Unfortunately, George H. W. Bush was not a man of peace, vision or even middling
intelligence.
He was the malleable tool of the War Party, and it was he who single-handedly blew the peace
when, in the very year the 77-Year War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, he plunged
America into a petty argument between the impetuous dictator of Iraq and the gluttonous emir of
Kuwait. But that argument was none of George Bush's or America's business.
By contrast, even though liberal historians have reviled Warren G. Harding as some kind of
dummkopf politician, he well understood that the Great War had been for naught, and that to
ensure it never happened again the nations of the world needed to rid themselves of their huge
navies and standing armies.
To that end, he achieved the largest global-disarmament agreement ever during the Washington
Naval Conference of 1921, which halted the construction of new battleships for more than a
decade. And even then, the moratorium ended only because the vengeful victors at Versailles
never ceased exacting their revenge on Germany.
And while he was at it, President Harding also pardoned Eugene Debs. In so doing, he gave
witness to the truth that the intrepid socialist candidate for president and vehement antiwar
protester, who Wilson had thrown in prison for exercising his First Amendment right to speak
against US entry into a pointless European war, had been right all along.
In short, Warren G. Harding knew the war was over and the folly of Wilson's 1917 plunge into
Europe's bloodbath should not be repeated, at all hazards.
But not George H. W. Bush. The man should never be forgiven for enabling the likes of Dick
Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Gates and their neocon pack of jackals to come to power –
even if he eventually denounced them in his doddering old age.
Alas, upon his death, Bush the Elder was deified, not vilified, by the mainstream press and
the bipartisan duopoly. And that tells you all you need to know about why Washington is
ensnared in its Forever Wars and is the very reason why there is still no peace on earth.
Even more to the point, by opting not for peace but for war and oil in the Persian Gulf in
1991 Washington opened the gates to an unnecessary confrontation with Islam and nurtured the
rise of jihadist terrorism that would not haunt the world today save for forces unleashed by
George H. W. Bush's petulant quarrel with Saddam Hussein.
We will momentarily get to the 45-year-old error that holds the Persian Gulf is an American
lake and that the answer to high oil prices and energy security is the Fifth Fleet.
Suffice it to say here that the answer to high oil prices everywhere and always is
high oil prices – a truth driven home in spades by the oil busts of 2009 and 2015 and the
fact the real price of oil today (2019 $) is lower than it was on the eve of the great oil
embargo of 1973.
But first it is well to remember that in 1991 there was no plausible threat anywhere on the
planet to the safety and security of the citizens of Springfield, MA, Lincoln, NE or Spokane,
WA when the Cold War ended.
The Warsaw Pact had dissolved into more than a dozen woebegone sovereign statelets; the
Soviet Union was now unscrambled into 15 independent and far-flung republics from Belarus to
Tajikistan; and the Russian motherland would soon plunge into an economic depression that would
leave it with a GDP about the size of the Philadelphia MSA.
Likewise, China's GDP was even smaller and more primitive than Russia's. Even as Mr. Deng
was discovering the People's Bank of China's printing press, which would enable it to become a
great mercantilist exporter, an incipient Chinese threat to national security was never in the
cards.
After all, it was the 4,000 Wal-Marts in America upon which the prosperity of the new Red
Capitalism inextricably depended and upon which the rule of the Communist oligarchs in Beijing
was ultimately anchored. Even the hardliners among them could see that in swapping militarism
for mercantilism and invading America with tennis shoes, neckties and home textiles –
that the door had been closed to any other kind of invasion thereafter.
NO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS OR JIHADI THREAT CIRCA 1991
Likewise, in 1991 there was no global Islamic threat or jihadi terrorist menace at all. What
existed under those headings were sundry fragments and deposits of Middle Eastern religious,
ethnic and tribal histories that were of moment in their immediate region, but no threat to
America's homeland security whatsoever.
The Shiite/Sunni divide had coexisted since A.D. 671, but its episodic eruptions into
battles and wars over the centuries had rarely extended beyond the region, and certainly had no
reason to fester into open conflict in 1991.
Inside the artificial state of Iraq, which had been drawn on a map by historically ignorant
European diplomats in 1916, for instance, the Shiite and Sunni got along tolerably. That's
because the nation was ruled by Saddam Hussein's Baathist brand of secular Arab nationalism,
flavored by a muscular propensity for violent repression of internal dissent.
Hussein championed law and order, state-driven economic development and politically
apportioned distributions from the spoils of the extensive government-controlled oil sector. To
be sure, Baathist socialism didn't bring much prosperity to the well-endowed lands of
Mesopotamia, but Hussein did have a Christian foreign minister and no sympathy for religious
extremism or violent pursuit of sectarian causes.
As it happened, the bloody Shiite/Sunni strife that plagues Iraq, Syria and the greater
middle east today and which functioned as a hatchery for angry young jihadi terrorists in their
thousands was initially unleashed only after Hussein had been driven from Kuwait in 1991 and
the CIA had instigated an armed uprising in the Shiite heartland around Basra..
That revolt was brutally suppressed by Hussein's republican guards, but it left an undertow
of resentment and revenge boiling below the surface. That was one of many of George H. W.
Bush's fetid legacies in the region.
Needless to say, when it came their turn, Bush the Younger and his cabal of neocon
warmongers could not leave well enough alone.
When they foolishly destroyed Saddam Hussein and his entire regime in the pursuit of
nonexistent WMDs and alleged ties with al-Qaeda, they literally opened the gates of hell,
leaving Iraq as a lawless failed state where both recent and ancient religious and tribal
animosities were given unlimited violent vent.
WHY THE WAR PARTY NEEDED TO DEMONIZE IRAN
Also circa 1990, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was no threat to America's safety
and security – even if it was an unfortunate albatross on the Persian people.
The very idea that Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the
rest of the world is a giant fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party
and its Bibi Netanyahu branch in order to win political support for their confrontationist
policies.
Indeed, the three-decade-long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose.
Namely, it has enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby
justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military
mobilization.
Indeed, Iran has not been demonized by happenstance. When the Cold War officially ended in
1991, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US
military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic
environment.
In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way
of keeping defense spending at high Cold War levels. If the fearsome Soviet Union was gone, a
vastly inflated threat emanating from Iran's minuscule GDP of $350 billion and tiny defense
budget of $15 billion would needs be invented and hyperbolized.
And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to
come out of the Beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then
threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!
To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa
against the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that
enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime
of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much
different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.
That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA
overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and
megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne to rule as a puppet on behalf
of US security and oil interests.
During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of
the Persian nation; with the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret
police force known as SAVAK. The latter made the East German Stasi look civilized by
comparison.
All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic
organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the
SAVAK agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest,
detain, brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own
prisons in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places
throughout the country as well. Many of those activities were carried out without any
institutional checks.
Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah had embarked on a massive civilian
nuclear-power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape
with dozens of nuclear power plants.
He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from
Western companies – and also fuel-cycle support services such as uranium enrichment
– in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.
At the time of the revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but
the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset
of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion
deposit languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the
Shah to fund a ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of
reactors.
Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was
not hell-bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst
of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa
against biological and chemical weapons.
Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces
– some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking
satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture
was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for
nukes.
However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy that ruled Iran did not
consist of demented warmongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own
forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.
HOW WASHINGTON INSPIRED THE MYTH OF IRAN'S SECRET NUCLEAR-WEAPONS PROGRAM
Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some
additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French
enrichment-services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German
suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when they tried to get their $2 billion
deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.
To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off-again, on-again efforts by
the Iranians to purchase dual-use equipment and components on the international
market, often from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's
relentless efforts to block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty to complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.
Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics that
inhabited Washington's national-security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin
every attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret
campaign to get "the bomb".
The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear mongering that came out of this neocon
campaign are truly deplorable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George H. W.
Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury the
hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held in
Lebanon in 1989.
Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States
and the West; and after the devastation of the eight-year war with Iraq, he was wholly focused
on economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even Bush
the Elder's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.
So the prisoner-release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the
CIA was assumed in 1991 by the despicable Robert Gates.
He was one of the very worst of the unreconstructed Cold War apparatchiks who looked peace
in the eye, and elected, instead, to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim. That is, Gates
spent the rest of his career searching the globe for monsters to fabricate.
In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right-hand
man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan Administration. Among the many
untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his
career when it blew up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.
From his post as deputy national-security director in 1989 (and then as CIA head shortly
thereafter), Gates pulled out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed off
the White House goodwill from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was
both sponsoring terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple
of War Party propaganda after 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that Iran
is an aggressive would-be hegemon and a fount of terrorism dedicated to the destruction of the
state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.
The latter giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi
Netanyahu's coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that
Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli
politics that kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades – a plague on mankind
that hopefully is finally ending.
But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability.
And compared to the latter's 200-odd nukes, Iran never even had a nuclear weaponization program
after a small-scale research program was abandoned in 2003.
And that is not our opinion. It was the sober assessment of the nation's top 17 intelligence
agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates for 2007 , and has been
confirmed ever since.
It's the reason that the neocon plan to bomb Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term didn't
happen. As Dubya confessed in his autobiography, even he couldn't figure out how he could
explain to the American public why he was bombing facilities that all his intelligence agencies
had said did not exist. That is, he would have been impaled on WMD 2.0 on his way out of the
White House.
Moreover, now via a further study arising from the 2015 international nuclear accord –
which would have straitjacketed even Iran's civilian program and eliminated most of its
enriched-uranium stockpiles and spinning capacity had not the Donald foolishly shit-canned it
– the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also confirmed that Iran had no
secret nuclear-weapons program after 2003.
The whole scary bedtime story was false War Party propaganda manufactured from whole
cloth.
MORE WAR PARTY LIES – DEMONIZATION OF THE SHIITE CRESCENT
In this context, the War Party's bloviating about Iran's leadership of the so-called Shiite
Crescent is another component of Imperial Washington's 28-year-long roadblock to peace. Iran
wasn't a threat to American security in 1991, and since then it has never organized a hostile
coalition of terrorists that requires Washington's intervention.
Start with Iran's long-standing support of Bashir Assad's government in Syria. That alliance
goes back to his father's era and is rooted in the historic confessional politics of the
Islamic world.
The Assad regime is Alawite, a branch of the Shiites, and despite the regime's brutality, it
has been a bulwark of protection for all of Syria's minority sects, including Christians,
against a majority-Sunni ethnic cleansing. The latter would surely occur if US and
Saudi-supported rebels, led by the Nusra Front and ISIS, had been permitted to take full
power.
Likewise, the fact that the Baghdad government of the broken state of Iraq – that is,
the artificial 1916 concoction of two striped-pants European diplomats (Messrs. Sykes and Picot
of the British and French foreign offices, respectively) – is now aligned with Iran is
also a result of confessional politics and geo-economic propinquity.
For all practical purposes, Iraq has been partitioned. The Kurds of the Northeast have
declared their independence and have been collecting their own oil revenue for the past few
years and operating their own security forces.
And the western Sunni lands of the upper Euphrates, of course, were first conquered by ISIS
with American weapons dropped in place by the hapless $25 billion Iraqi army minted by
Washington's departing proconsuls; and then obliterated during Obama's vicious bombing and
droning campaign designed to uproot the terrorist evil that Washington itself had spawned.
Accordingly, what is left of the rump state of Iraq is a population that is overwhelmingly
Shiite and nurses bitter resentments after two decades of violent conflict with the Sunni
forces. Why in the world, therefore, wouldn't they ally with their Shiite neighbor?
Likewise, the claim that Iran is now trying to annex Yemen, thereby justifying the sheer
genocide wreaked upon it by the Saudi air war, is pure claptrap. The ancient territory of Yemen
had been racked by civil war off and on since the early 1970s. And a major driving force of
that conflict has been confessional differences between the Sunni South and the Shiite
North.
In more recent times, Washington's blatant drone war inside Yemen against alleged terrorists
and its domination and financing of Yemen's government eventually produced the same old outcome
– that is, another failed state and an illegitimate government that fled at the 11th
hour, leaving another vast cache of American arms and equipment behind.
Accordingly, the Houthis forces now in control of substantial parts of the country are not
some kind of advanced guard sent in by Tehran. They are indigenous partisans who share a
confessional tie with Iran, but who have actually been armed, if inadvertently, by
Washington.
Finally, there is the fourth element of the purported Iranian axis – the
Hezbollah-controlled Shiite communities of southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley in the
northeast. Like everything else in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a product of historical
European imperialism, Islamic confessional politics and the frequently misguided and
counterproductive security policies of Israel.
In the first place, Lebanon was not any more a real country than Iraq was when Sykes and
Picot laid their straight-edged rulers on a map. The result was a stew of religious and ethnic
divisions – Maronite Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Copts, Druse, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites,
Kurds, Armenians, Jews and countless more – that made the fashioning of a viable state
virtually impossible.
At length, an alliance of Christians and Sunnis gained control of the country, leaving the
40% Shiite population disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged, as well. But it was the
inflow of Palestinian refugees in the 1960s and 1970s that eventually upset the balance of
sectarian forces and triggered a civil war that essentially lasted from 1975 until the turn of
the century.
It also triggered a catastrophically wrong-headed Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in
1982, and a subsequent repressive occupation of mostly Shiite territories for the next 18
years. The alleged purpose of this invasion was to chase the PLO and Yasser Arafat out of the
enclave in southern Lebanon that they had established after being driven out of Jordan in
1970.
Eventually Israel succeeded in sending Arafat packing to North Africa, but in the process
created a militant, Shiite-based resistance movement that did not even exist in 1982 and that
in due course became the strongest single force in Lebanon's fractured domestic political
arrangements.
After Israel withdrew in 2000, the then-Christian president of the country made abundantly
clear that Hezbollah had become a legitimate and respected force within the Lebanese polity,
not merely some subversive agent of Tehran:
"For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national
resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of
that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement."
So, yes, Hezbollah is an integral component of the so-called Shiite Crescent, and its
confessional and political alignment with Tehran is entirely plausible. But that arrangement
– however uncomfortable for Israel – does not represent unprovoked Iranian
aggression on Israel's northern border.
Instead, it's actually the blowback from the stubborn refusal of Israeli governments –
especially the right-wing Likud governments of modern times – to deal constructively with
the Palestinian question.
In lieu of a two-state solution in the territory of Palestine, therefore, Israeli policy has
produced a chronic state of confrontation and war with the huge share of the Lebanese
population represented by Hezbollah.
The latter is surely no agency of peaceful governance and has committed its share of
atrocities. But the point at hand is that given the last 35 years of history and Israeli
policy, Hezbollah would exist as a menacing force on its northern border even if the Iranian
theocracy didn't exist and the shah or his heir was still on the Peacock Throne.
In short, there is no alliance of terrorism in the Shiite Crescent that threatens American
security. That proposition is simply one of the big lies that was promulgated by the War Party
after 1991 and that has been happily embraced by Imperial Washington since then in order to
keep the military-industrial-security complex alive, and justify its self-appointed role as
policeman of the world.
WASHINGTON'S ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT THE PERSIAN GULF IS AN AMERICAN LAKE – THE ROOT OF
SUNNI JIHADISM
The actual terrorist threat has arisen from the Sunni, not the Shiite, side of the
Islamic divide. But that, in turn, is largely of Washington's own making; and it is
being nurtured by endless US meddling in the region's politics and by the bombing and droning
campaigns against Washington's self-created enemies.
At the root of Sunni-based terrorism is the long-standing Washington error that America's
security and economic well-being depend upon keeping an armada in the Persian Gulf in order to
protect the surrounding oil fields and the flow of tankers through the straits of Hormuz.
That doctrine has been wrong from the day it was officially enunciated by one of America's
great economic ignoramuses, Henry Kissinger, at the time of the original oil crisis in 1973.
The 46 years since then have proven in spades that it doesn't matter who controls the oil
fields, and that the only effective cure for high oil prices is the free market.
Every tin pot dictatorship from Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to
Saddam Hussein, to the bloody-minded chieftains of Nigeria, to the purportedly medieval mullahs
and fanatical revolutionary guards of Iran has produced oil – and all they could because
they desperately needed the revenue.
For crying out loud, even while the barbaric thugs of ISIS were briefly in power in eastern
Syria, they milked every possible drop of petroleum from the tiny, wheezing oil fields
scattered around their backwater domain. So there is no economic case whatsoever for Imperial
Washington's massive military presence in the Middle East.
The truth is, there is no such thing as an OPEC cartel – virtually every member
produces all they can and cheats whenever possible. The only thing that resembles production
control in the global oil market is the fact that the Saudi princes treat their oil reserves
not much differently than Exxon.
That is, they attempt to maximize the present value of their 270 billion barrels of
reserves, but ultimately are no more clairvoyant at calibrating the best oil price to
accomplish that than are the economists at Exxon or the International Energy Agency.
During the last decade, for example, the Saudis have repeatedly underestimated how rapidly
and extensively the $100-per-barrel marker reached in early 2008 and again in 2014 would
trigger a flow of investment, technology and cheap debt into the US shale patch, the Canadian
tar sands, the tired petroleum provinces of Russia, the deep waters offshore Brazil and the
like. And that's to say nothing of solar, wind and all the other government-subsidized
alternative sources of BTUs.
Way back when Jimmy Carter was telling us to turn down the thermostats and put on our
cardigan sweaters, those of us in Congress on the free market side of the so-called
energy-shortage debate said that high oil prices would bring about their own cure. Now we
know.
So the Fifth Fleet and its overt and covert auxiliaries should never have been there –
going all the way back to the CIA's coup against Iranian democracy in 1953.
But having turned Iran into an enemy, Imperial Washington was just getting started when 1990
rolled around. Once again in the name of "oil security" it plunged the American war machine
into the politics and religious fissures of the Persian Gulf, and did so on account of the
above referenced small-potatoes conflict that had no bearing whatsoever on the safety and
security of American citizens.
As US Ambassador Glaspie rightly told Saddam Hussein on the eve of Hussein's Kuwait
invasion, America had no dog in that hunt.
Kuwait wasn't even a country; it was a bank account sitting on a swath of oil fields
surrounding an ancient trading city that had been abandoned by Ibn Saud in the early 20th
century. That's because Saud didn't know what oil was or that it was there; and in any event,
it had been made a separate protectorate by the British in 1913 for reasons that are lost in
the fog of diplomatic history.
Likewise, Iraq's contentious dispute with Kuwait had been over its claim that the emir of
Kuwait was "slant drilling" across his border into Iraq's Rumaila field. Yet it was a wholly
elastic boundary of no significance whatsoever.
In fact, the dispute over the Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration
arbitrarily marked the Iraq – Kuwait border two miles north of the southernmost tip of
the Rumaila field.
And that newly defined boundary, in turn, had come only 44 years after a pair of English and
French diplomats had carved up their winnings from the Ottoman Empire's demise by laying a
straight-edged ruler on the map. In so doing, they thereby confected the artificial country of
"Iraq" from the historically independent and hostile Mesopotamian provinces of the Shiites in
the South, the Sunnis in the West and the Kurds in the North.
In short, it did not matter who controlled the southern tip of the Rumaila field – the
brutal dictator of Baghdad or the opulent emir of Kuwait. Neither the price of oil, nor the
peace of America, nor the security of Europe nor the future of Asia depended upon it.
THE FIRST GULF WAR – A CATASTROPHIC ERROR
But once again Bush the Elder got persuaded to take the path of war. This time it was by
Henry Kissinger's economically illiterate protégés at the National Security
Council and Bush's Texas oilman secretary of state. They falsely claimed that the
will-o'-the-wisp of "oil security" was at stake, and that 500,000 American troops needed to be
planted in the sands of Arabia.
That was a catastrophic error, and not only because the presence of "crusader" boots on the
purportedly sacred soil of Arabia offended the CIA-trained mujahedeen of Afghanistan, who had
become unemployed when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The 1991 CNN-glorified war games in the Gulf also further empowered another group of
unemployed crusaders. Namely, the neocon national-security fanatics who had misled Ronald
Reagan into a massive military buildup to thwart what they claimed to be an ascendant Soviet
Union bent on nuclear-war-winning capabilities and global conquest.
All things being equal, the sight of Boris Yeltsin, vodka flask in hand, facing down the Red
Army a few months later should have sent the neocons into the permanent disrepute and obscurity
they so richly deserved. But Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz managed to extract from
Washington's Pyrrhic victory in Kuwait a whole new lease on life for Imperial Washington.
Right then and there came the second erroneous predicate – to wit, that "regime
change" among the assorted tyrannies of the Middle East was in America's national interest.
More fatally, the neocons now insisted that the first Gulf War proved it could be achieved
through a sweeping interventionist menu of coalition diplomacy, security assistance, arms
shipments, covert action and open military attack and occupation.
What the neocon doctrine of regime change actually did, of course, was to foster the
Frankenstein that ultimately became ISIS. In fact, the only real terrorists in the world
who threaten normal civilian life in the West are the rogue offspring of Imperial Washington's
post-1990 machinations in the Middle East.
The CIA-trained and CIA-armed mujahedeen mutated into al-Qaeda not because bin Laden
suddenly had a religious epiphany that his Washington benefactors were actually the Great Satan
owing to America's freedom and liberty.
His murderous crusade was inspired by the Wahhabi fundamentalism loose in Saudi Arabia. This
benighted religious fanaticism became agitated to a fever pitch by Imperial Washington's
violent plunge into Persian Gulf political and religious quarrels, the stationing of troops in
Saudi Arabia, and the decade-long barrage of sanctions, embargoes, no-fly zones, covert actions
and open hostility against the Sunni regime in Baghdad after 1991.
Yes, bin Laden would have amputated Saddam's secularist head if Washington hadn't done it
first, but that's just the point. The attempt at regime change in March 2003 was one of the
most foolish acts of state in American history.
Bush the Younger's neocon advisers had no clue about the sectarian animosities and
historical grievances that Hussein had bottled up by parsing the oil loot and wielding the
sword under the banner of Baathist nationalism. But shock and awe blew the lid and the
de-Baathification campaign unleashed the furies.
Indeed, no sooner had George Bush pranced around on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln
declaring "mission accomplished" than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a CIA recruit to the Afghan war a
decade earlier and smalltime specialist in hostage taking and poisons, fled his no-count
redoubt in Kurdistan to emerge as a flamboyant agitator in the now-dispossessed Sunni
heartland.
The founder of ISIS succeeded in Fallujah and Anbar province just like the long list of
other terrorist leaders Washington claims to have exterminated. That is, Zarqawi gained his
following and notoriety among the region's population of deprived, brutalized and humiliated
young men by dint of being more brutal than their occupiers.
Indeed, even as Washington was crowing about the demise of Zarqawi, the remnants of the
Baathist regime and the hundreds of thousands of demobilized republican guards were coalescing
into al-Qaeda in Iraq, and their future leaders were being incubated in a monstrous nearby
detention center called Camp Bucca that contained more than 26,000 prisoners.
As one former U.S. Army officer, Mitchell Gray, later described it,
"You never see hatred like you saw on the faces of these detainees," Gray remembers of
his 2008 tour. "When I say they hated us, I mean they looked like they would have killed us in
a heartbeat if given the chance. I turned to the warrant officer I was with and I said, 'If
they could, they would rip our heads off and drink our blood.
What Gray didn't know – but might have expected – was that he was not
merely looking at the United States' former enemies, but its future ones as well. According to
intelligence experts and Department of Defense records, the vast majority of the leadership of
what is today known as ISIS, including its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, did time at Camp
Bucca.
And not only did the US feed, clothe and house these jihadists, it also played a
vital, if unwitting, role in facilitating their transformation into the most formidable
terrorist force in modern history.
Early in Bucca's existence, the most extreme inmates were congregated in Compound 6.
There were not enough Americans guards to safely enter the compound – and, in any event,
the guards didn't speak Arabic. So the detainees were left alone to preach to one another and
share deadly vocational advice . . .
Bucca also housed Haji Bakr, a former colonel in Saddam Hussein's air-defense force.
Bakr was no religious zealot. He was just a guy who lost his job when the Coalition Provisional
Authority disbanded the Iraqi military and instituted de-Baathification, a policy of banning
Saddam's past supporters from government work.
According to documents recently obtained by German newspaper Der Spiegel, Bakr was the
real mastermind behind ISIS's organizational structure and also mapped out the strategies that
fueled its early successes. Bakr, who died in fighting in 2014, was incarcerated at Bucca from
2006-' 08, along with a dozen or more of ISIS's top lieutenants."
The point is, regime change and nation building can never be accomplished by the lethal
violence of 21st-century armed forces; and they were an especially preposterous assignment in
the context of a land rent with 13-century-old religious fissures and animosities.
In fact, the wobbly, synthetic state of Iraq was doomed the minute Cheney and his bloody
gang decided to liberate it from the brutal but serviceable and secular tyranny of Saddam's
Baathist regime. That's because the process of elections and majority rule necessarily imposed
by Washington was guaranteed to elect a government beholden to the Shiite
majority .
After decades of mistreatment and Saddam's brutal suppression of their 1991 uprising, did
the latter have revenge on their minds and in their communal DNA? Did the Kurds have dreams of
an independent Kurdistan spilling into Turkey and Syria that had been denied their
30-million-strong tribe way back at Versailles and ever since?
Yes, they did. So the $25 billion spent on training and equipping the putative
armed forces of post-liberation Iraq was bound to end up in the hands of sectarian militias,
not a national army.
In fact, when the Shiite commanders fled Sunni-dominated Mosul in June 2014 they transformed
the ISIS uprising against the government in Baghdad into a vicious fledgling state in one fell
swoop. But it wasn't by beheadings and fiery jihadist sermons that it quickly enslaved dozens
of towns and several million people in western Iraq and the Euphrates Valley of Syria.
THE ISLAMIC STATE WAS WASHINGTON'S VERY OWN FRANKENSTEIN
To the contrary, its instruments of terror and occupation were the best weapons that the
American taxpayers could buy. That included 2,300 Humvees and tens of thousands of automatic
weapons, as well as vast stores of ammunition, trucks, rockets, artillery pieces and even tanks
and helicopters.
And that wasn't the half of it. The Islamic State also filled the power vacuum in Syria
created by its so-called civil war. But in truth that was another exercise in
Washington-inspired and Washington-financed regime change undertaken in connivance with Qatar
and Saudi Arabia.
The princes of the petro-states were surely not interested in expelling the tyranny next
door. Instead, the rebellion was about removing Iran's Alawite/Shiite ally from power in
Damascus and laying the gas pipelines to Europe – which Assad had vetoed – across
the upper Euphrates Valley.
In any event, due to Washington's regime change policy in Syria, ISIS soon had even more
troves of American weapons. Some of them were supplied to Sunni radicals by way of Qatar and
Saudi Arabia.
More came up the so-called ratline from Gaddafi's former arsenals in Benghazi through
Turkey. And still more came through Jordan from the "moderate" opposition trained there by the
CIA, which more often than not sold them or defected to the other side.
So, that the Islamic State was Washington's Frankenstein monster became evident from the
moment it rushed upon the scene in mid 2014. But even then the Washington War Party could not
resist adding fuel to the fire, whooping up another round of Islamophobia among the American
public and forcing the Obama White House into a futile bombing campaign for the third time in a
quarter century.
But the short-lived Islamic State was never a real threat to America's homeland
security.
The dusty, broken, impoverished towns and villages along the margins of the Euphrates River
and in the bombed-out precincts of Anbar province did not attract thousands of wannabe
jihadists from the failed states of the Middle East and the alienated Muslim townships of
Europe because the caliphate offered prosperity, salvation or any future at all.
What recruited them was outrage at the bombs and drones dropped on Sunni communities by the
US Air Force and by the cruise missiles launched from the bowels of the Mediterranean that
ripped apart homes, shops, offices and mosques which mostly contained as many innocent
civilians as ISIS terrorists.
The truth is, the Islamic State was destined for a short half-life anyway. It had been
contained by the Kurds in the North and East and by Turkey with NATO's second-largest army and
air force in the Northwest. And it was further surrounded by the Shiite Crescent in the
populated, economically viable regions of lower Syria and Iraq.
Absent Washington's misbegotten campaign to unseat Assad in Damascus and demonize his
confession-based Iranian ally, there would have been nowhere for the murderous fanatics who had
pitched a makeshift capital in Raqqa to go. They would have run out of money, recruits,
momentum and public acquiescence in their horrific rule in any event.
But with the US Air Force functioning as their recruiting arm and France's anti-Assad
foreign policy helping to foment a final spasm of anarchy in Syria, the gates of hell had been
opened wide, unnecessarily.
What has been puked out was not an organized war on Western civilization as former French
president Hollande so hysterically proclaimed in response to one of the predictable terrorist
episodes of mayhem in Paris.
It was just blowback carried out by that infinitesimally small contingent of mentally
deformed young men who can be persuaded to strap on a suicide belt.
In any event, bombing did not defeat ISIS; it just temporarily made more of them.
Ironically, what did extinguish the Islamic State was the Assad government, the Russian air
force invited into Syria by its official government and the ground forces of its Hezbollah and
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard allies. It was they who settled an ancient quarrel that had
never been any of America's business anyway.
But Imperial Washington was so caught up in its myths, lies and hegemonic stupidity that it
could not see the obvious. Accordingly, 28 years after the Cold War ended and several years
after Syria and friends extinguished the Islamic State, Washington has learned no lessons. The
American Imperium still stalks the planet for new monsters to destroy.
And that's why there is still no peace on earth 28 years after it should have broken out, as
did the Christmas Truce of 1914.
BTL the usual misdirection pointing just to Israel; never are the Sunni Arab oil sheiks in
the picture:
blinded by anti Zionism. The Gulf rulers love this aspect best.
Israel has little to offer to the US military-industrial complex except being an
unsinkable aircraft carrier.
The Sunni Arab oil sheiks on the other hand have massive amount of cash and oil reserves,
just what the US dollar needs to keep on floating against financial gravity.
With the Shia Iranian power exports as bogey these few individuals are also great clients
for the Anglo protection racket. Iran is more about mass movements, hard to be a wise guy
for.
Brianeg ,
I am as perplexed as anybody over the assassination of Soleimani, seeing no tactical
advantage and in fact serious disadvantages and dangers.
I can add little to the excellent article and excellent comments except to say that last
year, I saw a documentary about Soleimani and I felt at the time, he was perhaps the only
person that might bring peace to the whole of the Middle East and it may be for that reason
somebody thought he was dangerous and had to go.
At the very least, the Iraqi Government have now been given the chance to kick America and
NATO out of Iraq and maybe Syria as well. With that in mind, I am sure that MSM will then say
that this is all a Russian plot. I am sure that Pompeo's flight to Kazakstan is perhaps to
prepare an air base if a rapid Vietnam style evacuation needs to occur.
The options left open for America, NATO and Israel are fairly limited to remote offshore
missile attacks as any form of close engagement against battle hardened troops when your own
forces have only experience against unarmed civilians and forces only armed with small arms
would be fraught with danger. I am sure that Trump's advisers and their experience of playing
war games on their computers might think differently.
As for a major missile strike like that after Douma when only a handful of rockets hit
their targets especially as Syria did not have the latest anti missile systems, there is a
likelihood that not one might reach its target.
2020 is shaping up to become a very interesting year and by its end destined to become a
very changed world.
Trump's actions appear to be that of a very poor gambler trying to take desperate measures
to improve his luck. I believe Hitler had great faith in his astrologer, does Trump use
one?
richard le sarc ,
I rather see Israel, ie Bibi behind this. It is a diversion from his corruption crisis, it is
pure Talmudism, with its murder of Israel's 'enemies', and it brings forward the prospect of
'obliterating' 'Persia' in a New Purim that would cement Bibi's place as a 'King of Israel'
for all time ie a few more years. I really think that assuming that the architects of this
action are rational and sane, when they are mad, bad, dangerous to know and infinitely
blood-thirsty, is mistaken.
adlskfj ,
Ah, didn't take long to see Off Guardian's never ending commitment to the most vile President
in US history, and that's saying a lot. The Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!
So did the Deep State direct this fascist, racist, misogynist, jerk of epic proportions
Trump to pimp for war against Iran during his campaign? Can't see from this jerk's body
language that he sees himself as a "tough guy". Did the Deep State force him to take on super
neocon ex CIA director Woolsey as a foreign policy advisor during his campaign, or force him
to suck up to the State of Israel in an AIPAC speech outdoing Clinton's, or suck up to the
House of Saud bragging about arms sales with an effing poster, or force him to move the US
Embassy to Jerusalem, or force him to increase military operations in the ME including new
rules of engagement making it easier for US troops to slaughter civilians, or force him to
attack the Syrian regime, or force him to commit to "take the oil", or force him to name
torture queen Haspel to direct the CIA, or force him to nominate an oil tycoon as Secretary
of State then replace him with torture advocate ex CIA director Pompeo, or force him to
re-initiate and increase military hardware from war zones going to police departments, and
the sorry list goes on that OG and other compromised "leftists" regard poor Trump being
forced to do by the Deep State.
But the Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OG just loves their Trump, but likely not as much as the Deep State.
paul ,
I think like many people you are partly blinded by an understandable hatred of Trump.
I hold no brief for him, except to say Clinton would have been even worse.
But people trying to make sense of the latest ill starred US foreign policy adventure only
need to understand two things.
1. The complete Zionist stranglehold over US politics and media.
2. The character of the political leadership in the US (and its satellites.)
1. From a Zionist point of view, Iraq, Libya and Syria (to a lesser extent) are all a rip
roaring success. The first two are failed states that have been bombed back to the Stone Age.
Syria is only slightly better off. Iran is unfinished business, the last major target on the
Zionist hit list. All of this achieved by the US and its satellites providing all the money
and the muscle.
2. US and western leadership in general is abysmal, the worst in its history. Arrogant,
venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional, and ideologically driven, buying in to its
own exceptionalist propaganda.
You cannot expect policies or programmes adopted to be in any way rational or coherent.
What passes for an administration in the Trump Circus consists largely of competing, mutually
antagonistic factions and fiefdoms, each pursuing their own objectives and generally fighting
like rats in a sack. Trump is far from a dictator. He is more like a bewildered bystander
presiding over what is at best a chaotic turf war.
This is not to absolve Trump of responsibility -- if he is incapable of asserting his
authority, he simply shouldn't be there. But people like Bolton and others were foisted upon
him at the behest of Adelson and Zionist interests. Bolton was openly trying to undermine him
in North Korea and elsewhere. There are many other similar examples. Seditious and mutinous
spooks and dirty cops were conspiring to unseat him even before he was elected.
In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department were all following their own
competing agendas, sponsoring different terrorist groups, following different objectives. Mid
level bureaucrats like Vindman and Ioanovitch in all three organisations felt perfectly
entitled to formulate and implement their own preferred policies, without any reference to
the White House.
I don't see much to admire in Trump. But apart from some coarse and bumptious behaviour,
how does he differ from Obomber or Dubya? It's a mistake to go down the MSM rabbit hole of
seeing everything in terms of personalities.
Martin Usher ,
Trump hasn't shown much interest in geography unless its somewhere he can put a casino so I
doubt if he really understood the implications of what he's been encouraged to do. This
action isn't Trump's, it most likely Pompero (who I find amusing in his 'who me' type
innocence when he complains that the world isn't lining up behind the US, its just the usual
roll of toadies).
The "Deep State" isn't really a thing, its all of us, its the way that we've been trained
from birth to think in terms of American exceptionalism and Cold War rivalry. Its thousands
of people doing their jobs to the best of their ability and as Hannah Arendt pointed out in
her essay on the Banality of Evil these people are able to be the very best or very worst
depending on how they're led and used. To that end the article in the Guardian proper is very
telling and points to something that needs significant investigation .
I would say that it's something much lower down the evolutionary chain than that: these
people are all criminal psychopaths -- or if you want a more polite term: batshit
crazies.
"... 1. Increasing tensions serves the interests of the military-industrial complex – US military spending has increased enormously, and without enough tensions, there may be a "danger" that military spending will be cut in the future. Of course, this increased military spending is only in the interest of a small minority – but it is a very influential minority that spends a lot of money on politicians. ..."
"... It sounds as if his enemies in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Agencies have tricked Trump perhaps by not telling him who the target was going to be? ..."
"... You are being sidetracked by personalities. "If only we had Obama/ Reagan/ Whoever back, everything would be fine." It wouldn't. Whoever is occupying the Oval Office, whether it's Trump/ Creepy Joe Biden/ Buttplug/ Pocahontas or some other cretin, it's just another monkey dancing to the tune of the same organ grinder. ..."
"... No capitalist regime, particularly the neo-liberal type, can ever even remotely resemble a 'democracy' of any type. ..."
Mourners surround a car carrying the coffins of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani
and Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, killed in a US air strike. (Photo by SABAH
ARAR / AFP)
The dust is settling somewhat over the latest and strangest act of imperial hubris in the
Middle East, and a few things are becoming clearer – though no less strange.
Trump held a slightly bizarre
presser at his vacation resort in Florida, wherein he tried to assure the media he had no
wish to provoke either war with or regime change in Iran, saying
We took action last night to stop a war. We do not take action to start a war."
Even the slavering warhound, Pompeo was taking a more conciliatory tone, and the word
'de-escalation' began featuring prominently in his Twitter feed.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and I discussed the decisive defensive action
@realDonaldTrump employed in
Baghdad to protect American lives. I emphasized that de-escalation is the United States'
principal goal.
In my conversation today with @masrour_barzani , we discussed
yesterday's defensive action and our commitment to de-escalation. I thanked him for his
steadfast partnership. We agreed on the need for continued, close cooperation.
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab , is also
urging "all parties de-escalate" – for what that's worth.
At the same time early claims by the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Force (PMF) that the US had
launched another air strike against them north of Baghdad were later retracted. According to
RT:
The Iraqi Army, however, later denied that an airstrike took place there. In a statement
quoted by local media, the military urged everyone to be "careful" about spreading unverified
information and "rumors" in the future.
Some of this implies an attempt on both sides (Iraq and the US at least) to pull back. But
while this may be welcome it does nothing to explain why the US administration escalated in the
first place, in what still looks like a suicidally self-defeating move.
What is the empire up to at this point? Does it have a plan? is it coherent? is it even
sane?
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder –
what could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a
disposable asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy
actions that he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong:
I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons. What
do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly
fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria)
for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will
either get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or
the consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will
jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In
other words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and
fantastically stupid is a win-win situation!
I tend to agree with this. When Clinton was dumped last minute as POTUS (too crazy, too
weird), and the Deep State pivoted to Trump, it was clear from very early on he – the
unwanted outsider – was going to be used just as Saker says, as a handy scapegoat; and
it's interesting to note in this regard that he is indeed being blamed in many places today
(Spiked ,
the Guardian etc), as the sole architect of the Soleimani murder.
That he is in any way solely, or even directly, responsible is of course vanishingly
improbable. US presidents don't, in real terms, have that kind of power now, if they ever did.
It's far more likely Trump just rubber stamped an action urged by Pompeo and his war-crazed
backers, or even that he only knew about it after it was done.
But that's just detail. The fact Trump is being scapegoated implies that – at least
for now – those really responsible are backtracking and thinking better of the
venture.
But what was the venture? What the desired outcome? No one seems to have a very
satisfactory answer to that right now.
As we said yesterday, war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war
nuts in Washington for years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at
least 2005.
But it's never become a reality because the non-crazies in Washington know the risks
outweigh the benefits for US interests.
Sure, we know in recent times the Trump administration has been ramping up the tensions
again. Tearing up the nuclear deal, re-imposing sanctions, sabre-rattling, making threats. But
this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of actual
conflict.
The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever risked before.
Good analysts like the Saker and Moon of Alabama have pointed out that the US has basically
defeated its own aims, all but destroyed itself in the region. In
MoA's words:
The U.S. has won nothing with its attack but will feel the consequences for decades to
come. From now on its position in the Middle East will be severely constrained. Others will
move in to take its place.
Even if this turns out too dire and sweeping a prediction, the truth still is clear that the
US have apparently gained nothing from this venture and lost a great deal.
Of course both the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can
almost certainly look forward to some of that.
And, there is the bonus of being able to drive the US homeland even further toward fascism
in the guise of 'preparing' for new waves of terror attacks. The Mayor of New York is already
doing his own narrative preparation for this, claiming, per the
Jerusalem Post that
We have to assume this action puts us in a de facto state of war
But all this seems small gains for massive losses. The question 'what were you thinking?'
hangs there, currently unanswered. If this was clever geopolitical chess it's currently so deep
as to defeat all analysis.
Claims that the US is just doing Israel's bidding don't even cut it. If the US loses its
hold on the ME as a result of an ill-judged war with Iran, how will this benefit Israel? Does
it believe it can inherit the imperial mantle? If so, it's deluded. Without US protection
Israel would not last long in its current form.
Some have suggested it's a 'clever' plot to hike up oil prices. But really? There are much
lower risk ways of doing that than launching a war and forcing Iran to close the Straits of
Hormuz.
The QAnon crowd have even suggested it's an ultra smart way of getting the US out of Iraq.
Well, we have to admit that could be the result. But does anyone really believe that was the
plan?
No one has yet, to my knowledge, put out the US simply goofed and are now desperately trying
to cover themselves – but that is at least as likely as some of the above.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek
retaliation, supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
Currently the answer to that looks like a 'no.' In fact Iran has just now issued a list of
potential
retaliation targets related to the US. Even if this is mostly posturing, it's hard to see
how Iran can avoid some form of response to this heinous act of frank terrorism. Even if the US
administration's 'de-escalation' stance is genuine, it may well be pointless.
And how long will the US remain in a 'de-escalation' mindset anyhow? It's become a
commonplace to describe US foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite description. But
the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating levels.
Who can say what the empire's next moves will be in the coming days or weeks? More utterly
lunatic 'defensive' missile strikes are entirely possible.
It appears that 2020 has got off to a shit hot start with Golf Cart Goofy been slipped the
Turd Doctrine engineered by Bolt-on brain, the deranged psychopath of Washington. From sleepy
hollow the message went out to shoot first and let the policy slide along afterwards. How are
the people of the land of the free going to swallow this piece of fascist wrangling?
Meanwhile in old Blighty Johnson has not even had chance to sober up from the New Year
bash with his Russian friend and patron, Евгений
Лебедев – bringing a whole new meaning to the
phrase going down the swanee. Who said Russians don't interfere in elections? Well those with
British golden passports at any rate
Antonym ,
BTL the usual misdirection pointing just to Israel; never are the Sunni Arab oil sheiks in
the picture:
blinded by anti Zionism. The Gulf rulers love this aspect best.
Israel has little to offer to the US military-industrial complex except being an unsinkable
aircraft carrier. The Sunni Arab oil sheiks on the other hand have massive amount of cash and
oil reserves, just what the US dollar needs to keep on floating against financial gravity.
With the Shia Iranian power exports as bogey these few individuals are also great clients for
the Anglo protection racket. Iran is more about mass movements, hard to be a wise guy for.
Jo ,
Thanks for this. I've dodged all news since I first heard about the assassination but my
initial thoughts concerned the unspeakable Pompeo and Israel. Like the author I found it
absurd that Trump had personally engineered this.
On the idea that Pompeo now wants to row back, I'm not convinced. Sorry to provide a
Guardian link but I saw this earlier and it seems he's scolding mainland Europe and the UK
for not being more "supportive" of his insanity.
I am as perplexed as anybody over the assassination of Soleimani, seeing no tactical
advantage and in fact serious disadvantages and dangers.
I can add little to the excellent article and excellent comments except to say that last
year, I saw a documentary about Soleimani and I felt at the time, he was perhaps the only
person that might bring peace to the whole of the Middle East and it may be for that reason
somebody thought he was dangerous and had to go.
At the very least, the Iraqi Government have now been given the chance to kick America and
NATO out of Iraq and maybe Syria as well. With that in mind, I am sure that MSM will then say
that this is all a Russian plot. I am sure that Pompeo's flight to Kazakstan is perhaps to
prepare an air base if a rapid Vietnam style evacuation needs to occur.
The options left open for America, NATO and Israel are fairly limited to remote offshore
missile attacks as any form of close engagement against battle hardened troops when your own
forces have only experience against unarmed civilians and forces only armed with small arms
would be fraught with danger. I am sure that Trump's advisers and their experience of playing
war games on their computers might think differently.
As for a major missile strike like that after Douma when only a handful of rockets hit
their targets especially as Syria did not have the latest anti missile systems, there is a
likelihood that not one might reach its target.
2020 is shaping up to become a very interesting year and by its end destined to become a
very changed world.
Trump's actions appear to be that of a very poor gambler trying to take desperate measures
to improve his luck. I believe Hitler had great faith in his astrologer, does Trump use
one?
David Macilwain ,
I'm less optimistic Catte – the claims to want deescalation come from those who just
escalated, in a calculated and well planned act of war, in which I believe the UK and
Australia were already well briefed. I would also venture, as suggested in "Official Secrets
and Lies" – that Pompeo's demand that Corbyn would not be PM was making sure that there
would be no anti-war PM in the UK in the new year, when the launching of the next decade of
the war of terror would take place – so timely on 01.02.2020. Do we not remember that
the attack on Iraq was planned months in advance, and launched – allegedly – at
20.30 on 20.03.2003?
And surely also, the faked killing of Baghdadi was part of this planning, as he had to be out
of the way, specially nowhere near AL Qaim/Baghouz, for the killing of Soleimani to be
possible. Truly it is the evil empire, with all that this includes, and Trump like a pimple
waiting to burst sitting on top of the rotten pile.
According to our Emily WMDs and the blood bath that followed in Iraq was all just a
'mistake'.
Sickening pontificating from her in the Guardian about how it is bad to murder people
(without just cause) apparently oblivious to the fact her own party committed Britan to an
illegal war without a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national
security.
I held my nose and read her article – not a single word about Tony Blair, or the
fact that the quagmire in the Middle East (as she describes it) was largely a result of
NuLabour's love in with US neonazis.
People like Thornberry seem to be utterly devoid of even the most primitive form of
decency.
O/T Ha ha – Integrity Initiative codswallop has landed with added rusty iron on
Cambridge Analytica election meddling ! Guess what it only seems to be about Trump 2016 and
Trump 2020!
Ah needed that laugh back to Armeggedon Now watch.
richard le sarc ,
I rather see Israel, ie Bibi behind this. It is a diversion from his corruption crisis, it is
pure Talmudism, with its murder of Israel's 'enemies', and it brings forward the prospect of
'obliterating' 'Persia' in a New Purim that would cement Bibi's place as a 'King of Israel'
for all time ie a few more years. I really think that assuming that the architects of this
action are rational and sane, when they are mad, bad, dangerous to know and infinitely
blood-thirsty, is mistaken.
If true, these reports are to be expected, because it wasn't just Qassem Suleimani who was
assassinated by the American psychopaths, but also the Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis.
If the reports are true, it's quite expected, yet it has nothing to do with Iranian
retaliation.
Iranian retaliation will be coming sometime in the future; and you might need to hold your
hats when that happens.
I haven't looked at the bookmakers with regard to all this. It will be interesting to see
what odds they are now giving on Trump being re-elected.
I've no idea of the veracity of this report. There was a similar report on Friday that
turned out to be untrue.
adlskfj ,
Ah, didn't take long to see Off Guardian's never ending commitment to the most vile President
in US history, and that's saying a lot. The Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!
So did the Deep State direct this fascist, racist, misogynist, jerk of epic proportions
Trump to pimp for war against Iran during his campaign? Can't see from this jerk's body
language that he sees himself as a "tough guy". Did the Deep State force him to take on super
neocon ex CIA director Woolsey as a foreign policy advisor during his campaign, or force him
to suck up to the State of Israel in an AIPAC speech outdoing Clinton's, or suck up to the
House of Saud bragging about arms sales with an effing poster, or force him to move the US
Embassy to Jerusalem, or force him to increase military operations in the ME including new
rules of engagement making it easier for US troops to slaughter civilians, or force him to
attack the Syrian regime, or force him to commit to "take the oil", or force him to name
torture queen Haspel to direct the CIA, or force him to nominate an oil tycoon as Secretary
of State then replace him with torture advocate ex CIA director Pompeo, or force him to
re-initiate and increase military hardware from war zones going to police departments, and
the sorry list goes on that OG and other compromised "leftists" regard poor Trump being
forced to do by the Deep State.
But the Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OG just loves their Trump, but likely not as much as the Deep State.
paul ,
I think like many people you are partly blinded by an understandable hatred of Trump.
I hold no brief for him, except to say Clinton would have been even worse.
But people trying to make sense of the latest ill starred US foreign policy adventure only
need to understand two things.
1. The complete Zionist stranglehold over US politics and media.
2. The character of the political leadership in the US (and its satellites.)
1. From a Zionist point of view, Iraq, Libya and Syria (to a lesser extent) are all a rip
roaring success. The first two are failed states that have been bombed back to the Stone Age.
Syria is only slightly better off. Iran is unfinished business, the last major target on the
Zionist hit list. All of this achieved by the US and its satellites providing all the money
and the muscle.
2. US and western leadership in general is abysmal, the worst in its history. Arrogant,
venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional, and ideologically driven, buying in to its
own exceptionalist propaganda.
You cannot expect policies or programmes adopted to be in any way rational or coherent.
What passes for an administration in the Trump Circus consists largely of competing, mutually
antagonistic factions and fiefdoms, each pursuing their own objectives and generally fighting
like rats in a sack. Trump is far from a dictator. He is more like a bewildered bystander
presiding over what is at best a chaotic turf war.
This is not to absolve Trump of responsibility – if he is incapable of asserting his
authority, he simply shouldn't be there. But people like Bolton and others were foisted upon
him at the behest of Adelson and Zionist interests. Bolton was openly trying to undermine him
in North Korea and elsewhere. There are many other similar examples. Seditious and mutinous
spooks and dirty cops were conspiring to unseat him even before he was elected.
In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department were all following their own
competing agendas, sponsoring different terrorist groups, following different objectives. Mid
level bureaucrats like Vindman and Ioanovitch in all three organisations felt perfectly
entitled to formulate and implement their own preferred policies, without any reference to
the White House.
I don't see much to admire in Trump. But apart from some coarse and bumptious behaviour,
how does he differ from Obomber or Dubya? It's a mistake to go down the MSM rabbit hole of
seeing everything in terms of personalities.
Martin Usher ,
Trump hasn't shown much interest in geography unless its somewhere he can put a casino so I
doubt if he really understood the implications of what he's been encouraged to do. This
action isn't Trump's, it most likely Pompero (who I find amusing in his 'who me' type
innocence when he complains that the world isn't lining up behind the US, its just the usual
roll of toadies).
The "Deep State" isn't really a thing, its all of us, its the way that we've been trained
from birth to think in terms of American exceptionalism and Cold War rivalry. Its thousands
of people doing their jobs to the best of their ability and as Hannah Arendt pointed out in
her essay on the Banality of Evil these people are able to be the very best or very worst
depending on how they're led and used. To that end the article in the Guardian proper is very
telling and points to something that needs significant investigation .
I would say that it's something much lower down the evolutionary chain than that: these
people are all criminal psychopaths – or if you want a more polite term: batshit
crazies.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The Social Psychology determinant of Deindividuation allows people to immerse themselves
psychologically into the in-group in order to oppose out-groups whether
it be along lines of ethnicity against minority ethnic groups or otherwise some other
negatively viewed determinant like gender, or age.
Fascists typically join likeminded individuals to fulfill the process of deindividuation
into in-groups they perceive to be socially beneficial for reasons of political
opposition.
Deindividuation allows the elite to internalize their own social-psychological
perspectives to in-group bias of entitlement et cetera. Out-group members are viewed as
inferior, and dispossessed of perspective of what it is like to be rich & wealthy in
in-group perspective.
Bikers deindividuate into biker gangs of likeminded in-group collective thinking.
Out-group is anyone that is not aligned with the in-group binary of identity with the
group.
I suspect that human beings somehow imprint on group membership much like Conrad Lorenz found
with ducklings & geese whilst studying learning processes.
MOU
jay ,
'merica has been 'attacking' Iran for the last 10 years.
It is all smoke and mirrors.
Once upon a time there was a CIA fommented coup to overthrow a popular and decent government, placing the Shah
in power. Then we had the Islamic Revolution led by the Ayatolah The Ayatolah had been
sojourning in Paris presumably enjoying the folies bergere and some tasty charcuterie. Then
right on time, He was flown business class by Air France back to Iran.
The NWO and Radical Islam go together like ram-a-lam-ding-dong
The car Soleimani was killed in appears to have been 'exploded' into a block with very little
damage to the surrounding area or scorching. A car set on fire by neds in Glasgow makes more
mess.
However in a change from the ubiquitous 'mysteriously' appearing passport, we have a deluxe
ring that 'identified' Him.
The ring appears to change from one image to another
tonyopmoc ,
jay,
There is other evidence to support this view, admittedly from around 10+ years ago. The
Iranians in a Big Blow-Up boat (don't mock our Lifeboat service uses them too to save lives
in some of the most hazardous seas – and most of them are unpaid volunteers), stopped a
British metal warship, who they claimed had infiltrated Iranian Waters. The Iranians arrested
several members of The Royal Navy. The Iranians also arrested the BBC Cameraman, and his
Soundman, and took them into the blow-up boat too, and they carried on filming, whilst they
took them to jail in Iran.
I p1ssed myself laughing almost immediately, and I don't normally watch TV.
After a few days, The Iranians, let them all go. The Royal Navy said sorry, we won't do it
again.
That just had to be a pre-planned set-up between the British and the Iranians.
I suspect neither told the Americans, cos they would f'ck it all up and try to start a
war.
The premise of this article is somewhat dubious. The Deep State never "pivoted to Trump."
It wanted Clinton, regardless of how crazy and corrupt she was.
They have never accepted Trump's presidency.
The spooks and the dirty cops worked tirelessly to undermine his campaign to prevent him
being elected.
Having failed in this, it did everything possible to sabotage his administration
subsequently.
It has perpetrated various subversive and treasonous hoaxes, fantasies and conspiracy
theories, culminating in the current impeachment circus.
They never tried to make the best of a bad job, from their point of view, to "manage
Trump."
This has remained constant, no matter how much pandering he does to Zionist interests, or how
many trillions he gifts to the military industrial complex.
They don't accept him, and never will. They hate him, and they want him dead, or at least in
jail, stripped of his businesses and money, and his relatives as well.
Why is this? After all, he's gifted Nuttyyahoo Jerusalem, occupied Syria and the West
Bank. The current military budget (true figure) is $1,134 billion. You might think that would
cut him a bit of slack.
It's because he upset the apple cart for the Zionist interests who rule the roost in
Washington.
Clinton was supposed to take over and implement their programme.
Syria was supposed to have been destroyed now, and Assad dead.
The war with Iran was supposed to have been begun long ago.
But Trump failed to deliver.
The tentative peace feelers being put out to Russia (because he was more concerned about
China) enraged that same dual national constituency with their visceral hatred of Russia.
And this is so much more the case because those same interests realise they are working
under time pressure. This may be their last chance. America is declining rapidly. The Zionist
stranglehold that has taken a century to achieve is a declining asset. And the parasite may
find it difficult to find another host.
Is Russia going to give Israel billions of dollars and unlimited free weaponry every year?
Will Chinese troops be "happy to die for Israel" as US ones are (at least according to their
general?
Trump may have been dragged along on the coat tails of the dual nationals and their goy
stooges, rabid religious nut jobs like Pence and Pompeo. But if Trump is hoping to row things
back, he is likely to be disappointed. Iran has to respond decisively, or else give a green
light to endless similar (and worse) provocations by the Boltons and the Netanyahus, like
Israel in Syria. It cannot afford to show any weakness. And when the retaliation comes, Trump
will not get away with bombing some empty airfield.
The problem is not just the AIPAC and JINSA which long since should have been labeled Foreign
Agents under FARA but the Christian Zionist nutballs who are banking on Armageddon so that
they can be raptured off to heaven while all of us are turned into radioactive toast.
paul ,
Yes, that includes Pence, Pompeo, Hagee, and (according to some claims) 40 million of the
Exceptional and Indispensable Folk.
richard le sarc ,
The USA these days is like one of those zombie ants, infected with a toxic fungus, Ziophilia
prostatens, that takes over its brain, and makes it climb up a branch, so that, when the
fungus explodes from its dead body, its spores can drift further away. Or, even better, the
toxic protozoon, Toxoplasma gondii, that, when it infects rats, makes them suicidally
unafraid of cats, they get eaten, and the protozoon goes forth, distributed through the cat's
faeces. I suppose we could call the infection controlling the minds of the Washington
detritus and making them genocidal as well as suicidal a 'protozion', for easy
identification.
You nail it. Israel provided co ordinates for Soleimani's whereabouts, Trump, in his sheer
stupidity, did the deed.
And now payback is coming. And it's likely to escalate into a massive war.
Ridiculous ABC doing their little bit for Empire and the 'fight for freedom' .
More airstrikes on a PMU base on the Iraq-Syria border earlier today, another 5 killed.
One guess who was responsible. Fecken insanity.
Adrian E. ,
I think the following two explanations are most plausible:
1. Increasing tensions serves the interests of the military-industrial complex – US
military spending has increased enormously, and without enough tensions, there may be a
"danger" that military spending will be cut in the future. Of course, this increased military
spending is only in the interest of a small minority – but it is a very influential
minority that spends a lot of money on politicians.
2. The goal may be sowing chaos and violence because this increases the role of the
military in international relations, and in military matters, the US in its current state is
(or thinks it is – they probably want to avoid a war against a strong army that would
let them find out better) more competitive than in economic matters. As far as economic
matters are concerned, we can more or less predict that the "Western world" (US and EU/NATO)
will almost certainly be dwarfed by China (and to some degree other East Asian countries and
emerging economies). Of course, some time in the future, when urbanization will be completed
to a large degree, Chinese growth will slow, but it is unlikely that this won't still mean
that the US and EU economies will be tiny compared to it. If the US manages to decrease the
role of economics and increase the role of the military, it may be able to slow down the
decline in its significance somehow, and what it needs for that is violence, chaos, and
instability.
Of course, one may say that all these instances of sowing chaos are counterproductive for the
US empire. In many concrete instances, one can show that this is the case, e.g. Iran was
strengthened by the US aggression against Iraq. But on the whole, is the US empire really
weaker than it would have been without all these aggressions? The US economy probably is, but
if we specifically talk about US empire – the US has military bases around the world in
a way no empire has ever had, and without enough violence, chaos, and tensions in order to
justify them, it might be difficult to keep them long-term. It is also important to attempt
to analyze counterfactual scenarios. If the US has just been relieved after the end of the
Cold War, reaped a huge peace dividend and if it had not committed an aggression every few
years, it would probably be more prosperous, but it would hardly be an empire. Probably, NATO
would not exist any more (the aggression against Yugoslavia and later stoking up historical
hatred in Eastern EU member countries played an important role). The US would probably be
more respected than it is now, but its international significance would probably have
decreased more than it has in our current reality where the US has increased the role of the
military by sowing chaos.
The idea of Empire may not fit the modern world of broad spectrum globalism.
Expecting such a world to make sense may buy into being manipulated further by an ever
consolidating pattern of possession and control – that works a kind of narrative or
mind capture alongside globally set regulatory structures to protect the lie at any cost and
by any and all means.
Yarkob ,
that was supposed to be a link, admins i even used the code button
It sounds as if his enemies in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Agencies have tricked Trump
perhaps by not telling him who the target was going to be? Now he owns the policy and the
chances of getting rid of him rise especially if the retaliation is serious and he fails to
start throwing nukes around.
As with JFK over the Bay of Pigs it puts him in a very hard
place. Working with Pence would probably suit the Military Complex. Ideas of withdrawing from
conflict in the ME and Afghanistan are as crazy to them as Kennedy's plans to disarm.
alskdjf ,
Paul you just love your Trump. The epic corrupt capitalist globalist fascist epic jerk I'm
sure would regard you with much love if he knew you existed or cared.
paul ,
You are being sidetracked by personalities.
"If only we had Obama/ Reagan/ Whoever back, everything would be fine."
It wouldn't.
Whoever is occupying the Oval Office, whether it's Trump/ Creepy Joe Biden/ Buttplug/
Pocahontas or some other cretin, it's just another monkey dancing to the tune of the same
organ grinder.
TFS ,
Is it me, or does the definition of what constitutes a Democracy, seem out of date?
Surely, where country such as Blighty likes to refer to iself as a Democracy, then it
should hold true that its people are past masters of holding its rulers to account?
If we are a Democracy and we don't, as has been the case for the past 50yrs of my life,
aren't we guilty of some sort of crime?
Are we (adults) all non persons, a person called 'Collateral Damage' for when Karma comes
a calling?
Will we cry foul and bemoan the injustice of it not being our fault as our leaders rape
the planet?
I dunno, calling Blighty a Democracy seems to be quite Arrogant and Offensive.
richard le sarc ,
No capitalist regime, particularly the neo-liberal type, can ever even remotely resemble a
'democracy' of any type.
Robyn ,
An fundamental of democracy is a free press so that citizens can cast an informed vote. There
is no longer a free press (to the extent that there ever was) and, with increasing censorship
of ethical journalism, the ideal of democracy becomes more remote each day.
Ukraine is now a pawn in a big geopolitical game against Russia. Which somehow survived 90th when everybody including myself has
written it off.
That's why the USA, EU (Germany) and Russia pulling the country in different directions. But the victory of Ukrainian nationalists
is not surprising and is not solely based on the US interferences (although the USA did lot in this direction) pursuit its geopolitical
game against Russia. Distancing themselves from Russa is a universal trend in Post-Soviet space. And it often takes ugly forms.
So Ukraine in not an exception here. It is part of the "rule". Essentially the dissolution of the USSR revised the result on WWII.
And while the author correctly calls Ukrainian leader US stooges, they moved in this direction because they feel that it is necessary
for maintaining the independence. In other words anti-Russian stance is considered by the Ukrainian elite as a a pre-condition for mainlining
independence. Otherwise people like Parubiy would be in jail very soon. They are tolerated and even promoted because they are useful.
It repeats the story of Baltic Republics, albeit with a significant time delay. There should be some social group that secure independence
of the country and Ukrainian nationalists happen to be such a group. That's why Yanukovich supported them and Svoboda party (with predictable
results).
Notable quotes:
"... The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations. ..."
"... Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort? ..."
"... The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. ..."
"... US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts. ..."
"... US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS. ..."
"... This is : ..."
"... Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11. ..."
"... There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom. ..."
"... A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list. ..."
"... An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west. ..."
"... The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them. ..."
"... I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties. ..."
"... "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". ..."
"... But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy? ..."
"... A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression. ..."
"... I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption. ..."
"... What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. ..."
"... Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis. ..."
The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize
the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants
of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional
negotiations.
Who is the United States government and media supporting? The Nazis . You think I'm joking. Here are the facts, but we must go
back to World War II
:
When World War II began a large part of western Ukraine welcomed the German soldiers as liberators from the recently enforced
Soviet rule and openly collaborated with the Germans. The Soviet leader, Stalin, imposed policies that caused the deaths of almost
7 million Ukrainians in the 1930s--an era known as the Holomodor).
Ukrainian divisions, regiments and battalions were formed, such as SS Galizien, Nachtigal and Roland, and served under German
leadership. In the first few weeks of the war, more than 80 thousand people from the Galizien region volunteered for the SS Galizien,
which later known for its extreme cruelty towards Polish, Jewish and Russian people on the territory of Ukraine.
Members of these military groups came mostly from the organization of Ukrainian nationalists aka the OUN, which was founded in
1929. It's leader was Stepan Bandera, known then and today for his extreme anti-semitic and anti-communist views.
CIA documents just recently declassified show strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.
Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side
of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President.
And who were helping lead
this effort?
Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy was the founder of the Social National
Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.
The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader,
Oleh Tyahnybok was
one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests. . . .
Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is
Dmytro Yarosh , the leader of the Right
Sector a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who
previously boasted they were ready for
armed struggle to free Ukraine.
The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology.
We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia,
which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our
eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine.
US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor
Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints
if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such
facts.
But Viktor Yushchenko is not an American who speaks a foreign language. He is very much a Ukrainian nationalist and steeped in
the anti-Semitism that dominates the ideology of western Ukraine. During the final months of his Presidency, Yushchenko made the
following declaration:
In conclusion I would like to say something that is long awaited by the Ukrainian patriots for many years I have signed a decree
for the unbroken spirit and standing for the idea of fighting for independent Ukraine. I declare Stepan Bandera a national hero of
Ukraine.
Without hesitation or shame, Yushchenko endorsed the legacy of Bandera, who had happily aligned with the Nazis in pursuit of his
own nationalist goals. Those goals, however, did not include Jews. And here is the ultimate irony--Bandera was born in Austria, not
the Ukraine. So much for ideological consistency.
US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open
and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets.
One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS.
This is :
a USAID program with other National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated groups: the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In 2010, the reported disbursement
for CEPPS in Ukraine was nearly $5 million.
The program's efforts are described on the USAID website as providing "training for political party activists and locally elected
officials to improve communication with civic groups and citizens, and the development of NGO-led advocacy campaigns on electoral
and political process issues."
Anyone prepared to argue that it would be okay for Russia, through its Foreign Ministry, to contribute several million dollars
for training party activists in the United States?
What we do not know is how much money was being spent on covert activities directed and managed by the CIA. During the political
upheaval in April 2014 (Maidan 2), there was this news item:
Over the weekend, CIA director John Brennan travelled to Kiev, nobody knows exactly why, but some speculate that he intends to
open US intelligence resources to Ukrainian leaders about real-time Russian military maneuvers. The US has, thus far, refrained from
sharing such knowledge because Moscow is believed to have penetrated much of Ukraine's communications systems and
Washington isn't about to hand over its surveillance secrets to the
Russians.
Do you think Americans would be outraged if the head of Russia's version of the CIA, the SVR or FSB, traveled quietly to the United
States to meet with Donald Trump prior to his election? I think that would qualify as meddling.
Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not
talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian
citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign
and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending
and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous
to our nation's safety and freedom.
Good post pt.. thanks... i never knew ''the wife of former President Viktor Yushchenko was an American citizen and former senior
official in the US State Department.'' That is informative.. i recall following this closely back in 2014.. the hypocrisy on display
in the usa at present is truly amazing and frightening at the same time.. it appears that the public can be cowed very easily..
On the twitters, you would be accused of "whatabouttism" - which is the crime of excusing Putin's diabolism by pointing out
American interference with the internal politics an elections of other nations. A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes
to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list.
An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the
Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi
state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf.
Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced
in the Slavic sphere as well as the west.
It's not only the US. The EU borg are also meddling. In my country we had a referendum about Ukraine. The population voted "Against"
on the question: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine?"
This was the only referendum that was done since it was implemented in 2015. A second one is being organized on the Intelligence
and Security Services which has controversial parts with regard to access to internet traffic.
This referendum will take place on March 21, 2018 and will probably be voted against because of the controversial elements
(in part because there is still living memory of our Eastern neighbors in the second world war)
These 2 will probably be the last. Our house of representatives have voted yesterday to end the referendum law (with a majority
vote of 76 out of 150 representatives!)
So much for democracy. The reason stated that the referendum was controversial (probably because they voted against the EU
borg). Interesting is that the proposal was done by the party that wanted the referendum as a principal point. This will almost
certainly ensure that the little respect left for traditional parties is gone and they will not be able to get a majority next
elections.
The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader
Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy
Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them.
I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the
victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority
of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people
from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans
until late in the fifties.
Even in the nineties anybody who travelled in Ukraine could feel the tension between East and West. The Russians were certainly
aware of it and mindful not to rip the country apart they cut the Ukrainians an enormous amount of slack. Of course they supported
"their" candidates and shoveled money into their insatiable throats. Only to be disappointed time and again. "Prorussian"
Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People
forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic".
Really the West should have been content with things as they were.
But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As
a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like
asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy?
Really the West (not only the US -the Eu is also guilty) is to blame. It is long past time to get down from the high horse
and stop spreading chaos and mayhem in the name of democracy,
An informative column. The coup & later developments soured me on the MSMedia. I'm an initiate into modern Russian
history: NATO in the Ukraine = WW3!
Some additional history:
A Ukrainian nation did not exist until after WW1; one piece was Russian, another Polish and another Austrian. The Holodomor
is exaggerated for political purposes; the actual number dead from famine appears to be 'only' 2M. It wasn't Soviet bloody mindedness,
it was Soviet agricultural mismanagement; collectivizing agriculture drops production.
They did this right before the great drought of the 1930s - remember the dustbowl. There was a famine in Kazakestan at the
same time; 1.5M died.
The Nazis raised 5 SS divisions out of the Ukraine. As the Germans were pushed back they ran night drops of ordnance into the
Ukraine as long as they could. The Soviets had to carry on divisional level counter insurgency until 1956. After the war, Gehlen,
Nazi intelligence czar, kept himself out of jail by turning over his files, routes & agents to the US. He also stoked anti Soviet
paranoia.
The Brits ended up with a whole Ukr SS division that they didn't want, so they gave it to Canada. Which is why Canada has such
cranky policy around the Ukraine!
A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers
of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk
This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression.
I'm sure you'd like us to ignore Bandera. I bet he liked children and dogs. Just like Hitler. Bandera was a genuine bad
guy. There is no rehabilitating that scourge on society. Nice try though.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your final comment is sarcasm. When you have two senior US Government officials
who will and will not constitute a foreign government, you have gone beyond meddling. It is worse.
The media is hysterical. Today, Putin's Facebook Bot Collaborator contacted the Kremlin before his mercenaries attacked Americans
in Syria.
I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This
is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption.
A World War is near. The realists are gone. The Moguls are pushing Donald Trump pull the trigger. Either in Syria with an assault
to destroy Hezbollah (Iran) for good or American trainers going over the top of trenches in Donbass in a centennial attack of
the dead.
Hallelujah and jubilation! We're in full agreement on this subject. What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A
remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's
bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval
base.
I would definitely want to see a full account of what support we provided to the nazi thugs of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. We
have a long history of meddling, at least twice as long as the Soviet Union/Russia. But that does not mean we should stop investigating
the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Just stop hyperventilating over it. It no more deserves risking a war than our
continuing mutual espionage.
Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian
sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government.
Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis.
As a result of this rebellion, the Russian majority in Crimea overwhelming voted to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which
they had been part of for over 150-years. While our government continues to provide military aid to Israel, which used force of
arms take over the West Bank, it imposed sanctions against Russia when the people of Crimea voted to join their former countrymen.
Mind boggling.
Now we understand that it was Adelson money talking for Trump, when he campaigned in 2016 on
the platform of hostility of Iran and abandonment of the nuclear deal.
While derail who and how ordered the assassination, one thing it clear: Trump no longer
deserve re-election. He is yet another Hillary now. Any of Dem opponents excluding Biden, who is
dead fish in any case, are better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment. After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State Department. ..."
"... Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap: ..."
"... Trump, who had no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he wanted to crush the Iranian state. ..."
"... Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the map. ..."
"... Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored term, "targeted killings." ..."
"... While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately, consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq. ..."
"... Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna wrote on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like Soleimani." ..."
"... Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want him removed from office ..."
While the media focus for three years of the Trump presidency has centered around "Russia
collusion" and impeachment, the most dangerous collusion of all was happening right out in the
open -- the Trump/Saudi/Israel/UAE
drive to war with Iran .
On August 3, 2016 -- just three months before Donald Trump would win the Electoral College
vote and ascend to power -- Blackwater founder Erik Prince arranged a meeting at Trump Tower.
For decades, Prince had been agitating for a war with Iran and, as early as 2010, had developed
a fantastical proposal for using mercenaries to wage it.
At this meeting was George Nader, an American citizen who had a long history of being a
quiet emissary for the United States in the Middle East. Nader, who had also worked for
Blackwater and Prince, was a convicted pedophile in the Czech Republic and is facing similar
allegations in the United States. Nader worked as an adviser for the Emirati royals and has
close ties to Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince. Join Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in There was also an
Israeli at the Trump Tower meeting: Joel Zamel. He was there supposedly pitching a
multimillion-dollar social media manipulation campaign to the Trump team. Zamel's company,
Psy-Group, boasts of employing former Israeli intelligence operatives. Nader and Zamel were
joined by Donald Trump Jr. According to the New York Times, the purpose of the meeting
was "primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and
Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months, past the election and well into
President Trump's first year in office."
One major common goal ran through the agendas of all the participants in this Trump Tower
meeting: regime change in Iran. Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing
the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his
administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment.
After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him
last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his
interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally
belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State
Department.
Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the
fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap:
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this
was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the
first step to regime change in Tehran.
Trump, who had
no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by
conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he
wanted to crush the Iranian state.
Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush
with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of
extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the
map.
While Barack Obama provided crucial military and intelligence support for Saudi Arabia's
scorched earth campaign in Yemen, which killed untold numbers of civilians, Trump escalated
that mass murder in a blatant effort to draw Iran militarily into a conflict. That was the
agenda of the gulf monarchies and Israel, and it coincided neatly with the neoconservative
dreams of overthrowing the Iranian government. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia intensified their
military attacks in Yemen, Iran began to insert itself more and more forcefully into Yemeni
affairs, though Tehran was careful not to be tricked into offering this Trump/Saudi/UAE/Israel
coalition a justification for wider war.
Protesters shout slogans against the United States and Israel as they hold posters with the
image of top Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq,
and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a demonstration in the Kashmiri town of Magam on
Jan. 3, 2020.
Photo: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images The assassination of Suleimani -- a popular figure
in Iran who is viewed as one of the major drivers of ISIS's defeat in Iraq -- was one of only a
handful of actions that the U.S. could have taken that would almost certainly lead to a war
with Iran. This assassination, reportedly ordered directly by Trump, was advocated by the most
dangerous and extreme players in the U.S. foreign policy establishment with that exact
intent.
Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it
has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored
term, "targeted killings." The U.S. Congress has intentionally never legislated the issue
of assassination. Lawmakers have avoided even defining the word "assassination." While every
president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S.
personnel, they have each carried out assassinations with little to no congressional outcry.
Read Our Complete
Coverage The Iran Cables In 1976, following Church Committee recommendations regarding
allegations of assassination plots carried out by U.S. intelligence agencies, Ford signed an
executive order banning "political assassination." Jimmy Carter subsequently issued a new order
strengthening the prohibition by dropping the word "political" and extending it to include
persons "employed by or acting on behalf of the United States." In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed
Executive Order 12333, which remains in effect today. The language seems clear enough: "No
person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or
conspire to engage in, assassination."
As I
wrote in August 2017, reflecting on our Drone Papers series from two years earlier, "The
Obama administration, by institutionalizing a policy of drone-based killings of individuals
judged to pose a threat to national security -- without indictment or trial, through secret
processes -- bequeathed to our political culture, and thus to Donald Trump, a policy of
assassination, in direct violation of Executive Order 12333 and, moreover, the Fifth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution. To date, at least seven U.S. citizens are known to have been killed
under this policy, including a 16-year-old boy. Only one American, the radical preacher Anwar
al-Awlaki, was said to have been the 'intended target' of a strike."
There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani.
While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the
consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how
atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist
cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no
justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive
act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third
country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately,
consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq.
For three years, many Democrats have told the country that Trump is the gravest threat to a
democratic system we have faced. And yet many leading Democrats have voted consistently to give
Trump unprecedented military budgets and surveillance powers.
Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it
was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't
now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna
wrote
on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut
off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like
Soleimani."
Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign
policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want
him removed from office . Wait! Before you go on about your day, ask yourself: How likely
is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The
Intercept hadn't done it? Consider what the world of media would look like without The
Intercept. Who would hold party elites accountable to the values they proclaim to have? How
many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if
our reporters weren't on the beat? The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but
it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We
don't have ads, so we depend on our members -- 35,000 and counting -- to help us hold the
powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn't need to cost a lot: You can become a
sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That's all it takes to support the
journalism you rely on.
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
Iran should probably be very careful not to overplay his hand. The time in working it its favor.
Notable quotes:
"... Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians, Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow geopolitical motives." ..."
"... USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know) this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity. ..."
"... The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day. ..."
"... The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare. ..."
The subject is 'revenge' and what Iranian authorities may or may not do.
The 'big picture' is re-building the security (and well-being) of ordinary Iranian,
Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni people - and all other decent people of the Middle East and beyond.
Tribal reaction is deep and strong. We all know and experience that. But to achieve 'the big picture' the first instinctive hind-brain reaction must be set
aside - or at least, allowed to 'recede'. Of course there must be re-balancing, which carries with it a feeling of vindication, if
not revenge.
Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians,
Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are
not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow
geopolitical motives."
Well the USA Government is guilty must apologise publicly and humbly. Compensation must be
paid.
Dialogue started.
USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government
employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know)
this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity.
The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered
by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day.
Clearly, decent people in USA need to campaign to limit Presidential powers. Revenge creates a spiral of escalation which becomes a vortex of destruction, perhaps
global. How does that improve peoples daily lives?
The duty of government is ensuring the security of its people. Does 'revenge' achieve this
in the years ahead? It is the instinctive option, yes, but is it the BEST long term
option?
In the end, parties must meet, compensation paid, and the hard slow work of building
acceptable inter-state relations based on rule of law and the UN Charter re-commenced.
In my view, there is no other option that meets the long term need of ordinary people.
But building this requires special people. Not wreckers and haters.
Will the urgency of the situation see them emerge?
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84
Thank you. Someone making sense. Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a
sporting match - completely juvenile.
Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology
and for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many
countries which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an
economic beating - which explains the desperate behavior.
Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war
- the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.
But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the
Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may
happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that
makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag
incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US
troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base
another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war
erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths
of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not
too many Americans get killed in its wake.
I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will
jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that
warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the
only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now
the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has
put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the
war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers
(except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the
electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done
to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran
will show.
I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger
will assuredly take his place.
After reading what Magnier has to say, a reasonable guess is that although emotions are
running high currently, Irans leadership will likely concentrate omn the work that must be
done during such a period, which is to (attempt to) influence the Iraqi parliamentry vote on
the continued presence of United States forces. As some have pointed out, this may lead to a
US retreat to the Kurdish areas, but even that can only be considered a victory, with
consequent practically free movement of Iranian military supplies to their allies in Syria
and Lebanon. With this development hopefully secured there is then plenty of time to
precisely calibrate any further responce to a level where dignity is preserved, without
necessarily bringing the wider ME area into further strife. Any waiting period is also useful
in further building up capability where needed, specifically in the case where US aggression
continues as it has done so far. US leaders seem not to appreciate that their showy
applications of force don't win them friends locally, and could eventually succeed in
unifying Iraq in a way Iran never could on its own.
This may have been referenced before, and b's previous post begins with a description of the
importance of Soleimani, but here is a further link for those who are still in doubt as to
his significance for everyone in the region:
I will also add from a post by Active Patriot at the Saker site: "...if Iran is a
friend and ally to Iraq and Syria they would not craft a response which drags either of those
2 countries deeper into more war and hardship."
Solameini's martyrdom is surely recognized as such by all in the ME who have suffered and
are suffering the century-long occupation/meddling/manipulating/lying that Western powers
have inflicted on the whole ME since before the Great War---now with the USA in the lead.
(One of Churchill's war aims in WW1 was to destroy the Ottoman Empire and grab as much of it
as Britain could grab. Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration crime.)
What is the "purpose" of martyrdom if it is not to galvanize action of some kind? To
galvanize a dramatic quantum leap in consciousness of the meaning of the martyr's
sacrifice---of his martyrdom. Surely Solameini will be seen to have died *for* something. For
what?
Perhaps to inspire a new setting aside of existing local conflicts to form an effective
front to *eject* the foreign virus from the body of the whole ME? To create a new coalition
among all citizens of all faiths in all of the besieged ME countries to oust the "crusaders"?
Didn't Nasser aspire to take charge of his region via the United *Arab* Republics? What about
United Sovereign Nations from the Levant to the Hindu Kush. And, make things uncomfortable
for Erdogan if he continues to host American Air Force?
Just wondering.
Also, what is Kurdish reaction to this murder? Kurds seem to be an element standing in the
way of unity of purpose in the ME.
1) Get a list of your favorite sites, then do a DNS lookup on their names, and put those
IP addresses in a HOSTS
file . If a site appears to go offline, try the IP address. If that doesn't work either,
well...
2) I have an old laptop that has wifi and an ethernet port, and it runs an older version
of Linux Mint. I wish I had an older version, and I may start looking. The more recent the
operating system (any!), the more likely it will have backdoors or some other 'critter'
running about and working against you.
3) If you have the hardware and some friends nearby, start an out-of-band neighborhood
network. This, as I envision it (with limited oracular ability, mind you), can be like the
Little Free
Library - just an accumulation of stuff each person has saved over the years, or whatever
can be obtained, and scanned if necessary. Wifi can work for this short-term, but plan to
bury multiple cables eventually. DO NOT EVER (knowingly) CONNECT THIS NETWORK TO THE
INTERNET!!!
4) Start planning for long-term storage of important books. Niven's novel Lucifer's Hammer describes
one character's efforts in this direction - he sunk a huge library of important 'civilization
cranking' books in a cesspool on a neighbor's property.
There's more, but we've a broad spectrum of things to consider at the moment, so I'll not
hog the thread.
As a matter of standing up and showing some jackasses in this thread that US citizens aren't
all Rambo...
I, Thomas James Kenney, hereby publicly state that it is my opinion the only way out of
this mess (and the only chance to save some semblance of a country) is to very publicly try
and imprison these vermin for high treason. They have committed an act that runs counter to
every attempted description of civilized behavior ever written.
It is also my considered opinion that it is not necessary for Iran to do anything at all.
Simply stay the course. We are almost bled out in this disintegrating 'republic', and people
around me are conversing about ways to disconnect from some of the toxic facets of this
society. There is not much support for a war, despite what the 'required 20%' continue to
scream.
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare.
The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
Just a reminder: Iran is not an Arabic country.
And many non-Arabs and non-Muslims live in ME countries (I am not counting Is as an ME
country in this context).
Which is why I express hope of perhaps a broader regional coalition.
The shooting down of flight 655 was a criminal act of manslaughter that should've brought
charges against the people responsible. But does b really consider destroying another plane
of civilians a justified retribution?
I wonder if Putin will force Trump to stop the escalation and show remorse to Iran before
any revenge happens.
Sir Craig Reedie signify the growing politization of sport and the arrivals on the scene of
western intelligence agencies (McCabe, Steele, etc were involved in this dirty game) to the extent that was never possible before. It stated with FBI
operation against FIFA. WARA was the second round. See also
End of term message to stakeholders from WADA President, Sir Craig Reedie World Anti-Doping
Agency
This prostitute Sir Craig Reedie is is up to ears in dirst connected with doping by the
Americans and the Europeans? This stooge of MI6 and FBI was shyly silent when Americans were
found to use illegal drag to enhance the results. Look at sisters Williams.
I despise corrupt Russian bureaucrats, but no less I despite Western Pro-American lackeys
with faces spred with n shit to shuch an exptent that they neve can wash themselves
clean!
Good point Afghanistan. The newly appointed General Ghaani was active in Afghanistan. As he
is famimiar with the place, that may well be where he decides to retaliate.
The introduction of manpads would be no less significant an impact on the occupying force as
it was when the Soviet's were there when the SEE EYE AYE showered the Afghani's with
Stingers. It completely changed the modus of the Soviet army once they were introduced.
Helicopters became dangerous to be in and could no longer fly near the ground. Good
observations though, the assassination of Assad could prove to be magnitudes greater a spark
than any of us could imagine. I hope for the sake of, among the many, the Christians he's
been protecting from the foreign merc's. that he stays safe. He must keep a low profile and
let's hope the S400's will take care of any Predator drones that try to fly the Damascus
airspace.
It seems US (or perhaps Israel) didn't give you time enough to think about what could be the
next move (breaking news from Sputinik, 23:30 GMT): vehicle convoy carrying Iraqi PMF leaders
hit by airstrike, 6 dead at least.
Thanks for posting this. I wonder if Soleimani consciously ( on many human and beyond human
levels) wanted to offer the Yanks a "target" (a type of sacrifice, namely himself) that was
just too big to ignore, knowing that the stupid enemy would take the bait, and having a
secure knowledge that his death would set in motion a chain of events that will (underline
will) result in the final terrible fall of the US, and Israel. Stupid American "leaders",
right now, they are dancing in idiotic joy, saying foolish words for which we will pay, also
knowing what the future holds: the death of countless people, throughout not only the Middle
East, but here in the US as well. Yes, I do hate them for what they have unleashed.
Rest In Peace, Soleimani. You very well may achieve far more in death that you attained in
your eventful life.
Oh, it was certainly a grave miscalculation by the US. The NeoCons must have been pushing for
it for years, and it wasn't the first assassination attempt. But I don't think the reprisal
will be immediate. Retaliation needs to be carefully thought out, in order to avoid an
exchange mounting in tension leading to outright war (certainly part of the US plan).
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a
response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big
thing. Football scores more important.
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed,
believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted,
good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the
basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the
chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee
deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia.
They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
Yes I also noticed this, what I believe is most depressing is how dumb people are.
Trump/White house tell alot of lies which then become the truth for alot of his supporters
and he also manage to get MSM where he wants, because MSM do not seems to care either, they
are on-board when it comes to war.
And yes additional to that, a clear psychological operation going on to get the propaganda
out.
I try to counter it on social media, I hope everyone here also do the same.
Its about conditioning people that its the new normal. Anything goes, "do as thou wilt".
So long as it serves the interests of our masters. With no fear that MSM or alt media can or
will provide sustained or effective criticism, and the corruption of religious or secular
morals among the population thanks to hollywoods cultural marxism/propaganda and corruption
of christianity , they can get support among the people for just about anything. People can
be made to believe anything. The past 100 years has proven that beyond all doubt. With all
doubt now removed they can show their true colors and this will be accepted as the new
normal.
The problem with the US is most everyone in the US military, US citizenry, and US government
believe their own Exceptionalism propaganda and act accordingly. Attacking the PMU units of
the Iraqi army was certainly an unwise decision, but killing Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi
Al-Muhandis is an act of complete moronic insanity!
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
"... Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices. ..."
"... We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in generations. ..."
"... "The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators." ..."
"... "Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end." ..."
"... That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade". ..."
"... US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag propaganda. ..."
"... The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced them to imbeciles. ..."
The US shows every symptom of an empire on the brink of collapse: an irreconcilably divided
and decaying citizenry, racial and cultural incoherence, a totally detached oligarchy, no
overarching mission or narrative, and an over reliance on international mercenaries to fight
its wars. By 2009, soldiers of fortune outnumbered US military personnel 3-1 in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making
wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and
suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see
tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices.
A war with Iran is our line in the sand as well. All white men must boycott the military,
which is run by people who despise us more than any supposed international enemy ever will.
The last 3 years of having our rights and civil liberties whittled away show that it is white
Americans who will always be the US plutocracy's first and last enemy. If you are currently
serving, you can get honorably discharged by declaring yourself a worshipper of Asatru and
anonymously emailing your superior officers pretending to be a deeply concerned member of
Antifa. Even if open war doesn't break out, the recent massive troop buildups in the Middle
East guarantee you will be a target. Let Zion send its anarchist neo-liberal foot soldiers in
your place!
We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must
remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in
generations.
The people of Iran are not our enemy. They share the same abominable foe and deserve our
solidarity. They must know that the citizens of America are ignorant of who rules them, and
that decisions made using our flag are not made by us.
In the name of the existence of our people and the future of our children, and even
broader in the name of humanity, we must ensure that this will be Judah's last war.
thank you b... i see you articulated a paragraph that is out of grasp of the american msm
crowd, so i am going to repeat it.. it is worth repeating...see bottom of post... my main
thought is that no matter what happens everything will be blamed on iran - false flag, and
etc. etc. you name it... all bad is on iran and all good is on usa-israel.. that is the
constant meme that the msm provides 24-7 and that us politicians and the state dept run with
24-7 as well. it is so transparent it is beyond despicable..
@ 13 old hippie.. that about sums up my impression.. thanks
@ 22 BM.. thanks.. i share your perspective, but am not as articulate..
here is the quote from b..
"The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi
government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the
Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu
Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed
while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime
Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their
murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators."
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a
response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big
thing. Football scores more important.
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed,
believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted,
good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the
basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the
chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee
deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia.
They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
You guys are right on money! I'm a retiree in my seventy's. My social circles are old
school college graduates in late fifties to late seventies, supposedly the segment of
population wise enough to decipher world affairs.
But no, they care more about who's gonna
win today between Titans and patriots or whether Tiger Wood will win another major in 2020.
US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential
terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent
and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to
ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean
to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag
propaganda.
"24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq. Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their
response across their soil. End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun."
The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as
their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced
them to imbeciles.
Soleimani is the equivalent of Iran killing a top American regional commander, veteran government figure, and war hero all rolled
into one. This is big.
It feels like an escalation far out of proportion to the events that preceded it. If Washington thinks it'll make Iran fold
or beg they're crazy. If they think it'll force Iran into events leading to war, they're evil and have learned nothing.
if you are making an argument for proportionate, then you ignore history...this is a confrontation that cannot be avoided and
hiding under our desks will not save us...we do not have to invade, only use the options we possess without restraint and fight
total war...we would have peace for a hundred years...
I'm surprised it took him this long to make a war. Next he'll call for everyone to rally behind him. Those who don't he'll call
traitors. It's the oldest trick of authoritarianism.
Please provide concrete and specific examples comparing Trump's alleged "respect for constitutional limits and the rule of law"
and how his predecessors violated the same limits and the rule of law.
He's been busy calling the political opposition "traitors" for his entire administration.
Of course, it's not the Democrats whose standard bearer is openly proclaimed to be a puppet of a rival power on that power's
state television, and has been bankrolled by that power's organized crime syndicates for a while.
I voted for the president, but I don't get this at all. For what? I hope he comes to his senses, but it's probably already too
late to prevent some bad consequences.
The man is a compulsive liar. A man who is unashamedly unfaithful to his wife is not going to be faithful about anything he has
ever said to you. Every MAGA hat wearing devotee knew this before the election. I still can't figure out what kind of self deception
led so many of them to believe that he would act differently once in office?
It is deeply upsetting to witness the hijacking of our government by foreign interests. We know from their many public statements
on the subject that Israel and Saudi Arabia have at least one shared, longstanding goal, which is to get the US to fight a war
against Iran. Trump has now bowed to their demands. It has made Americans less safe and will inevitably result in wasting even
more American money and blood on the Middle East.
I am baffled. I someone who supported Trump and voted for Trump can now only think of him as a complete moron and a dangerous
quisling for Israel. I can see the end of our nation now. It's in plain sight for anyone with eyes to see. Once it falls there
will be no putting humpty dumpty back together. I have nothing but loathing for the Woke Democrats and the Neocon Establishment
Republicans. Now Trump will top Dubya Bush as the Biggest Prostitute for Israel of the 21st Century. So much for America First.
So much for making America Great Again. Watch it all fall apart before our very eyes under the leadership of this silver spoon
raised reality tv star. America is finished. It's over. You can put a fork in it. It's done. The Deep State won. It doesn't matter
if Trump wins or loses in 2020. The Deep State will get what they want either way. Then it will all come tumbling down. Watch
the real players behind the scenes move quickly to consolidate wealth and power in the Former USA (as happened after the collapse
of the USSR) in the aftermath of our coming collapse. For American Nationalists lik me Trump is more than a disappointment after
this caper. He is an outright disaster. There is no hope for Washington. It is beyond repair. Our nation's Grave Stone may well
read, "The United States of America, 1776-2020".
My initial feeling was as yours. A few deep breaths and some sleep and I find it difficult not to agree still. There are of course,
always events left to play out and seldom do predictions happen in purely linear equation.
Iran is limited in how it may respond. This makes the situation more not less, dangerous. The JCS surely understand that a
ground war with Iran would require unacceptable numbers of forces and result in a postwar quagmire that would make Iraq look like
a cakewalk.
Trump, like Obama and Bush before him should be impeached for this action but we all should be aware by now that a cowardly
Congress has abdicated its war making responsibilities to the President and military.
The only possible reason for any optimism is that Trump, after events like this, tends to feel he can use it as a negotiating
tactic for future use. Unfortunately as Larison has pointed out elsewhere, events like this inspire little trust and engender
more blowback elsewhere. We have no solutions for the region and even the loudest neocon cheerleaders have no desire to send themselves
or their children to risk death there.
"I someone who supported Trump and voted for Trump can now only think of
him as a complete moron and a dangerous quisling for Israel."
Me too. I increasingly wonder whether the America in which I grew up even exists anymore. It seems to be dying, taken over
and strangled by foreign interests. It started under Clinton, accelerated under the younger Bush and Obama, and under Trump it
has become almost absurdly overt, with people like Sheldon Adelson openly giving elected officials millions of dollars to advance
specific Israeli foreign policy goals.
I don't mean to sound snarky, but there is nothing baffling about it. Trump is weak, stupid, reckless and easily manipulated.
This has been abundantly obvious for a long time now.
your response is silly son, as the iranian general was a world class terrorist...maybe just maybe this makes it clear to the iranian
mullahs that they will be held accountable...
Pretty much anyone who fights asymmetrical warfare is easily classified as a terrorist by his opponent. He no doubt has some immoral
things to his name but if it were Trump in the middle of 5th avenue it would be a virtue.
Did you honestly think before the election that the man had any character or was capable of anything besides delivering zingers?
I ask this honestly. From the very start the man came across as a BS artist. I have never been able to figure out what people
saw in him.
As i am writing this, the US has targeted and killed Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Iranian Quds Force SOC.
If there was ever a doubt by any American that US soldiers will leave Iraq and Syria and/or the ME in general, let that doubt
be cast aside now.
Rest assured, Iran will see to it to extract this price in American blood and treasure. In other words, because of the headline-seeker-in-chief,
he just signed the death warrants of Americans and signed a cheque for 1 Billion+ dollars.
For those not familiar with a billion, it is $1,000,000,000+
"Iran will see to it to extract this price in American blood and treasure."
And, if Iran won't be provoked into an attack, the warmongers will gladly make sure there is a big one that will be blamed
on Iran. They've been salivating for a war with Iran and want it sooner rather than later. They are doing what they can to get
Trump re-elected, but they want their war soon, just in case. They've been laying the groundwork for months ("Iran-backed" this
and "Iran-backed" that).
"Candidate Donald Trump understood that Iraq was a grievous -- "big, fat" -- mistake. "We've destabilized the Middle
East and it's a mess," he said in 2015. It "may have been the worst decision" in U.S. history. "It started ISIS, it started Libya,
it started Syria," Trump said as George W. Bush's brother looked on. "Everything that's happening started with us stupidly going
into the war in Iraq . and people talk about me with the button. I'm the one thatdoesn't want to do this, okay?""
TAC was expressly launched to oppose interventionism in the George W. Bush administration, so I'm not sure why you thought its
antiwar position was for the sake of opposing Obama.
Anti-war factions exist on both the right and left, unfortunately as small minorities in both camps. The recently signed defense
authorization bill originally contained provisions that blocked the use of any funds for military action against Iran without
explicit Congressional authorization, but that provision was taken out of the bill at the last minute by the Democratic leadership.
Max Boot and Rachel Maddow are now BFF. Neoconservative ideology dominates both parties and prevails widely among non-partisan
liberals and conservatives alike.
You might be interested in looking into the newly formed Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. It is dedicated to developing
a cadre of foreign policy positions (and expertise to staff foreign policy in some future administration) supporting the use of
diplomacy and reserving the use of force to only those situations where it is the only reasonable way to defend the actual United
States. It is anti-war and anti-empire. And it has received funding from both the Koch brothers and George Soros.
Sen. Bernie Sanders addressed the threat of war with Iran at a campaign rally in Anamosa,
Iowa on Friday. Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP Sen. Bernie Sanders addressed the threat of war with
Iran at a campaign rally in Anamosa, Iowa on Friday. Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP The legacy of
the Iraq war, and the prospect of a bloody sequel sparked by Donald Trump's assassination of a
senior Iranian official in Baghdad this week, has the potential to transform the Democratic
primary, offering voters radically different visions of how the next commander-in-chief
proposes to deal with the ongoing chaos caused by the 2003 invasion.
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren described the drone strike
ordered by Trump as a dangerous escalation and promised to end American wars in the Middle
East. Joe Biden, the former vice president, and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend,
Indiana, offered more muted criticism, suggesting that the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim
Suleimani might have been justified if a more responsible commander-in-chief was in
charge.
"We must do more than just stop war with Iran," Sanders tweeted on Friday. "We must
firmly commit to ending U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly manner. We must
end our involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. We must bring our troops home from
Afghanistan."
We must do more than just stop war with Iran.
We must firmly commit to ending U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly
manner.
We must end our involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen.
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe
Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his
predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and
a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to
be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is
a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key
national security advisors to Trump.
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm
perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate
for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned
on."
Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time
on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of
the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only
the neocons want is coming on in full force.
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the
damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing.
But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the
area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so
the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other
words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy
to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.
However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the
embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out
the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq
itself. Now there is a real problem.
Given the real masters of the universe are the very rich, would the Iranians see them as
logical targets?
Sheldon Adelson comes to mind, as he is a primary backer of both Trump and Netanyahu. As
well as likely not known, or appealing to Trump's base, so avenging his death wouldn't appeal
in the same way as soldiers or diplomats. Especially leading up to the election. Not only
that, but if the very rich were to sense their Gulfstreams are somewhat vulnerable to someone
with a Stinger at the end of the runway in quite a few tourist destinations, Davos, etc, the
pressure from the People Who Really Matter might be against further conflict.
The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does
have consequences.
b, the US controls "Israel". Thinking that "Israel" set up a think tank to trick or
manipulate Trump into declaring war on Iran confuses the situation. Iran has been a target
of Western interests stretching back to the 1920s -- way before Israel was even founded. It
was the US/British who toppled its gov in '53, and there are plenty of other examples of
egregious interference in other MENA countries before '67.
The US ruling class -- large banks, oil companies, mining companies, arms manufacturers
-- wants a war on Iran in a vain attempt to recover the general rate of profit
when its economy is about to default in the coming recession.
When on the previous thread I posted something about what Magnier had said regarding
Trump trying to get Iran to temper its response, you said of this information "its fake of
course".
Now, b above has reproduced the same extract from Magnier. Care to tell us how you know
that it's fake?
Here is Paveway IV's post for the prior thread to complement b on the red flag
symbolism:
"The Shia Red Flag was raised on the top of the Jamkaran Mosque in the Iranian city of
Qom, second largest in the Persian country, after General Qassem Soleimani, head of the
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC's) elite Quds Force, was assassinated in an
aerial attack when his vehicle was targeted in the Baghdad International airport. The Red
Flag is the flag of Imam Hussein and marks the colour of blood which, many say, symbolises
revenge and an impending severe battle."
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure'
a response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a
big thing. Football scores more important.
Sasha , Jan 4 2020 18:21 utc |
15Isabella , Jan 4 2020
18:22 utc |
16
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they
had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly
brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the
"White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders",
the basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially
the chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago
coffee deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or
Russia. They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
... So what happened to the naive people who were putting their peace hopes in Trump? He just
said he will strike important sites in Iran, including cultural sites.
"... It is time b and the others admit that they made a mistake. b has been supportive of keeping Trump in power and his reelection. This is a mistake. karlo1 also expressed some support for Trump, which is naive, and inexcusable, for such an intelligent person. ..."
"... Let's make a bet that all of those who somehow supported Trump here will eat their words this year. ..."
"... It is time for people to think very carefully and deeply about things. Do not be naive. Think very carefully. Get your brains working, please. ..."
So what happened to the naive people who were putting their peace hopes in Trump? He just
said he will strike important sites in Iran, including cultural sites.
It is time b and the others admit that they made a mistake. b has been supportive of
keeping Trump in power and his reelection. This is a mistake. karlo1 also expressed some
support for Trump, which is naive, and inexcusable, for such an intelligent person.
Let's make a bet that all of those who somehow supported Trump here will eat their words
this year.
It is time for people to think very carefully and deeply about things. Do not be naive.
Think very carefully. Get your brains working, please.
If I were China at this point, watching the schoolyard bully beating up on a fellow
citizen, I might just want to take the Bully's focus off the fellow citizen and, with
Russia's backing, tell the bully to pick on someone their own size.
Given the brazenness of the threats and provoking going on to start some military
conflict, maybe China needs to play the "I won't sign the trade deal and I want to cash in my
US Treasuries." cards to redirect the narrative and focus.
I like the silence of nations watching the bully trying to goad the world into military
war. It speaks volumes that Trump is being the biggest bully he can to incite military
warfare which they would lose if they don't go nuclear.
I find it saddening that so many commenters here don't seem to grasp that asymmetrical
warfare that is needed now is not the eye for eye type. Military warfare is the problem, not
the solution.
"Trump: "We targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran
many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,
and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no
more threats!"
Threats! I.e., Trump to Iran: If you don't let us off the hook for what we did to you, you
will be sorry!! Wouldn't this also be a war crime per . . . Geneva? Nuernberg? Destruction of
cultural sites?
The man is really a terrifying nutter who thinks nothing of destroying ancient cultures
while sitting in his gauge, glitzy digs in the Trump Tower or Mar-a Lago.
Thanks to Really @ 124 - Yes, I do know that Iran is not Arabic - the interview I was
remembering was in Qatar in October after a meeting that Zahir had addressed concerning his
HOPE initiative, and that interview had been posted on twitter - I could not find it in my
search just now, but my confusion was due to, I believe, his mentioning Arabic countries at
one point. Apologies for the misstatement. You are correct that the initiative is aimed more
widely than that.
Lozion@62 - Re: Your Magnier quote, "The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the
Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier
General Qassem Soleiman"
The light bulb above my chimpanzee brain just flickered (briefly). Somewhere on SST (maybe
Lang?): something to the effect of 'Never underestimate US gov/mil incompetence'. Maybe it
was the opposite of what Magnier thought really took place.
Treasonous, dual-citizen chickenhawks of the US possibly targeted Hashd al-Shaabi
vice-commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes . They were trying to kill him because they found
out from some snitch that he just showed up at the airport for some reason. The all-seeing US
didn't realize Soleimani was even there . I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew
commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have
expected that ? How devious!
This seems entirely plausible to me. Soleimani was too expensive a target - end of the
State of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all. But whacking a vice-commander of Hashd
al-Shaabi with a quarter-million dollar JAGM? Hell YEAH! We live for this kind
of preventative assassination heroism in the US. Especially if accompanied by colorful
graphics.
The awkward and delayed response of the usual US mil/gov mouthpieces makes this ridiculous
scenario even more believable. I have thoroughly convinced myself that this was a US screw-up
of EPIC proportions. In case the US government is reading MoA, this was all Lozion's doing.
I'm an innocent conspiracy primate.
I don't trust Magnier's reporting about an offer made by USA to Iran and his
speculation that Trump "offering the life of a 4-star general" is as nonsensical as it is
irresponsible.
In the past I've found Magnier to be unreliable - like when he has lauded Israel and
hinted that Iran was behind the tanker attacks. It sometimes seems to me that Magnier
relishes the possibility of a war with Iran.
Magnier's reporting is inconsistent with Trump Administration actions now and in the past.
Trump was "locked and loaded" for war with Iran in September! So why would Trump offer to
lift sanctions and strike a nuclear deal now EXCEPT AS A RUSE.
We should also be mindful that the Iranians have refused to negotiate while sanctions are
in place. This has been Iran's position for quite some time. Reporting about an rebuffed
offer without noting this is irresponsible and a disservice to readers.
PS Why does Magnier's site track users via graph.facebook?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I find it highly doubtful that Iran brought down PanAm 103 .
Such speculation only plays into USA's depiction of Iran as a terrorist state.
I know we are not to feed the trolls, but this is a meme worth commenting on:
"...So what happened to the naive people who were putting their peace hopes in
Trump?..."
Many here are emphasizing this doubtful implication (even Circe, whom I praised for a
stellar observation on the subject of Iran - and it even crept into my own cut and paste of
Suilimani's attributes.
We do not know (and I'm grateful to Pepe for entering this into his recent article) how
much of this is being orchestrated by Trump of his own unadulterated initiative. We agree
it's a mafia operating. Is he the boss of it? That's speculation. What is important is that
those (and we've seen how they operate) in 'power' are calling the shots.
So I'm viewing with suspicion any post (including mine) that accidentally or not inserts
this meme.
Bin Laden, Al Baghdadi, etc were not beloved state officials or state actors of any kind.
Qaddafi, like Saddam, was toppled in actions that were designed to look like regime change
from below -- but I agree to some extent that his death comes close, but was Qaddafi singled
out by a precision hit in the precise fashion we are seeing here. But my point is that a
bridge has been crossed here in terms of scale, brazenness, and the extent to which no
attempt was made to conceal that it was a hit ordered directly by POTUS. It is an
unprecedented shift in international relations where a host of other covert tactics were
fully available and would have achieved the same outcome.
I guess I'm the only human round here who finds the child like refusal by so many to believe
that Iran played a payback card with Lockerbie, a very small stunt that didn't require much
at all in the way of participants, while they lap up lurid (& frequently white
supremacist at heart) nonsense conspiracies such as that 911 was a deliberate strategy (one
that would have required a cast of hundreds if not thousands, all staying schtum for
evermore) - f++king ludicrous.
The Iranians had to teach amerika that shooting down a passenger jet had major consequences.
They did that while benefiting from real world politics where amerika needed to have Iran
& Syria (who had assisted) onside for gulf war 1. Libya got stitched up because they were
convenient mugs who lacked friends in the ME because the colonel had no time for pretty much
every other ME leader - his interest had always been Africa.
This is pretty typical of people who have a need to see everything in black or white. Don't
say anything bad about Iran or Syria because they are enemies of fukasi eh. What use are
nations such as Iran or Syria if they are not prepared to get their hands dirty once in a
while? No use.
The fact that Iran got just the right payback in a just way then stopped is something people
should be proud of Iran for, rather than squealing "No No they wouldn't they couldn't do
that."
I can remember celebrating down the workers' club on the day news of the Lockerbie bombing
came out. What had occurred was obvious, sure a few innocents died, that happens in war, the
war amerika had kicked off and if that plane hadn't gone down most of the passengers would
have been sitting in a coffee shop today with half a chubbie in their pants at the thought
amerika had showed that 'Sullymanny' who was the boss.
b is correct to bring up that action because it encapsulates exactly how Iran is, truth
and justice are at the heart of everything Iran's leadership believes & does. It wasn't
Iran who fitted up Libya - amerika & england did that. Iran had merely insisted that the
entire plane saga be buried if amerika wanted any assistance with Saddam Hussein, who let's
face as far as Iran was concerned deserved everything he got. George H Bush showed himself to
be at least as silly as his son - neither had any comprehension of what would happen should
Ba'ath be removed from power in Iraq, that Iran would be the major beneficiary.
That I reckon is a major part of why amerikan leaders & their zionist proxies get so hot
on Iran. Iran played them like a bitch and now they know it.
If Lockerbie incident substantiated with Rober Fisk stories or world powers intelligence
evidences, Iran definitely would be sanctioned and would pay very high price, would be tried
in international criminal court.
Why they did not brought Gadhafy to the court? Because they did not have clear evidence.
Look other works of Robert Fisk, how is Independent now? What color is it now?
My view about Trump is based on my psychological portrait of Trump. He is a US
supremacist, plus a military (see their presence around him and the large increase in mil
budgets) and a zionist (see his family) puppet.
I see him as an aggressive animal. He will start a war if he can get away with it. He also
likes to grandstand, so he hates the US decline in the world. He wants to brag how great he
(and by proxy the US) is. It is also known that he does not like muslims. No way for him to
have good relations with Iran.
He is a gambler. He will push and push, as long as he could get away with it. In
international relations though, especially in the relations with some countries, who have
strong grievances against the US, this could lead to war.
Trump said that he could nuke Afghanistan is necessary. Sorry, but i do not see in this
talk his advisors behind him, but only his own animalistic nature.
Truth is, i was supportive of Trump in the past, but with time i changed my opinion. After
careful observation. And i'm glad i did. It shows that my mind is still flexible, and will
accept even the unpleasant truth, as long as it is the truth.
If i'm calling now a person that i was relatively supportive in the past "an animal" you
can imagine my disappointment.
Addendum to @143
Unless of course the lack of concealment was a deliberate provocation to incite a real war.
In which case Iran must choose asymmetry. Hit KSA and close the Gulf. The world will sideline
the US in a panicked scramble to quieten everything down. But I don't see evidence that the
markets believe this will happen. Oil not really moving up that much. A good analysis of the
financial markets' view on this would shed some light.
Also, does anybody have an accurate summary of the current structure of the Iraqi
parliament, someone who can crunch the numbers? The US would surely have been preparing well
in advance to prevent a spill to evict them, but is it in the bag or is it fluid? I wonder
what the bookies are offering...
Too much noise from the US, as usual, threats blah blah, there are simply not enough fire
power in the Gulf to go to war against Iran, just recall what took from many countries to
invade Iraq, so no WWIII, no major confrontation is expected. The Orange Man is clearly
agitated, his few TV appearances, are showing a very disturbed person, not the usual Trumpest
we know about.
The backstage is intense, Iran has to retaliate, the US gets that, but it is trying to reduce
the impact, this is definitively what is being dealt in the Swiss, Oman and Qatar meetings in
the past 24 hrs. There will be more contacts until this whole mess is done.
Iranians and Iraqis are not afraid, they want confrontation, it will be hard for their
leaders to hold them at bay, but I believe the payback is coming slowly, in pieces, not once,
but in several blows, a masterpiece could be against American allies in the region, since the
US will have hard time re retaliate, and the damage to the US will be done as it was with the
tankers, agains KSA etc... We should also expect IEDs to kill many soldiers and US
mercenaries, the later will be focused for sure, and that means in Iraq and Syria.
Would like to share with the SyrPers visiting MoA, that until the site is not back on
line, we are trying to gather at Platosgun.com, at Taxi's place, so far we managed to some
Syrpers there and get out comment section back to live in a different address, at least for
while. See you there SyrPers.
Have we missed an obvious explanation for shocking behavior?
That control of Iran is needed to enable the Crown to do Brexit and flourish? That
middle-east oil/gas and the politics of global availability are crucial to the Crown's
survival as elitist Royalty.
The US.gov has acted as the Crown's proxy for a very long time, knowingly or
unknowingly.
Look at a global map of Planet Earth. Look at England [if you can find it]. And don't
confuse it with Japan, which also knows something about needing/wanting proxies...knowingly
or not.
Now, go do Brexit without guaranteed [under control] sources of energy and other
plunder.
People have lost their fear of Nuclear weapons. If the U.S. use Nukes against Iran, the
radioactive cloud will be blown across the Atlantic Ocean and land where?
Quite apart from the fact that if the U.S. use Nukes without a serious retaliation, nowhere
is safe. Putin has been quoted that any form of nuclear weapon used on any of it's allies
will be considered as a nuclear attack on Russia itself and will be responded to by a full
scale retaliatory strike.
As the U.S. has no defense against the latest Russian weaponry, they will realize that
indeed, the living will envy the dead.
I have no idea as to what the attack strategy of Russia will be but I doubt it will be to
kill millions of people. Far more effective Is to wipe out major infrastructure, transport,
water and energy systems and then see what 340 million people do to survive.
Well put. We in Australia have a mini-Trump for PM (an embarrassing fawning dog licking
Trump's balls on his recent visit to the US) who is currently mismanaging our bushfire
catastrophe due to a total lack of empathy. A former marketing manager, Scott Morrison is a
sociopath who makes bullies look like Mother Teresa. The combination of self-righteous
evangelism with fanatical neoliberal ideology, when wedded to a lust for power at all costs
and the crushing of any dissent (usually through awful marketing-school cynicism), makes for
extreme social and political toxicity. He adores Trump and actually took notes at an Ohio
rally (I kid you not). As the east coast burns like never before (a region the size of Texas
gone, 1500 homes, 20+ lives lost) he went on holiday to Hawaii (staying in a Trump hotel).
When he returned he was greeted by visceral hostility (enormously satisfying to watch
here ). His instinct was to make an ad explaining how great his leadership is(n't). His
position is owed to his commitment to Australia's only three sources of wealth: selling coal
and iron ore to China, real estate (ponzi scheme), banking (even bigger ponzi scheme). I
would drone strike him and Trump in a New York minute
"A new California law fines you $1,000 if you shower and do 1 load of laundry in the
same day. And if the Gov declares a drought, the fine goes up to *$10,000*."
@139 PWIV. My take here from before Magnier's post:
Posted by: Lozion | Jan 4 2020 2:25 utc | 363
"Killing Mohandes was not part of the plan imo. Note how he is never mentioned in Western
press? The US will now have to contend with an extraordinary parliament session this Sunday
and likely a vote for US troop ousting will be made. Surely that's not what the US wanted
though it had to be anticipated if Mohandes got hit. Either they ignored he was present or
decided it was worth the risk. Now its blowback time. Lets see what Sadr's block will vote.
He will finally reveal is true colors by making or breaking the vote (53 MP's).."
You may be right though and it is the opposite but I think IL leaked the info on Soleimani
going to Baghdad for the funeral of the martyred PMU soldiers and the hit was
greenlighted..
And this way we already can test who inspired the US/Israel sponsored terrorists in Syria
and Iraq to destory all the cultural heritage there...sicne The Donals just confess this was
in their strategic manuals....The Syrian government should keep a capture of that Twitt for
further claims on compensations at ICC...
Obviously, nobody swallowed that was an ingenious occurence of those brutes to the
eyebrows of Captagon...Someon wanted those treasure destroyed and payed to smugle those able
to be so..
Iran has already been under attack: And much lied about:
From Oct. 2019 Iran claims two explosions on board the Iranian Sabiti oil tanker were
caused by a missile attack in the Red Sea
Sept 2018 At least 29 people, including children, have been killed in a terrorist attack
on a military parade in south-west Iran, responsibility claimed by Islamic State and a
separatist group.
Aug 2015 "Israel's defense minister hinted on Friday that the Jewish state's intelligence
services were behind the rash of killings of Iranian nuclear scientists."
And then there are the false accusations: June 2019 Hours after the U.S. released video
footage that 'showed' an Iranian boat removing an unexploded mine from the side of an oil
tanker, the Japanese owner of that vessel said that the ship was likely damaged by a "flying
object" and dismissed claims of a mine attack as "false."
The news was distorted and interpreted, hand-to-hand differently.
Swiss Ambassador in Tehran was summoned for Solaimani assassination, he went to Iran foreign
ministry, yesterday morning ( Swiss is represent and protect USA affairs in Iran). At the
same visit he delivered a letter from USA to Iran. What is the content of the letter is not
known to public. The Sepah commander in his speech hinted that American ( through a country)
has requested to set a limit ( or ceiling) for retaliation and Iran has reject the request. (
who was the third country? Nobody knows, many countries are trying to mediate every
hour).
In an interview Zarif explained that Swiss ambassador was summoned, he came in the morning,
in the same session he delivered an indecent letter from USA. He was summoned in the
afternoon, came and received our sturdy an tough written response.
A 4 star general or like that are logical interpenetration. Why you do not look Chris
Morphy's speeches?
He ( Morphy) said equivalent to Solaimani is American secretary of defense. Would you satisfy
with Morphy interpretation?
>>Also, does anybody have an accurate summary of the current structure of the Iraqi
parliament, someone who can crunch the numbers? The US would surely have been preparing well
in advance to prevent a spill to evict them, but is it in the bag or is it fluid? I wonder
what the bookies are offering...
In the iraqi parliament, sunnis and kurds are against expelling the US. They are a
minority though. There are also two small shia factions who are against that.
But the expellers will have the majority if Muqtada al Sadr supports them. So by the
coming vote, it will become clear who is a US agent in Iraq, and who is not.
My bet is a 70 % probability for a vote to expell the US from Iraq.
@Moon
Fitst, as others have pointed out, it is unclear who was responsible for the downing of
Pan AM 103 . Many took credit for it and ultimately it may have been the CIA itself.
Second, Iran has always been of strategic interest to great powers even before
Israel existed or oil was discovered there. To suggest that the US would have no strategic
interest in controlling Iran if it were not for Israel is ridiculous. The US deep state
has been trying to reclaim Iran since Carter lost it. Also, note that Israel supplied
weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran during the the Iran-Iraq war.
If want to look to past history of what Iran will do, you only need to look back to the
Iran-Iraq war. After the US wiped out all Iranian oil platforms and the Iranian navy in
operation Praying Mantis, a ceasefire and peace was negotiated soon afterwords. Trump and
Lindsey Graham have warned Iran that they will lose all their oil refineries if they attempt
retaliation. Iran no longer has any doubts that Trump will make good on that threat. To
suggest that Iran will act irrationally and retaliate regardless of US consequences is the
height of racism.
Also to think that China or Russia will somehow defend Iran against US attacks is wishful
thinking,
Trump is the perfect man, in the perfect position, at the perfect time, to finally get their
wish and attempt to smash up Iran. He is no more than a front man. Every president is backed
by some interests and competing interests back various candidates.
If he (they) think he (they) can play the "rocket man" game against the Persian he (they)
are sadly mistaken. Obviously Obama took a much different tack with Iran while smashing up
some of the old Arab secular countries at the same time. I would not know how to begin to
think through this madness of Empire regime planning.
Below is a Reuters article, so you know it is low balling the numbers but, admitting that not
ALL Americans are on board with the Iran/Iraq attack
"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Groups of protesters took to the streets in Washington and other U.S.
cities on Saturday to condemn the air strike in Iraq ordered by President Donald Trump that
killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Trump's decision to send about 3,000
more troops to the Middle East.
"No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East," hundreds of demonstrators chanted
outside the White House before marching to the Trump International Hotel a few blocks
away.
Similar protests were held in New York, Chicago and other cities. Organizers at Code Pink,
a women-led anti-war group, said protests were scheduled on Saturday in numerous U.S. cities
and towns.
Protesters in Washington held signs that read "No war or sanctions on Iran!" and "U.S.
troops out of Iraq!"
Speakers at the Washington event included actress and activist Jane Fonda, who last year
was arrested at a climate change protest on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.
"The younger people here should know that all of the wars fought since you were born have
been fought over oil," Fonda, 82, told the crowd, adding that "we can't anymore lose lives
and kill people and ruin an environment because of oil."
"Going to a march doesn't do a lot, but at least I can come out and say something: that
I'm opposed to this stuff," said protestor Steve Lane of Bethesda, Maryland. "And maybe if
enough people do the same thing, he (Trump) will listen."
Soleimani, regarded as the second most powerful figure in Iran, was killed in the U.S.
strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport on Friday in a dramatic escalation of hostilities in
the Middle East between Iran and the United States and its allies.
Public opinion polls show Americans in general have been opposed to U.S. military
interventions overseas. A survey last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 27%
of Americans believe military interventions make the United States safer, and nearly half
said they make the country less safe.
"
One point: Since Iran now knows that it will be blamed for *anything* that happens in the
Middle East - witness the Houthis attack on the Saudi oil fields, it does not have much
incentive to keep its retaliation "plausibly deniable." So I suspect Iran will make it clear
that it is responsible for whatever retaliation it conducts. It will only keep such
retaliation at a level below a direct strike against senior US officials such as Pence,
Pompeo, or the Joint Chiefs.
My guess would be a strike against a division level or regional US military officer in the
region - possibly via car bomb in the UAE or even Europe. Or an equivalent strike against an
Israeli officer or diplomat via Hezbollah - although that might difficult due to limited
access. That will make it obvious that is was Iran, but Iran may still use a cut-out such as
Hezbollah or Shia elsewhere so no Quds Force operative can be identified as being
involved.
"Military security" is an oxymoron, as SEAL Richard Marcinko demonstrated with his Red
Cell team decades ago. Every US military member in the world is now at increased risk for
assassination and every US base in the world is at risk for a serious attack similar to the
Marine Barracks bombing.
I'd hate to be any US official flying into any airport in the Middle East - given that an
equivalent drone strike can be done by almost every militant group in the Middle East, now
that the Houthis have demonstrated how.
Below is another Reuters article, this one about the lying, boot licking and obfuscating UK
"
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain urged all parties to show restraint on Saturday after the United
States killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in an air strike, but said its
closest ally was entitled to defend itself against an imminent threat.
Defence minister Ben Wallace said in a statement that he had spoken to his U.S.
counterpart Mark Esper, adding: "We urge all parties to engage to de-escalate the
situation.
"Under international law the United States is entitled to defend itself against those
posing an imminent threat to their citizens," he added.
"
LYSSANDER the only suspect for the bombing of Capt William Roger's wife's van was a former
family friend involved in some sort of personal dispute over a divorce.
> Grudge, not terrorism, seen in Rogers bombing
> Joe Hughes
> Tribune Staff Writer
>
> 10/02/1989
> The San Diego Union-Tribune
>
> TRIBUNE; 1,2,3,4,5
> A-1:1,2,3,4; B-1:5
> (Copyright 1989)
>
>
>
> Federal investigators have turned away from
> terrorism as a motive for the
> pipe-bombing of a van driven by the wife of Navy
> Capt. Will C. Rogers III
> and are looking at an American believed to have a
> grudge against Rogers,
>
Thanks for the succinct summary. That seems to accord with the balance across the country.
It's hard to tell in Iraq whether religion (Sunni v Shi'a) means more than ethnicity (Arab v
Persian). Like all these artificial nations created after the collapse of the Ottoman empire
the ethno-tribal, religious and class breakdown is impenetrable and mercurial. It always
reminds me of Frank Herbert's masterpiece Dune. 70% eh? I like those odds.
In passing, it reached 49 degrees celsius where I live in western Sydney yesterday (a
Sydney record) and the smoke haze is now so bad from multiple fire fronts on the edges of the
city that driving is dangerous and motorways are closing. With heavy water restrictions in
place my garden is dead. All my capsicums burnt on the stem yesterday as the road bitumen
melted outside. This is the case from Queensland to South Australia, a coastline 2000km long.
Plus Australia currently has the worst air quality in the world. And this is only one month
into a 3 month fire season. Very depressing.
"The anti-Benghazi!" President Donald Trump replied after liberals referred to the
storming of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as his Benghazi, referencing the assault on the
American consulate in Libya under the previous administration. Trump, supporters maintained,
did not hesitate to repel the attack. In fact, in breaking news Wednesday night it was reported
that the U.S. military, at the direction of President Trump, killed the leader of the Iranian Quds
Force, General Qassem Soleimani, in an airstrike at Baghdad's international airport.
The United States has a right to defend its embassies and military bases overseas as well as
the duty to protect Americans and other personnel. But the partisan finger-pointers are
overlooking the real significance of Benghazi: it was the symbol of a failed military
intervention for which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton bore greater culpability than the
grisly murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues. The regime change war Washington
launched left Libya teeming with terrorists, full of territory that was chaotic, violent and
unsafe.
So too the war in Iraq, which initially created a power vacuum that empowered radicals who
resemble the militant forces that attacked America on 9/11. In recent years, our focus has been
on fighting ISIS rather than nation-building. But the longer-term result of the Iraq
misadventure was to overthrow the Sunni state that controlled Baghdad and replace it with a
Shiite government that would inevitably mean greater Iranian influence. The toppled Iraqi
government was Iran's main counterweight in the region.
Candidate Donald Trump understood that Iraq was a grievous -- "big, fat" -- mistake. "We've
destabilized the Middle East and it's a mess," he said in 2015. It "may have been the worst
decision" in U.S. history. "It started ISIS, it started Libya, it started Syria," Trump said as
George W. Bush's brother looked on. "Everything that's happening started with us stupidly going
into the war in Iraq . and people talk about me with the button. I'm the one that doesn't want
to do this, okay?"
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in his first year as president of
the United States, Trump laid into the Mesopotamian mishaps. "We've spent trillions of dollars
overseas, while allowing our own infrastructure to fall into total disrepair and decay. In the
Middle East, we've spent as of four weeks ago, $6 trillion. Think of it," he said. "And by the
way, the Middle East is in -- I mean, it's not even close, it's in much worse shape than it was
15 years ago. If our presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much
better shape than we are right now, that I can tell you."
"Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump
declared in his State of the Union address just last year. "Our brave troops have now been
fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American
heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have
spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East."
Yet Iran has always been the unprincipled exception to Trump's
skepticism of regime change. In his zeal to reverse Obama's legacy, he risks repeating Obama's
folly. For the 44th president also owed his election to the fact that he recognized Iraq was a
"dumb war." He left office with the U.S. mired in more wars of choice than before, including
interventions in Libya, Yemen and Syria that have to varying degrees kept smoldering under
Trump.
Trump's foreign policy team is replete with advisers ready to turn proxy wars with Iran
inside Iraq into a wider conflict, people whose vision of "America First" is indistinguishable
from the vision that gave us endless wars in the first place. So far, the president has
held
them off . But his present course creates a high risk of war with Iran, and a resumption of
hostilities in Iraq not limited to the fight against ISIS, whether he knows it or not.
At the very least, Trump may cede the war issue to the Democrats. "We should end the forever
wars, not start new ones," tweeted Elizabeth Warren, the liberal presidential candidate who
trails Trump in
the battleground states and is even
losing to him in Virginia, according to the latest Mason-Dixon poll, which hasn't voted for
a Republican White House aspirant since 2004. Why throw her a lifeline by implementing the
foreign policy of candidates he defeated in 2016?
Trump was elected to guard American borders. Patrolling the Iran-Iraq border will not get
him reelected.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
I t does not matter where the green light for the U . S . targeted assassination in Baghdad
of Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani and the Hashd al-Shaabi
second-in-command Abu Madhi al-Muhandis came from.
This is an act of war. Unilateral, unprovoked and illegal.
President Donald Trump may have issued the order. The U . S . Deep State may have ordered
him to issue the order. Or the usual suspects may have ordered them all.
According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, "Israel gave the U . S . the coordinates
for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the repercussions of taking
the assassination upon themselves."
It does not matter that Trump and the Deep State are at war.
One of the very few geopolitical obsessions that unite them is non-stop confrontation with
Iran – qualified by the Pentagon as one of five top threats against the U . S . , almost
at the level of Russia and China.
And there cannot be a more startling provocation against Iran -- in a long list of sanctions
and provocations -- than what just happened in Baghdad. Iraq is now the preferred battleground
of a proxy war against Iran that may now metastasize into hot war, with devastating
consequences.
Please Make a 25th Anniversary Winter Fund DriveDonationToday.
We knew it was coming. There were plenty of rumbles in Israeli media by former military and
Mossad officials. There were explicit threats by the Pentagon. I discussed it in detail in
Umbria last week with sterling analyst Alastair Crooke – who was extremely worried. I
received worried messages from Iran.
The inevitable escalation by Washington was being discussed until late Thursday night here
in Palermo, actually a few hours before the strike. (Sicily, by the way, in the terminology of
U.S. generals, is AMGOT: American Government Occupied Territory.)
Once again, the Exceptionalist hands at work show how predictable they are. Trump is
cornered by impeachment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been indicted. Nothing
like an external "threat" to rally the internal troops.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei knows about these complex variables as much as he knows of
his responsibility as the power who issued Iran's own red lines. Not surprisingly he already
announced, on the record, there will be blowback: "a forceful revenge awaits the criminals who
have his blood and the blood of other martyrs last night on their hands." Expect it to be very
painful.
Qasem Soleimani (left) with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (right) at a 2017 ceremony commemorating
the father of Soleimani, in Mosalla, Tehran. (Fars News Agency, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia
Commons)
Blowback by a Thousand Cuts
I met al-Muhandis in Baghdad two years ago -- as well as many Hashd al-Shaabi members. Here
is my full report . The Deep
State is absolutely terrified that Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular
Mobilization Forces) , a grassroots organization, are on the way to becoming a new Hezbollah,
and as powerful as Hezbollah. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the supreme religious authority in Iraq,
universally respected, fully supports them.
So, the American strike also targets Sistani -- not to mention the fact that Hash al-Shaabi
operates under guidelines issued by the Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi. That's a major
strategic blunder that can only be pulled off by amateurs.
Major General Soleimani, of course, humiliated the whole of the Deep State over and over
again -- and could eat all of them for breakfast, lunch and dinner as a military strategist. It
was Soleimani who defeated ISIS/Daesh in Iraq -- not the Americans bombing Raqqa to rubble.
Soleimani is a super-hero of almost mythical status for legions of young Hezbollah supporters,
Houthis in Yemen, all strands of resistance fighters in both Iraq and Syria, Islamic Jihad in
Palestine, and all across Global South latitudes in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
There's absolutely no way the U.S. will be able to maintain troops in Iraq, unless the
nation is re-occupied en masse via a bloodbath. And forget about "security": no imperial
official or imperial military force is now safe anywhere, from the Levant to Mesopotamia and
the Persian Gulf.
The only redeeming quality out of this major strategic blunder cum declaration of war may be
the final nail in the coffin of the Southwest Asia chapter of the U.S. Empire of Bases. Iranian
Prime Minister Javad Zarif came out with an appropriate metaphor: the "tree of resistance" will
continue to grow. The empire might as well say goodbye to Southwest Asia.
In the short term, Tehran will be extremely careful in their response. A hint of --
harrowing -- things to come: it will be blowback by a thousand cuts. As in hitting the
Exceptionalist framework -- and mindset -- where it really hurts. This is the way the Roaring,
Raging Twenties begin: not with a bang, but with the release of whimpering dogs of war.
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest
book is "
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
T he drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani
evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to
World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe
revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And
escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the
multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in
nearby waters.
What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated.
Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval
exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S.
in the region.
Cui Bono?
It is time to call a spade a spade. The country expecting to benefit most from hostilities
between Iran and the U.S. is Israel (with Saudi Arabia in second place). As you no doubt are
aware, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. He continues to
await from you the kind of gift that keeps giving. Likewise, it appears that you, your
son-in-law, and other myopic pro-Israel advisers are as susceptible to the influence of Israeli
prime ministers as was former President George W. Bush. Some commentators are citing your
taking personal responsibility for providing Iran with a casus belli as unfathomable.
Looking back just a decade or so, we see a readily distinguishable pattern.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon payed a huge role in getting George W. Bush to
destroy Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Usually taciturn, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security
adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, warned in August 2002 that "U.S. action
against Iraq could turn the whole region into a cauldron." Bush paid no heed, prompting
Scowcroft to explain in Oct. 2004 to The Financial Times that former Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush "mesmerized"; that Sharon has him "wrapped around his
little finger." (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.)
In Sept. 2002, well before the attack on Iraq, Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Secretary
of the 9/11 Commission, stated publicly in a moment of unusual candor, "The 'real threat' from
Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel."
Zelikow did not explain how Iraq (or Iran), with zero nuclear weapons, would not be deterred
from attacking Israel, which had a couple of hundred such weapons.
Zombie Generals
When a docile, Peter-principle, "we-are-still-winning-in-Afghanistan" U.S. military
leadership sends more troops (mostly from a poverty draft) to be wounded and killed in
hostilities with Iran, Americans are likely, this time, to look beneath the equally docile
media for answers as to why. Was it for Netanyahu and the oppressive regime in Israel? Many
Americans will wake up, and serious backlash is likely.
Events might bring a rise in the kind of anti-Semitism already responsible for domestic
terrorist attacks. And when bodybags arrive from abroad, there may be for families and for
thinking Americans, a limit to how much longer the pro-Israel mainstream media will be able to
pull the wool over their eyes.
Those who may prefer to think that Gen. Scowcroft got up on the wrong side of the bed on
Oct. 13, 2004, the day he gave the interview to The Financial Times may profit from
words straight from Netanyahu's mouth. On Aug. 3, 2010, in a formal VIPS Memorandum for your
predecessor, we provided some "Netanyahu in his own words."
We include an excerpt here for historical context:
"Netanyahu's Calculations
Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he
enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your [Obama's] reluctance
even to mention controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as
affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship.
During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly
confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene.
Netanyahu's attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli
TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu)
was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them.
The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward -- and wonderment at -- an America so
easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:
" America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't
get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."
Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be "a con artist who
thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes," adding
that such behavior "does not change over the years."
Recommendation
We ended VIPS' first Memorandum For the President (George W. Bush) with this critique of
Secretary of State Colin Powell's address at the UN earlier that day:
"No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is
"irrefutable or undeniable" [as Powell claimed his was]. But after watching Secretary Powell
today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond
the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and
from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
We are all in a limina l moment. We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid
doubling down on catastrophe.
For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and Division Director, State
Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Graham Fuller, former Chairman, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate
VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense
watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel
(ret.)
Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate
VIPS)
"... Trump's closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu also plays into this scenario. I won't fall-off my bar stool in shock and surprise should such a joint operation prove to be true. ..."
"... "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' No evidence, no eye witnesses, no communique with WADC, no confirmation from Trump himself. Check, and mate. ..."
"... The Neocons did it. They really did it! Any cogent political world analysis is drawn into a cauldron and destroyed. Everything devolves to 'Trump, Russia and Iran' now. Deep State wins! ..."
"... Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers (except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the electorate. Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran will show. ..."
When President Trump announced the assassination of General Qassim Soleimani, he said that
there was "unambiguous" information that Soleimani was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq
and Syria. My first thought was what were the sources of that "unambiguous" information?
I'll
bet dollars to donuts that it was Israel's Mossad. The sheer precision and timing of that
"hit" had all the smell and feel of a Mossad operation. While the US did the actual killing,
the Israelis did the 'fingering.'
Trump's closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu also plays into
this scenario. I won't fall-off my bar stool in shock and surprise should such a joint
operation prove to be true.
"America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get
in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Benjamin Netanyahu
This bold statement of Israeli/Jewish hubris remains as true today as it was when he said
it, over 20 years ago. This fact is only understood by examining 'who' controls the
media.
Israel requested this hit. And the Americans were stupid enough to oblige.
Joerg , Jan 4 2020 18:49 utc |
31Paul Leibowitz , Jan 4 2020 18:51 utc |
32
CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily
assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' No evidence, no eye witnesses, no communique with
WADC, no confirmation from Trump himself. Check, and mate.
Having 'beheaded' Trump and launched what will be enormous death and destruction, the PNAC
pesharim and their Neocon noodniks are desperate to deflect responsibility onto Trump,
essentially they are 'necklacing' Trump and the Republican administration using the compliant
poodled MSM.
This allows the DNC WarHogs to pretend to be the 'People's Populist Party of Peace' at
their Convention in July, and bring about the final Bolshevik takeover that Brexit and Hong
Kong and a 1,000,000 man Deplorable march on Milwaukee had threatened to defeat.
The high crimes of the Biden's, Kerry's and Pelosi's in Ukraine, and the genocidal crimes
against humanity of Maidan itself, are now ink-blotted out of history.
The Neocons did it. They really did it! Any cogent political world analysis is drawn into
a cauldron and destroyed. Everything devolves to 'Trump, Russia and Iran' now. Deep State
wins!
The Iranians know who the real enemy is. The US(Trump) is just the dumb executioner -
they'll get their response in due time. In the mean time, the 1st response will be felt in
Tel Aviv.
Since coming to office, pompous Pompeo's been tripping back-n-forth between Tel Aviv and
DC, taking his mad orders from Bibi.
One thing for sure, US presence in the ME is on borrowed time.
The Iranians know who the real enemy is. The US(Trump) is just the dumb executioner - they'll
get their response in due time. In the mean time, the 1st response will be felt in Tel Aviv.
Since coming to office, pompous Pompeo's been tripping back-n-forth between Tel Aviv and
DC, taking his mad orders from Bibi.
One thing for sure, US presence in the ME is on borrowed time.
Israel wanted USA to go to war with Iran even well before the Syria debacle. Consequential
considerations of such an event caused the US to hesitate, especially after UK parliament
voted against being a partner to such a shenanigan. Now a US-Iran War may well be at hand.
Whether this would conflagrate the whole ME, and later the whole world, remain to be seen.
US soldiers ready to die for Israeli interests under Israeli command:
"The United States and Israel enjoy a strong and enduring military-to-military partnership
built on a trust that has been developed over decades of cooperation," said USAF Third Air
Force commander Lt.-Gen. Richard Clark, who also serves as the commander for the deploying
Joint Task Force – Israel.
...
According to Clark, the US and Israeli troops will work side-by-side under each other's
relevant chain of command.
"As far as decision-making, it is a partnership," he continued, stressing nonetheless that
"at the end of the day it is about the protection of Israel – and if there is a
question in regards to how we will operate, the last vote will probably go to Zvika
[Haimovitch]."
Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist
Israel with missile defense in times of war and, according to Haimovitch, "I am sure once the
order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team
to defend the State of Israel."
And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish
state, Clark said.
"We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime we get involved in a kinetic
fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that – as
every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility," he said.
George V 24
Same here. A drone/missile strike to take out a leader, claim he's responsible for many
deaths ("millions" DJT), and then claim innocence at any response is a classic Israeli
tactic. They did this to test Iron Dome. There had been a ceasefire with Hamas, Israel killed
a Hamas leader they claimed responsible for an attack 6 months earlier, and then pointed out
Hamas when the usual rockets were launched.
arata , Jan 4 2020 20:42 utc |
71Circe , Jan 4 2020 20:46 utc |
72
First I want to express admiration of Iranian courage in resisting the corrupting influence
of Zionist expansionism and condolences for the immense loss of a brave hero and unparalleled
military leader, Soleimani, who was not a general's general, but a soldier's general admired
by many.
Iran is a bastion of resistance against Zionism and therefore the number one target and
enemy of Zionists. Despite, the invasion of Iraq, Israeli assault on Lebanon, proxy invasions
of Syria and Yemen, and the severest of sanctions, the Iran domino remains standing. For this
reason, Zionist Trump came into power guns blazing against Iran, intent on its destruction.
There was no doubt on that, and his assassination of Iran's most revered general removes all
doubt on his intent. The murder of Soleimani represents a cowardly act typical of a coward
like Trump not to have to face a foreign opponent and military leader like Soleimani leading
the Iranian offensive against Zionism and the looming war on Iran. But mark my words,
Soleimani's spirit will be there on the battlefield of any war initiated by Trump and
his cabal.
Trump, the jackass liar that he is, justifies his barbaric act as a response to an
imminent threat against U.S. forces and personnel. THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE. If the
threat were imminent then the logical urgent step would have been to sabotage the ACTUAL
threat mounted as Soleimani did not arrive in Iraq to carry out any attack himself. This
proves Trump is lying when he bragged this lie to the crowd at yesterday's rally. The truth
is really that Trump wanted a shrewd Iranian general and formidable opponent out of the way
to facilitate the Zionist goal to take on Iran. Trump resorted, as usual, to his con way of
fooling everyone with this fabrication. Also, Soleimani had the stature to become the next
President of Iran, and this was a sobering thought feared by the Zionist Trump cabal. Imagine
a man of strength and intelligence, feared by many but loved by more, ruling Iran. Gutless,
crass Trump killed that potential. As I wrote previously, Trump killed the albatross and
misery will follow him for it. All said, Iran did have every right to avenge the killing of
numerous militia by the U.S.; the funeral of which Soleimani was to attend in Iraq, making
the act perpetrated on him from a drone all the more repulsive and dishonorable. It was as if
yellow-belly Trump shot Soleimani in the back robbing him of the dignity of death in battle
he deserved as a warrior of his calibre, albeit not of the glory that will never be
Trump's.
IMHO, Iran should first and most importantly, ferret out TRAITORS not loyal to the cause
of resistance who delivered Soleimani to the enemy. Iran needs to tighten its security and
scrutinize, clean up and enhance its intelligence network especially in view of escalating
momentum towards war. It must use this time of mourning to rally public sentiment both in
Iran and Iraq and strengthen its alliances great and small to the cause of resistance to
imperial domination and, regionally, OCCUPATION--Zionist U.S. OCCUPATION in the Middle East.
Unifying, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, even Palestine to the cause of ending ZIONIST U.S.
OCCUPATION and ousting America from the Middle East and derailing corrupt Zionist expansion
and influence should be PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. This means decrying high and low the monumental
destruction, corruption and evil that this occupation has wrought on the entire Middle East
and the hardship of massive displacement suffered and being suffered by millions.
That is the fundamental goal, however, ending the occupation in Iraq by U.S. forces
first is Iran's domino to victory . As far as retaliation, in my view, the multi-pronged
strategy (death by a thousand cuts) I hear and read Iran might be contemplating would be more
effective than one spectacular event, because it would make clear the ubiquitous nature of
Iran's reach, and make the Zionist American opponent think twice about attacking Iran with
deadly tentacles that will activate and mobilize anywhere to the detriment of its enemy.
My first thought with all of this has been, why now? After reading I have a possible
answer.
Background:1. The Russians have been building up in Syria for a major assault on remaining
ISIS on the Syrian/Iraq border, the Iraqi/Iran forces announced that the planned assault
would begin hours before the five Iraq/Iran military bases were hit. 2. Israel just suffered
a defeat when they launched six missiles at Syria and five were taken out by Syria using
Russian supplied weaponry. The sixth missile fell in the desert, was recovered by Syria and
given to Russia.
These two events are key; the US/Israeli ISIS teams in Syria and on the Iraqi border were
about to be wiped out and control of the border by Syria leaving the US northern Syria
installations without a supply line. The Israeli failed attacked showed that the Syrian
defense systems were now fulling integrated with Russia and that the upcoming attack on ISIS
would probably end them as well as Israel's ability to destroy Syrian/Iranian sites in
Syria.
I think the US military and Pompeo panicked, they came up with a quick casus belli by having
one of their proxies lob missiles at a US encampment with the intent of killing a US citizen.
They then hit the Iraqi/Iran teams that were part of the planned Russian assault shutting
down the planned Russian attack. Pompeo and the Generals immediately flew to Fla to tell
Trump what they had done. Silence from Trump,why? Because he knew that this decision was a
trap to damage his reelection, he saw the plot which is why he stayed in Florida.
Then things really went sideways IMO. Israel seeing it's chance in the confusion, used it's
pawn Pompeo to order a hit on the airport killing the General, you will note that Israel says
it was told before the hit, my guess is no, they told Pompeo to take the hit and he did.
Israel immediately said it had nothing to do with the decision, Pompeo immediately said Trump
ordered it. Trump was forced to say it was his decision and defend it IMO.
Yes it is possible that Trump was told of an opportunity to take out the General but the
MIC/Pompeo know Trump historically pulls back from attacks, remember the Bolton fiasco with
the tankers, with the drone, they couldn't get Trump to attack then, why would he now attack
a Iraqi airbase when the attack on the Iraq/Iran bases was such a disaster for US Iraqi
relations? Why would they bother to ask him now after having put him in a box with the first
strikes?
Now there is talk that Trump has sent a Qatar rep to Iran to cut a deal. THAT is his
initiative, none of the prior events are his initiatives. Could be wrong, and for all that is
not to like about Trump he is not stupid, his goal is to win a Pulitzer prize as the peace
president.
Yes he rants about Iran, the guys who finance his campaign demand that, but push come to
shove, who the hell wants to be remembered as the guy who started a nuclear war...and lost??
Told you all it's Nutandyahoo who is in charge of jUSA. The Tronald is only his stooge:
Patriot Ali
@LogicalAnalys1s
Viral video shows official from SaudiArabia congratulating Israel pm Netanyahu over the
death of #Qasem_Suleimani . Video is spreading like wildfire in pro #Iran accounts
😡
World OSINT
/>
1:04
8:44 AM - 4 Jan 2020 https://twitter.com/LogicalAnalys1s/status/1213501484790407171
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84
Thank you. Someone making sense.
Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a sporting match - completely juvenile.
Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and
for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many countries
which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an economic
beating - which explains the desperate behavior.
Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war -
the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.
But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the
Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.
In all of this, and the many comments, I must praise Circe for this final one @ 72. It
strikes a definitive chord:
"...That is the fundamental goal, however, ending the occupation in Iraq by U.S. forces
first is Iran's domino to victory. As far as retaliation, in my view, the multi-pronged
strategy (death by a thousand cuts) I hear and read Iran might be contemplating would be more
effective than one spectacular event, because it would make clear the ubiquitous nature of
Iran's reach, and make the Zionist American opponent think twice about attacking Iran with
deadly tentacles that will activate and mobilize anywhere to the detriment of its enemy."
It is clear that Qasseem Soleimani was of a stature for Iran that his legacy will be part
of the determination for what follows in the eyes of his dedicated compatriots. I agree with
Circe here - what will immediately follow is important. It might even include the extraction
from Syria of American influence, which would require the cooperation of Assad. I am
remembering that Iraq's foreign minister recently gave a speech concerning the unification of
Arabic countries toward a peaceful end. That now must include the departure of US troops and
is the antithesis to war, something that would make a commendable legacy for both generals
who have now had their funeral at an important spiritual center.
War is not on. The fall of the black domino is. But this is not retribution; that will
come. Bravo Circe; good post.
" I cannot recall an act of this kind in the last 50 years especially in the extent to which
it seems to take for granted an underlying legitimacy and thus an naive openness, almost
childlike in its self-belief..."
patroklos @77
Doesn't Osama bin Laden count? Obama ordered and took open credit for the assassination of
dozens of individuals, many of them later shown to have been totally innocent of any
involvement in politics, many children etc.
And then, of course there was one Colonel Ghadaffi publicly assassinated, after his
surrender, with extreme brutality.
The only new thing about this is that the victim was a person of power and eminence.
Pepe Escobar: "According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, "Israel gave the US the
coordinates for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the
repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves." https://thesaker.is/us-starts-the-raging-twenties-declaring-war-on-iran/
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may
happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that
makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag
incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US
troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base
another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war
erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths
of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not
too many Americans get killed in its wake.
I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will
jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that
warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the
only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now
the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has
put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think
so.
Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start
the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers
(except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the
electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done
to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran
will show.
I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger
will assuredly take his place.
"CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily
assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' "
Leibowitz # 32
Why would they do this *after* the strike?
That sounds kind of silly. And "hastily" sounds as though they were taken unawares . . . They
were surprised to hear that Solameini had been taken out?????
Lozion@62 - Re: Your Magnier quote, "The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the
Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier
General Qassem Soleiman"
The light bulb above my chimpanzee brain just flickered (briefly). Somewhere on SST (maybe
Lang?): something to the effect of 'Never underestimate US gov/mil incompetence'. Maybe it
was the opposite of what Magnier thought really took place.
Treasonous, dual-citizen chickenhawks of the US possibly targeted Hashd al-Shaabi
vice-commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes . They were trying to kill him because they found
out from some snitch that he just showed up at the airport for some reason. The all-seeing US
didn't realize Soleimani was even there . I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew
commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have
expected that ? How devious!
This seems entirely plausible to me. Soleimani was too expensive a target - end of the
State of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all. But whacking a vice-commander of Hashd
al-Shaabi with a quarter-million dollar JAGM? Hell YEAH! We live for this kind
of preventative assassination heroism in the US. Especially if accompanied by colorful
graphics.
The awkward and delayed response of the usual US mil/gov mouthpieces makes this ridiculous
scenario even more believable. I have thoroughly convinced myself that this was a US screw-up
of EPIC proportions. In case the US government is reading MoA, this was all Lozion's doing.
I'm an innocent conspiracy primate.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question.
If they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at
least expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS
about what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
"The U.S. has won nothing with its attack but will feel the consequences for decades to
come. Others will move in to take its place."
Wait for awhile on that one. Iraq will have to take some major hits if it tries moving
to the Russia China sphere. And it will have to deal with the fith column which are
strong. Iraq will have to go through the fire - like Donbass, Syria ect until it is
distilled to a solid core and then they will get support that will drive back the
yanks.
To summarize b: The US doesn't gain anything, and potentially loses everything they
sought out to do in Iraq (and by extension; Syria), from the killing of Soleimani.
So why do it? Was Soleimani really the target? Who benifits by drawing the US and Iran
closer war?
I wouldn't be surprised if an article about 'bad intel received from a 3rd party' pops
up in the NYT in a few months time.
The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news
I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make
it's two major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US
troops in Iraq and Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies
Iran has in the area?
Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the
#BaghdadAirport is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".
That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.
AND
S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on
the borders killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a
violation and internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading
to difficult times for #Iraq".
I've been following Elijah M. and several others on twitter, as well as more
mainstream sources for several hours after learning of these assassinations.
the absolute stupidity, maliciousness and wickedness of the US Political and Military
Elites is truly astonishing. They have misjudged every single thing in that part of the
world since 9/11 and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and then Iraq - and
spent/wasted well over $5 trillion. not to mention the horrific loss of life everywhere
from Syria to Iraq and Yemen. And we are now looking at another even more catastrophic
war.
it is unbelievable
"This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in
command. He will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis."
I'd expect the Iranians to be more subtle than that. I don't think there's any
advantage for the Iranians to directly attack the US position in the ME.
At this early stage, it is not clear how Iran's retaliation will be carried out. Due in
large part to Soleimani's own efforts over the past 20 years, Tehran
has many options and venues at its disposal for reprisals through its proxies in the Middle
East -- Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
While the United States claimed direct responsibility for the airstrike, Tehran or its
proxies may seek their vengeance by striking US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Speaking to Iranian state media, IRGC spokesman Ramezan Sharif explicitly threatened the
State of Israel with retaliation.
"The fleeting happiness of the Americans and the Zionists will in no time turn into
mourning," Sharif said.
Though Iran has typically refrained from launching large-scale strikes directly from its
territory for fear of direct retaliations against the country itself, preferring instead to
conduct attacks from the countries in which its proxies operate -- such a strike is by no means
outside the realm of possibility.
In addition to any physical reprisals, Tehran could bring to bear its extensive offensive
cyber capabilities against the United States and its allies.
The fleeting happiness of the Americans and the Zionists will in no time turn into
mourning
Iran, which was already expected to announce a further violation of the JCPOA next week, may
also decide to further step up its uranium enrichment as a response to Soleimani's
assassination.
However, nothing is inevitable or certain. Though Soleimani was undoubtedly a key figure in
the region and the US killing him presents serious potential for a wider and deadlier conflict
between the American and Iranian alliances, recent Middle East history contains several cases
of hugely important officials being killed without earth-shattering retaliations.
Fri 3 Jan 2020 12.29 EST Last modified on Fri 3 Jan 2020 17.32 EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email The constant
sense of insecurity that Americans and allies will feel will be part of the revenge.
Photograph: Nazanin Tabatabaee/Wana/Reuters Iran has spent decades preparing for
a moment like this , developing methods and networks around the world that give Tehran the
widest possible choice when it comes to taking revenge.
In the weeks immediately after
the airstrike that killed Iran's most powerful general , the threat against Americans and
their allies will be greatest in the Middle East, but the risk will balloon out across the
globe over the months and years to come.
Any US outpost in Syria and Iraq, military or diplomatic, is vulnerable to attacks, likely
to come from
Iranian-backed militias linked to Kata'ib Hezbollah , which has served as Tehran's most
reliable fist in Iraq. In Iraq, there will be even less protection from the state, which is
furious about the attack outside Baghdad airport.
The second ring of possible reprisals could follow an already familiar path, targeting oil
shipments through the Persian Gulf. The leadership in Tehran will be conscious that one avenue
of revenge against Donald Trump would be strike at his
chances of re-election. An oil price spike, coupled with a backdrop of global instability and
US vulnerability, would certainly hurt his campaign.
In Afghanistan, Iran has longstanding ties
with Hazara militias and solid basis for operations in Herat.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah has long been Iran's right arm, and can strike Israel and US regional
interests at any time. And Hezbollah has networks much further afield where there are pockets
of Lebanese Shia diaspora, for example in Latin America and West Africa.
Iranian intelligence has carried out assassinations in Europe, and there are a string of
other attacks globally in which Iran or Hezbollah is suspected but not proven to
be involved.
While Tehran has ample choices, it also has limitations. It will want to avoid triggering an
all-out war with the US and its allies. It may now decide to build up a covert nuclear arsenal,
no longer bound by the 2015 nuclear deal which Donald Trump walked out of. It would be harder
to go down that road in the middle of a firefight. And each act of retribution could use up the
political capital Iran has around the world, most importantly backing from Russia and
China.
ss="rich-link"> Iran vows revenge for US killing of top general Qassem Suleimani
Read more
But while Iran is likely to choose its targets carefully, with an eye to deniability, there
is little doubt that reprisals will come at a time and place of Tehran's choosing. The constant
sense of insecurity that Americans and allies will feel will be part of the revenge.
"I frankly have never seen the Iranians not respond – tit for tat. It's just never
happened," said Robert Baer, a former CIA officer. "It's so in their DNA, [as is using] a
proxy, which makes it more difficult to respond to. And their options are unlimited."
Russia is unlikely to tolerate the destruction of Iraq yet again and it's descent into
Libya-like chaos - which is what could happen if the US refuses to leave. Russia is unwilling
to see a repeat of Libya. My speculation is that Russia might have issued very severe
warnings to the US with respect to this to deter such conduct, similar to what seems to have
happened when the US threatened Venezuela. One example of such a possible threat that I see
as plausible might be that if the US takes further action in Iraq likely to result in civil
war, Russia will totally destroy every US base in Syria (which on the invitation of the
Syrian President they are legally entitled to do at any time).
The alleged recent movement of Russian strategic command aircraft to Syria, capable of
controlling the launch of strategic ballistic missiles, might be directed either to assist
Russia in controlling any escallation connected with the destruction of US bases in Syria, or
it could be to control the threat of Israel launching a nuclear attack against Iran, in the
event of a war against Iran and Iran's inevitable reprisals against Israel.
Russia repeatedly emphasises that it is not the world policeman, which is why Russia is
normally very restrained in responses to US aggression, and responds only in relation to
threats to Russian national security; nevertheless the breakdown of Iraq due to the refusal
of the US to leave would certainly pose serious threats to Russian national security, and
President Putin has been signalling recently that Russia's tolerance for US lawlessness is
coming to an end.
In traditional Arab culture, a mediator - someone with the trust of both parties, objective,
and who has the stature and ability to force compliance should a possible agreement be
abrogated - brokers a 'pause', consults with both parties, to convey expectations.
If the mediator considers the parties 'reconcilable' he arranges a "sulha" - a meeting
where the leaders concerned meet face to face to to haggle out the details.
Only Putin or Xi has such stature, only Putin may be able to enforce agreement.
Reconciliation requires a level of respect for the other. The US respects no one, not even
Putin.
Iran has zero reason to trust any US agreement (JCPOA?)
The US brings $ to its negotiations(offer to lift sanctions) reflecting its values-$, Iran
looks for justice(punishment of those who did the deed), reflecting its value of life.
The red flag says there is no possibility of reconciliation.
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based
on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq
and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic
sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the
American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped
the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the
Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.
The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror
and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and
officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be
'the final straw'?
As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate
and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.
The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians
outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give
them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming
by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the
zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.
"... He fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he's ostensibly ordered troops out of Syria, it's like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets ..."
"... In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles. ..."
"... Bush & Cheney supported by both parties invaded Iraq and created the ascendancy of Iran. Then Obama comes along and aids & abets Al Qaeda to head-chop Christians in Syria, once again with support from both our political parties. ..."
"... Trump comes along as the "no more wasting money in the Middle East" guy. But surrounds himself with all neocons including his daughter & son-in-law. And he has shown to be generally clueless on anything beyond one slide on a Powerpoint. He thinks he's still on the set of The Apprentice. ..."
"... I'd like to say that the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have law enforcement & intelligence who ran a coup attempt and half the country thinks that was a good thing. We have coteries that lie and propagandize us into war that has cost the American people several trillion that they've had to borrow from future generations. With the Patriot Act, FISA and all kinds of other "anti-terrorist laws", we essentially have a lawless national security surveillance state. ..."
"... the reason for Suleimani to be in Iraq early on Friday morning: to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers who died during those strikes neal al-Qaim. ..."
Trump is weak, stupid, reckless and easily manipulated. This has long been obvious.
That is not an argument in favor of Team D, the Resistance, the Deep State, the Blob or
whatever (if anything it is an argument against their conspiracy theories), but Trump is what
he is.
I don't believe Trump ordered this attack. I believe that the neocons/neolibs are afraid they
would lose power when the coup plot is revealed. So, this is a pre-emptive action against
Trump winning re-election. It seems Nancy Pelosi was consulted by Secretary of Defense Esper
first, although she denies she was briefed about the asassination. Well, we all know where to
stick her denials, don't we?
https://www.enmnews.com/2020/01/03/pelosi-briefed-thursday-night-after-strike-killing-soleimani/
"Trump inherited the mess. Perhaps he is trying to salvage something out of it."
Admittedly he did inherit this mess. However, IMO, he's done nothing to salvage it. He
fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he's ostensibly ordered
troops out of Syria, it's like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets.
And rather than putting in place a plan and executing on getting out of the wars that have
cost us trillions of dollars and destabilized the entire Middle East he's just aggravated it
further by blowing up people on the Iraqi/Syrian border. And now he's escalated it further.
The bodybags still keep coming home from Afghanistan, where we know with certainty that we'll
have to exit and that it will revert back to its natural state. I'm afraid he just went along
to get along with the neocon warmongers that he's ensconced in all the top places in his
administration.
In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles.
Yours is precisely the point. Iraq was a secular country under the "tyrannical" Saddam's
Baathist regime. So is Syria a secular country under Assad. Saddam had nothing to do with
9/11. The Saudis did. He would have been a natural counter-weight to Iran. Of course he may
have kicked out the Al Sauds soon enough to hang out in London, New York and Paris after he
consolidated Kuwait. That may have been a good thing in hindsight.
Bush & Cheney supported by both parties invaded Iraq and created the ascendancy of
Iran. Then Obama comes along and aids & abets Al Qaeda to head-chop Christians in Syria,
once again with support from both our political parties.
Trump comes along as the "no more wasting money in the Middle East" guy. But surrounds
himself with all neocons including his daughter & son-in-law. And he has shown to be
generally clueless on anything beyond one slide on a Powerpoint. He thinks he's still on the
set of The Apprentice.
I'd like to say that the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have law
enforcement & intelligence who ran a coup attempt and half the country thinks that was a
good thing. We have coteries that lie and propagandize us into war that has cost the American
people several trillion that they've had to borrow from future generations. With the Patriot
Act, FISA and all kinds of other "anti-terrorist laws", we essentially have a lawless
national security surveillance state.
We are fucked because so many of our fellow citizens fall for the black & white Rambo
movie plot, while their ass is being taken to the cleaners.
Amen! Most Americans are ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL. They don't know which way is UP! They haven't a
clue. They are easy prey to the progandists in the US government (dominated by
Zionists/Israel-Firsters) and in the US media (also dominated by the Zionist narrative).
In addition Eric forgot what happened on December 29th and the reason for Suleimani to be
in Iraq early on Friday morning: to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers who died during
those strikes neal al-Qaim.
Do other countries have any right to self determination?
How would Americans react to foreign powers controlling our country and killing our
citizens at will?
When we instilled a democracy in Shiite majority Iraq who would get voted into power? What
was the result of disbanding the Arab baathist Iraqi army?
There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations, but then you may have forgotten
how WW1 started.
I shudder at the world you plan to leave our children, but empires do not last forever (or
much longer with an easily manipulated moron in charge) and you may live to see
assassinations of Americans on US soil as common "geopolitics."
No but he could well have gone to the top in their politics as his next career move. With a
satisfaction rating over 80% he was a probable future President.
Unintended consequences of a high level assassination.
No good pathway to de-escalate for any side once open hostilities start.
Block heads running things (President f---ing moron - quote Tillerson), born again
fundamentalists believing in the second coming calling the shots on one side and the Mahdi on
the other.
But if you want to focus on a title, I guess nothing to see.
EN: So you, like many here, are fine with people that organize attacks on our
embassies?
I fully agree, outrageous! Simply outragepus! Now of course I have to reflect in what ways
those men could have joined Americans in celebration of the dead of their comrades.
ISL: There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations
didn't Trump suggest somewhere that the Geneva Convention is obsolete anyway? Not that it
matters anyway anymore, other then to US soldiers maybe? Some of them? ... The US writes the
rules for to its own convience anyway?
Please don't laugh or pooh-pooh if I introduce Christian preacher - activist Rick Wiles'
assessment of the penetration and protests at the US embassy in Baghdad: Wiles, whose
colleague spent time in Iraq w/ US military, asked how it was that "Iraqi" protesters could
get inside the Green Zone, apparently protected by a 10 mile perimeter, and also inside the
building itself, to cause damage.
How is it Reuters was on the scene to photograph the protests and the damage?
How is it the protesters were so quickly called off by a word from the PM?
US military guards the embassy, right?
If one argued that Iraqi soldiers permitted Iraqi protesters to gain access, that could
make sense: didn't Russian soldiers refuse to fire upon citizens who stormed the Czar's
palace?
But that is apparently not what happened.
So Wiles conjectures that US military allowed the penetration and destruction of US
embassy, in order to blame it on _____ . Callers to C Span Washington Journal this morning
raised the issue of "Iranians took our embassy in 1979." Do tell.
Eric, you make many assertions, but provide no facts to support them. For example, you claim
Soleimani was planning attacks on both US troops and our embassy. You also claim Iran took
over our embassy. However, you provide no facts supporting those assertions and I am not
aware of any. So tell us, what evidence or facts do you have proving your claims?
Additionally, you seem to have skipped over the part where Bush agreed all US troops would
withdraw from Iraq and Obama was unwilling to agree to have US troops remain if they would be
subject to the Iraqi justice system. So all of them left, only for some to be allowed back
when ISIS threatened.
Obviously, when all US troops left Iran did not take over Iraq. When all US troops leave
again, which Trump just about insured will happen very soon, Iran will again not take over
Iraq. They will remain allies, but one will not rule the other.
"I'm a 100% isolationist personally, but if you're not, you have to do something to keep Iran
in its place. I recognize that there's a lot I don't understand about reasons to not be an
isolationist and maybe there are good reasons."
Tell me, if you are a "100% isolationist" why must Iran be kept "in its place"? Then, tell
me how many countries Iran has invaded in the last 100 years? (The answer is - ZERO!)
It's good that you recognize that there are things that you don't know or understand.
Blindly following Trump will not lead you to greater understanding. Nor will making excuses
for people when they betray you.
"Soleimani was in Iraq architecting attacks on the US embassy and on Americans."
Wrong, actually, but don't let facts get in the way.
Soleimani was in Iraq to attend the funeral of Iraqi soldiers killed by US airstrikes.
That is a fact.
So the US took the opportunity to kill him. Via airstrike. That is also a fact.
Perhaps you should take off those blinkers for once and consider this possibility: most of
what you think you understand about this has been brought to your attention by people who
have made a career out of lying to you.
When anti-Syria propaganda was running strongest, "Assad must go" I always asked "Then what?
What comes next?"
We have a big stick but we need more than running around clubbing others. We never should
have abandoned the international law we helped to create.
We can create fear, most people fear a powerful bully but they don't respect them and will
work to undermine them. It is a weak form of power and sooner or later you end up
isolated.
All stick and no carrot, hard power and no soft power just isn't a vision you can build
on. So, Now what? What comes next? What comes after a war with Iran?
O/T, perhaps: Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that the effective leader must be feared AND
loved: were he only feared, the people would turn against him as quickly as an opportunity
emerged.
I donated a significant sum (all things being relative) to my local library and requested
that it be used to teach the mostly-Black and impoverished young people who frequent that
library, about Machiavelli: I'd just read about a very wealthy community in my state where
high school students participated in an essay contest on Machiavelli. They will be the next
generation's leaders. I though the poor kids in my neighborhood should have the same
opportunity.
Library administrators all the way up and down the line resisted my proposal: "Our kids
are not capable of such a project."
Instead, the library system is proliferating Drag Queen Story Hours.
They want me to put my gift in the hands of the local librarians who introduced this
program to the library system.
"So, Now what? What comes next?"
Drag Queen Story Hours for your 1 yr to 5th grade children and grandchildren.
Your son - grandson dressed in high heels, chiffon, and a wig.
Your little girl telling you she needs drugs and surgery because she "feels like a boy."
When I had to move out of a large house into a small apartment recently, I donated over 900
books from my personal library to the local university library. My books reflected my major
and minor areas of study: Literature from all periods of English and American authors, many
books on the theories and research about linguistic theory and often brain research in regard
to linguistics. I also had many books from my minor in German.
I was an avid user of libraries from the time I was quite young. My mother dropped me and
my siblings off at the local library while she did the Saturday shopping and bill paying. The
librarians never directed us in regard to what we should study. They helped us to find
resources on each of our varied interests. My brother and two sisters had quite different
interests from mine. I was then studying all I could in Greek and Roman mythology and in the
Acient history of Greece and Rome.
It's the old, You can take the horse to the water, but...." Expose children to the rewards
they get from reading and studying, but let their own personal interests determine what they
read.
Our problem is not that our students now "should" be reading ......(fill in the space. Our
problem is currently that our children are now totally unacquainted with reading much in
depth. They want sound bites and quick Google searches.
As for the topic of Larry's post, I'm convinced that few Americans are even aware of the
event or have any idea of why it happened and no opinion about whether it should have
happened.
I hold my breath every day, hoping that we don't become involved in another big mess that
will cause the life and maiming of our young people in the military and of the people on the
ground in the places they are sent to.
But I have no opinion of why or whether Trump's decision was right or wrong. All I can do
is pray fervently that really God is ultimately in charge and God will control it for His
purposes. I never assume that God is always on "our side." I just put my faith that it is all
in God's hands, no matter what the personal price I or anyone else will have to pay for His
decisions.
I also pray that Trump will always make his deicisions based on good and sound advice and
on his own sense of right and wrong. It must be hard picking and choosing from the many
people who surround him and from their various ideas of what is right or what is wrong to
do.
I certainly did not want the previous Middle East War and do not want another.
If it makes you feel better, the only thing that Machiavelli will do for the more clued-in
sort of mostly Black poor people is put in words what they already know deep down.
The Prince caused such an outrage because Machiavelli merely described how rulers actually
behave.
prawnik, In my Machiavelli proposal to the library I urged that the works of Machiavelli
scholar Maurizio Viroli be offered to the young people. Viroli maintains that the key chapter
in The Prince is the final chapter -- classical rhetoricians know that the most powerful
theme must come last, as that is what the audience will remember. Chapter 26 is nearly a
prayer (Machiavelli was deeply Christian, tho he hated the Roman Catholic papacy), a prayer
for a courageous leader - redeemer, like Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, who would deliver Florence,
which he loved "greater than my soul," from "barbarous cruelties and oppressions" to a life
of republican self-government.
The critical concept is his deep love for Florence.
I hoped that the young people could be moved beyond the CliffNotes version of The Prince to
an understanding that would arouse passion, pride and patriotism.
We did not ask the Iraqi government for permission and we are obligated to do so, yes? Is it
possible the Iraqi government will tell us to pick up our personnel and all our stuff and
leave -- and never come back?
If the USA refuses to go then... what happens next?
I assume it is not under dispute that if those US forces refuse to go then the Iraqis have
a right under international law to attempt to eject them. After all, it is their
territory.
This isn't 2003 and the US forces inside Iraq do not number in the hundreds of thousands.
Something in the region of 5,000 is my understanding, with another 4,000 on standby. Is that
enough?
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your always pointed and concise analysis. If I understand
correctly, the US/Israel bloc believes it has Iran in checkmate. If Iran retaliates (or if
some provocation is arranged that can plausibly be blamed on Iran), then the Empire launches
a full-on attack. If Iran doesn't retaliate (or a provocation doesn't arise), Iran looks weak
and unable to defend itself and limps to the negotiating table, where its carcass will be
picked apart.
The only way this makes sense is if the Empire is convinced it can flatten Iran and pick
apart its carcass without taking significant losses. Is that delusional and, possibly,
"terminally stupid?"
I wouldn't use the term checkmate but I do agree that the situation is precarious for
Iran...this was a pointed provocation and they are forced to respond. But that response has
got to be well-calibrated to not bite off more than it can chew in terms of escalation. They
need a spectacle more than anything.
When James Woolsey was Trump's spokesthingie during the 2016 election, I placed multiple bets
that "Trump attacks Iran to be a 'war-time president' for 2020 election."
I've endured mocking phonecalls as Trump wildly vacillated but his NSC choices (all 4 or 5
of them...) were all NeoCons. And if you bed with the NeoCons, you catch their disease.
I haven't watched the news in the last 3 years but the phone-calls are starting again, but
the attitude is all different.
If thing keep going this way, I guess this hippie socialist is about his win bet with a
bunch of pollyanna veterans and bubble-headed conservatives who could not face reality.
I can't imagine a war scenario that is positive for the US, except for the neo-con fantasy
that the oppressed Iranian people will rise up and overthrow the wicked mullahs when things
get bad enough. I don't know anything about the internal politics of Iran, but I'm not so
sure how well America holds up after gas prices triple at the pump. Of course by that time
they'll be a draft and rationing. The only way to avoid that outcome would be to nuke 'em,
which is something I wouldn't put pass the Israelis or Trump.
I don't believe our leaders are thinking long-term, but acting out of a combination of
financial self interest for war spending in general and contracts within Iraq in particular;
and emotional self satisfaction: for powerful Boomers this kind of belligerance somehow makes
them feel like worthy sucessors to their dead "Greatest Generation" parents.
except for the neo-con fantasy that the oppressed Iranian people will rise up and overthrow
the wicked mullahs when things get bad enough
In the last around 20 years or so this was a foundation for operational planning in the
US. This is not to mention a key fact of neocons being utterly incompetent in warfare with
results of this lunacy being in the open for everyone to see.
Please add to your list the assassination of US high level personnel (diplomat or
military) in Europe by sleeper cells.
Interestingly (as in stupidly), the US also arrested the head of the Iraqiya MP who heads
the largest block in the Iraqi parliament - apparently he had the audacity to appear at a
protest of the US bombing without authorization Iraqi citizens. One suspects that Iran will
have full Iraq support in retaliation. The big question is whether Turkey makes a play and
bans flights from Incirlik. Note US carrier groups are not in the gulf or even nearby to fly
support missions...
If we are that vulnerable to iranian retaliation on so many levels as you just set out, best
we start dealing with this extortion threat right here now. Lance the festering boil and
build t a new line of defenses.
No matter what the triggering incident, we might as well accept we needed a reality check
regarding this level of global threat. Not pretty, but apparently necessary if the Iranians
are as capable of global disruption as you just present.
It did not take an assassination in Sarajevo to set of WWI, it was festering well before
and was an inevitable march off the cliff regardless. If we are that vulnerable to cyber
terrorism and infrastructure terrorism, does it matter what finally lights the match?
If the world powers are gunning for an all out war, it will happen regardless. Mind your
narratives. They are far scarier than the facts on the ground. Was this bad guy
"assassinated", or taken out by a good guy with a gun as he was poised to strike.
Why have Democrats spent the past three years saber-rattling over Russia, Russia, Russia,
as if any hint of favor or benign contact was high treason. C'mon people, what is really
going on in this world today. Who has really created this current scenario of being a nation
in imminent peril from nefarious foreign threachery by even the flimsiest of
implications.
Just a few days ago our entire national security was predicated on Trump delaying arms to
Ukraine by a few weeks. Ukraine, fer crisssakes which few can even find on a map. Isn't that
the jingoist frothing we were just asked to believe by our loyal opposition party to the
point of initiating impeachment proceedings due to Trump's alleged risking of our entire
nation's place of honor on this entire planet?
We suffer from internal hyperbole, as much as outside bad actors. A world who wants war,
will get it. A world who wants peace will get that too. Running off to the corner pouting and
hand-wringing brings neither.
I will take the other side of the Russians will help coin, if anything I would suggest the
Russians may have even provided intel to the Americans on Qasem Soleimani location and
movements, Putin was recently in the news thanking Trump for providing intel stopping a
Terrorist attack in St Petersburg recently, I still think the Russians provided intel on the
whereabouts of the head of the head of the Islamic state Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the
Americans and Putin did nothing about the deaths of the 20 Russian airmen or the cruise
missile attacks on Syria, as bad a Ally as the USA is the Russian Federation is clearly
worse, the Russians clearly can't be trusted.
why do you think the US could not have this intel on its own? A high level visit to a
friendly nation by a top military and you have to posit Russians? You insult US Intel.
The Russians aren't going to do anything, Putin does whats best for Russia, he is clearly not
interested in confronting the Americans and if anything would probably like to see Iranian
influence in Syria diminished. 20 dead airmen, cruise missile attacks in Syria and he didn't
do anything. If anything my money is on the Russians providing intel to the US on Qasem
Soleiman's location and movements. I still think they provided intel on the location of the
Islamic state leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel
that stopped an attack in St Petersburg, so perhaps rolling over on Soleiman was his way of
saying thanks to Trump. I don't think the Russians intentions are as pure as people think. As
untrustworthy as the USA is the Russians are worse.
I still think they provided intel on the location of the Islamic state leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel that stopped an attack in St
Petersburg,
What a fantastically convoluted scenario. Russia and the US are cooperating on terrorism
threats for years now, and the latest on St. Petersburg was not the first one issued by the
US. Russia wouldn't mind some limits to Iranian influence in Syria but not at the price of
surrendering a man who was to a large degree responsible for getting Russia into Syria and
cooperating with her there, which was a crucial factor in success of the campaign. I also do
not see problems with US "developing" own targeting on Baghdadi w/o any Russia's help.
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm
perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate
for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned
on."
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe
Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his
predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and
a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to
be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is
a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key
national security advisors to Trump.
Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time
on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of
the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only
the neocons want is coming on in full force.
It must be late in Spain. The trio left active duty in the early 90s; that's almost 3 decades
ago and plenty of time to "earn their own merits" but not necessarily enough to earn
wisdom.
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the
damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing.
But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the
area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so
the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other
words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy
to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.
However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the
embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out
the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq
itself. Now there is a real problem.
I am curious LJ. Some lateral drift on my part.
Been reading that much of the funding for these proxies are from coming Iran. According to
the Treasury. So the following is BS from State?
(Nov 2019)
"The State Department's most recent Country Reports on Terrorism, released Friday, stated
that Iran is still the "world's worst state sponsor of terrorism," spending nearly $1 billion
per year to support terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad."
There is much nashing of proverbial teeth in our media. Peeps like Sen Graham saying "the
Iraqi's need to choose between us or Iran."
(That choice is a Sunni sandwich with Kurdish Bread and Shia Mayo)
There critical mass in 72 hours and the straight of Hormuz will be closing soon.
LJ are you stating that there was no Intel on emerging threats from Iran? Or the strike
Saudi oil plant was not via Iran?
Seems to me China and Russia have to much $$$ invested in Iran to see it go up in smoke.
Given the real masters of the universe are the very rich, would the Iranians see them as
logical targets?
Sheldon Adelson comes to mind, as he is a primary backer of both Trump and Netanyahu. As well
as likely not known, or appealing to Trump's base, so avenging his death wouldn't appeal in
the same way as soldiers or diplomats. Especially leading up to the election. Not only that,
but if the very rich were to sense their Gulfstreams are somewhat vulnerable to someone with
a Stinger at the end of the runway in quite a few tourist destinations, Davos, etc, the
pressure from the People Who Really Matter might be against further conflict.
The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does
have consequences.
The US airstrike that killed a senior Iranian commander near Baghdad will exacerbate
tensions throughout the Middle East, the Russian foreign ministry has warned. Qassem Soleimani,
the commander of Iran's Quds Force, was killed in a US operation at Baghdad International
Airport on Friday morning. Moscow considers the operation "an adventurous move that will
lead to an escalation of tension throughout the region," the ministry said.
"Soleimani served devotedly the cause of defending the national interests of Iran. We
express our sincere condolences to the Iranian people," the short statement
said.
The Russian Defense Ministry slammed the US airstrike that targeted the Iranian general as
"short-sighted," warning that it would lead to a "rapid escalation" of tensions
in the Middle East and would be detrimental to international security in general.
The ministry also praised Soleimani's efforts in fighting international terrorist groups in
Syria and Iraq by saying that his achievements in the fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS) in Syria are "undeniable."
The targeted assassination has sparked anger in Iran and Iraq. Officials in Tehran pledged
to avenge the death of the high-profile member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)
while Iran's caretaker prime minister called it an act of aggression against his country that
violates the terms under which American troops are hosted on Iraqi soil.
Washington considers the IRGC a terrorist organization and claims Soleimani was plotting
attacks on American citizens. The killing comes days after Iran-backed Iraqi militias staged a
riot at the US embassy in Baghdad, a response to US retaliatory airstrikes at militia
forces.
Military commanders are in dangerous occupation and the death is always lurking around. Loss
of one, even extremely talented, general does not mean much for Iran army. Acquiring a military new technology is of higher
priority then retaliation. Larger geopolitical realities should be given top considerations. Right now conflict with the USA
means compete destruction of the Iran. The decision to go ahead with the construction of nuclear bomb is
credible option as it will protect the country from the direct invasion and devastating air strikes.
And while the US action violated international norms, the decision to retaliate immediately at the US forces in Iraq and
elsewhere is
stupid and shortsighted.
Actually alliance of Iran with Syria and Iraq (82 million, 40 million, 17 million) would be very formidable military
alliance, which is capable to protect itself from anybody but the USA, Russia and China. If they add nuclear armed Pakistan, even
the USA would think twise attacking any of the country.
The US govt has confirmed it deliberately targeted leading Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
in its missile (some say drone) attack near Baghdad airport that killed 10 people, including
Soleimani and leaders of the Iraqi Shia militia.
The Pentagon has made a public statement justifying the action as a 'defensive' act aimed at
protecting US servicemen from future attacks, claiming the general was behind recent attacks on
the US embassy in Baghdad and adding:
General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service
members in Iraq and throughout the region
There's no way this can be verified of course, and even if true, does not excuse what
amounts to an extraordinary act of terrorism against a sovereign nation with whom no state of
war existed.
The apparent craziness here is off the charts.
Quick recap. The most insane & deluded of the war-profiteers/sadists/mad ideologues have
been begging for a move against Iran since around 2005. It's the seventh and final country in
Wes Clarke's famous ' seven countries in five years ' story. But so
far it has never been attacked directly by the US.
The reason for this is the realists in the Pentagon know they could easily lose that
war.
Iran isn't Iraq. Iran isn't Syria. Iran is a wealthy, organized state, with a well-trained
and fearsome military well capable of defending itself.
The non-crazies in the Pentagon know this and know a war with these people could end up
wiping the US out in the Middle East, to say nothing of escalating wildly, up to and including
direct confrontation with Russia, that has its own powerful reasons for not wanting to see Iran
become a chaotic US vassal.
This is why, after fifteen years of talking the talk, no US administration has ever dared to
actually walk the walk. The non-crazy generals have vetoed it, spelled out what a disaster it
could become, made it clear the risks are not worth the gains.
So it always has been for 15 years – until now.
At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action
to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
On the face of it the murder of Soleimani and the Pentagon statement of intent appears to be
some kind of coup for the lunatics. Do the war-profiteers/sadists and ideologues who seem to
have grabbed the initiative really understand what they have done?
Is Dominic Raab remotely cognizant of where his alleged rubber-stamping of Pompeo's lunacy
might lead? (Dom himself hasn't verified Pompeo's bombast yet, which may or may not be
signficiant).
Discussed with @DominicRaab the recent decision to
take defensive action to eliminate Qassem Soleimani. Thankful that our allies recognize the
continuing aggressive threats posed by the Iranian Quds Force. The U.S. remains committed to
de-escalation.
Let's hope they are all privy to some important info we don't have that means this is not
the apocalyptic suicide bid it looks like.
Time will tell.
Meanwhile "
WW3 " is a trending hashtag on Twitter, which is a little premature perhaps, but sells the
sense of horror and disbelief people are feeling. Here are some examples
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praises Donald Trump for killing top Iranian
general and says US has a 'right to defend itself' https://t.co/ZJasi2GFxX
For all intents & purposes, any talk inside #Iran of negotiation
with the US, or in choosing a more peaceful policy in the region is now over. Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei, has vowed vengeance for this attack, and it will be very bitter.
https://t.co/lKIjvHKljC By @karimsh89
Possibly significant and interesting take by blue tick John Simpson
Killing #Soleimani isn't
like killing bin Laden, who had masterminded the worst terrorist attack against America.
Soleimani was a competitor, who was highly effective in fighting ISIS as well as American
interests. Assassinating him seems like a step back to a more savage past.
Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, talking a certain amount of sense:
The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani is an extremely serious and dangerous escalation
of conflict with global significance. The UK government should urge restraint on the part of
both Iran and the US, and stand up to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the
US.
Keir Starmer, potential future leader of the Labour Party, is also not convinced:
The Government's response to Donald Trump's actions is not good enough.
The UK Government should hold him to account for his actions and stand up for
international law, not tacitly condone the attack. https://t.co/3OCyiuphRt
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
Antonym ,
The Anglo's are favoring Sunni Muslims since long time:
Yes, planning for Operation Gulmarg started way back in 1943. The British were certain
Kashmir would go to Pakistan and pulled out all the stops in advance to ensure
this.
Whereas the Zionists prefer setting all sides at each others' throats, as they did in Lebanon
during the Civil War, or when they promoted Hamas to oppose the PLO, or the terrorist
death-squad South Lebanese Army to attack Hezbollah etc, or al-Nusra Front, in particular,
during the salafist attack on Syria. Not to forget the partition of Sudan, a long-term
Zionist project.
Antonym ,
The Australian-born Major-General Robert "Bill" Cawthome, once a British Army officer
who had later joined the Pakistan Army, remains the longest-serving Director General of the
Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) for over nine years from 1950 to 1959.
I don't buy it, without real proof. The bloody hand with a similar ring isn't enough.
Soleimani is a master strategist and tactician, his intelligence service is way better than
the Americans'. I don't see him, with another high ranking official, in the same vehicle,
exposed to attack. Too careless for a very careful man.
So, Iranian false flag trick? Leak a fake rendez-vous, hide their VIG Soleimani for the next
operation, divert Iranian public anger outward at the US, unite Iraqi and Iranian resistance
against the US? Sounds more believable. Let's see
tonyopmoc ,
It seems to me, that no-one I know, noticed any news whatsoever today, nor showed the
slightest interest, when I tried to mention it. So www 3 is extremely unlikely, cos no one
gives a sh1t. So I reckon its best to ignore it. They will go back into their holes.
propaganda too much – like when you couldn't stand mustang sally again 10 years ago,
and for a special occasion they do it again, and you still think its a crap song, but join in
cos its a party, and to be polite, but you can't stand it for a 3rd time, well past its 2nd
death.
Can our Leaders please start making sense. That is what we employ you for. To represent
our best interests – not yours. You volunteered for the job, so now you have got it, do
what we elected you and told you to do.
That is Your Job. You are a Member of Parliament now.
We elected you.
Please Get on with it.
Do your Job.
Thanks.
Tony
Estompista ,
Iran isn't going to do shit.
Antonym ,
Sorry, was Qassem Soleimani some kind of saint? Did he never organize any mass suicide
bombing/ assassination of an opponent in Irak, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon or elsewhere?
Going against Sunni Arab KSA was kind of natural for a Persian Shia, working against
Israel was good for brownie points among Muslims and Western Leftovers but ultimately
dumb.
richard le sarc ,
Compared to Netanyahu, Sharon, Shamir, Begin, Peres, Rabin etc, yes he was a veritable saint.
Trump has had years to drone Soulemani. QS' morale visits to the frontlines in Syria and Iraq
were extensively documented on social media by Iranian proxies and allies. No doubt Israel
noticed them as well but passed on striking at him.
My only conclusion is to Trump's rationale is to speculate that Trump calculates Iranian
backlash is limited and a double win for him; In rallying support around the flag for
electoral purposes (what impeachment?) and providing a causus belli for a range of punishing
strikes across a wide variety of targets across Iran. The economic toll on Iran would be
crushing on top of the sanctions. Trump's khaki election gambit ?
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
When a corporation such as the United States of America falls into debt to the tune of $23
trillion USD heading into certain long term recessionary headwinds they have no alternative
but to start bombing antiquated economically challenged countries that are struggling to
survive. This allows the American bullies to feel empowered & respected through fear of
their mass text book Psychopathology that they peddle to the populations for purposes of
creating unease & fear, or terror, whatever the case may be.
The Central Intelligence Agency has been doing this sort of regime change gig forever
where they first utilize Economic Hit Men to entice leadership to acquiesce to CIA demands.
If the Economic Hit Men fail the mission the jackals are sent in to assassinate. If
assassination fails & Economic Hit Men fail, it falls to the generals & war planners
in the bureaucracy.
The end game superordinate goal for all Americans in the mix of state is to murder the
competition even if it means destroying entire regions of the world to do it.
And never forget the Queen of Mean stating that 'only the little people pay taxes'.
Believe me when I state that Leona Helmsley would push you down a flight of stairs in a
wheelchair if you were an invalid much like Richard Widmark did in The Kiss of Death.
What the United States has done is completely insanity. And for Pompeo to be tweeting that
the United States 'is committed to de-escalation' is cloud cuckoo land stuff.
I've been following this on various other sites as well. Iran is officially in mourning, and
after that is completed, they will respond
We will soon find out what that response is.
We now face the very strong likelihood of a cataclysmic war in the Middle East.
This is an incredibly dangerous situation.
My gut feeling is this is also the beginning of the end for this truly evil, parasitical
Empire.
They cannot see the consequences of what they have done with this act of terrorism.
They are fully blinded by their sheer arrogance and hubris.
I can't back this up with any links, so all I can say is that I'm hearing murmurs that the
Iranians have now told the Americans to pull all of their warships out of Middle Eastern
waters by this time next week, otherwise American warships will be attacked and sunk.
The Iranians are quite capable of doing this in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and
the Oman Gulf (which 35% of the world's tanker oil moves through). Iranian missiles can also
quite easily hit Saudi oil fields. Who's going to buy shares in ARAMCO? The price of oil is
already going through the roof. How much do you want to pay to fill up your vehicle? or do
you believe all the MSM bullshit about twerrorists?
Anyhows, this is still all just rumour at the moment; but if it's true it's a very smart
move by the Iranians.
I was going to reply to your other comment, but breaking news that the United States has
launched more airstrikes in Iraq apparently killing 6 Shia militia leaders.
Pompeo is a raving liar and lunatic.
If this news is true, the bastards want war.
More insane provocations.
Just about to check some sources to verify this. Yes, I commented to you first before I
checked
Buckle up, things are getting very rocky.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Americans have wanted control over the entire Gulf of Oman since before I was born.
The Gulf of Oman oil fields are the best in the entire world for really top grade oils. It's
a massive oil field.
Americans are corporate pirates not unlike fiction. Brig Gen Smedley Butler bragged of
having more territory than Al Capone. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson owns Al Capones old gun
that he purchased at auction.
MOU
JudyJ ,
For information – RT News has just reported that they are receiving reports that the US
have attacked another vehicle convoy just north of Baghdad. They have no more details at
present.
richard le sarc ,
It's just Bibi and his pet goy appealing to their 'bases'. Killing is their religion, quite
literally.
JudyJ ,
Reports now say that convoy was attacked by an airstrike at 1 a.m. local time, 6 Iranian
backed Shia militia leaders killed and 5 others injured. As a US peace activist just said on
RT, 'this attack is on local Iraqis who have been fighting against ISIL and are on their home
territory; and such attacks are totally inexcusable'.
Thanks Judy. Just heard that news over at The Saker and was about to check, but you confirmed
this.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
And they're like a chimpanzee playing with a live grenade inside a small room.
And the Chimps between you and the door.
This is fecken madness.
nottheonly1 ,
How prophetic of myself to have foreseen the end of my online commenting for all the wrong
reasons. Can't take all the shit anymore. It is indeed like the 80's Fun Boy Three hit "The
lunatics have taken over the asylum" and the meds have run out a few weeks ago.
Nobody has even the slightest idea what is unfolding now. To that end, I will state it
once more:
How long is the window of opportunity open for those who attempt a global takeover? Will
they allow Russia and China to get even more advanced weaponry?
No. It is 'now or never again' and they are going for it. Either in utter derangement, or
infinite stupidity, the people behind this takeover do believe that they can win WW3 and
after some cleanup enjoy their United States of Earth.
On the other hand, what if some folks studied STUXNET and are now preparing a number of
NPP in the West to shut off their cooling pumps and generators. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
This time although, it will be Karma for all the shit the West has done to the people of the
Near/Middle/Far East.
richard le sarc ,
The USA created Daash, as they did al-Qaeda, along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
despotisms and Israel, so they are bound to act 'kinetically' to assure that it is
revitalised in Iraq, to attack Central Asia and the BRI.
I went to the tweets cited and noted that many blood thirsty war pigs were happily oinking
their approval for the Imperial Death Stars latest act of terrorism ludicrously called a
"defensive" action by the Terrorist and Thief who turns out to be just another lying sack of
shit.
Ian Beeby ,
So Donald Duck has confirmed to the whole world that he ordered this act of terrorism and
murder. Not only that but as it was a murder/terrorist act in another country that also makes
it a war crime. So when are we going to see him and cronies including those in the UK facing
the international criminal court for war crimes.
Jack_Garbo ,
Didn't they tell you? The US & UK do not recognize the ICC. Next
richard le sarc ,
They don't recognise it, but they control it, and their pet Aunty Tom, Bensouda.
richard le sarc ,
Well this is plainly Trump, the premier Sabbat Goy, doing his Master, Sheldon Adelson's,
bidding. Killing is central to Judaism and Zionism and American Exceptionalism. Just recently
Trump, as he obsequiously groveled to one of the alphabet soup of Zionist groups, the Israeli
American Council, that control US politics, congratulated Jews for being ' brutal killers-not
nice people at all'. The anti-Trump Zionists proclaimed that 'antisemitism', not realising it
was intended as a compliment.
Perhaps they were worried, as well, that it might be too revelatory of the lust for murder
that lies at the heart of Judaism. As the highly influential 'Yesha Council of Rabbis and
Torah Sages' declared in 2006, as Israel was bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age,
targeting, schools, mosques, power stations, hospitals and fleeing civilians, under Judaic
Law killing civilians is not just permissible, but is considered a mitzvah, or good deed.
International Humanitarian Law to the contrary was contemptuously dismissed as mere
'Christian morality'.
The Godfather of Likudnik Zionism, Jabotinsky, bluntly stated the ideological equivalent of
that doctrine-'We will kill anyone who gets in our way'. And Israeli PMs Begin, Shamir,
Sharon and Rabin all had plenty of the blood of innocents on their paws. Last year a book
appeared, 'Rise and Kill First' that listed the huge series of assassinations of resistance
leaders, often with their families ('Down to the fourth generation' as the Talmud demands)or
mere bystanders and neighbours, committed by Israel, and it was generally lauded and the
author treated with mandatory sycophancy.
The French Jewish intellectual, Bernard Lazare, noted, late in the 19th century, that Jews
had experienced conflict with the local communities almost everywhere they had settled,
despite the differences of social arrangements, religions, histories etc, and he, a firm
opponent of Judeophobia and supporter of Dreyfuss, simply observed that 'Israel' (ie Jews)
must bear at least some blame for those events. That, of course, is the very essence of
really existing 'antisemitism' today-to assert that any Jew, anywhere, has ever done a bad,
or wrong, or even mistaken thing. These are, after all, as Begin used to declare, 'Gods upon
the Earth'. However, this time, they surely have gone too far. Both the corrupt thug
Netanyahu, and the simple thug, Trump, need diversions, and they will soon get them, in
spades. Pity the poor innocents who will suffer for them indulging their blood-lusts.
Estompista ,
"Central to Judaism." And boom: there goes your mask.
richard le sarc ,
Central to Talmudic, Orthodox Judaism-unarguable. Bang goes your mask. Many Jews reject the
murderous xenophobia at the heart of Talmudic Judaism, hence the Reform and Liberal
tendencies, (and non-religious Jews), which are NOT recognised as true Judaism in Israel,
which is controlled by the Orthodox goy-haters. Learn something about your own religion
before you start pontificating and smearing.
Tallis Marsh ,
Hi OffG, I wondered if it would be possible to get an article on the Australian fires –
to get a plethora of views on the situation? Tens of thousands are being urged to evacuate
the South-East now, apparently.
Off the top of my head – a few questions to set the ball rolling if we do get an
article:
What is actually happening; how are the fires being started? Who is starting them? Why are
firefighters having trouble with all of it?
Years & years of deliberate mismanagement? Arson? Sabotage? D.E.Ws/Scalar/Smart
Meters?
Coup against current leader, Scott Morrison (maybe because he did not play ball withe the
climate change people)?
Agenda 21/2030 in motion? SDGs being rolled out etc – deliberate displacement of
people (ultimately off rural & suburban areas and into cities (I think the UN name it
something like City-densification)?
People don't need to agree – just get their views, observations and hopefully some
evidence. Anyway, just putting some thoughts out there
richard le sarc ,
It's anthropogenic climate destabilisation, as all the local fire chiefs and many of the
recently retired, have declared, for some time. Predicted twenty and thirty years ago by
science, and here, now, a few decades ahead of expectations.
Tallis Marsh ,
Interesting. I am not fully on board with the idea of human-induced climate change
(anthropogenic climate change). I need much more convincing than what is available out there
currently. Maybe humans cause an extremely teeny amount but not anyway near enough to change
our environment? Really, is anthropogenic climate change causing all the current things like
flooding, 'wildfires' landslides etc that are suddenly all happening in many different places
at the frequency & level over this last decade or so ,and suddenly being plastered all
over our MSM, press, tv etc ad nauseum without any differing views allowed to be aired
without ridicule or slap-downs or censorship?
Who are XR's funders, allies and founders? What are their deeper motives?
What about the fact that the Earth's climate naturally goes through cycles; some people
tend more towards the climate experts who believe we are now entering the cooling period, the
Maunder Minimum? People like Piers Corbyn have been correctly predicting long-range weather
and climate cycles for many years?
Also, CO2 is important for plant/tree growth? We cannot have life without carbon in its
many forms?
All these questions and more need to be explored and debated by many different experts who
have alternative views (not solely the same views espoused in the corporate media) before I
can come to any firm conclusions. For now, I feel like the establishment is hammering the
public with a cult-like religion of 'climate emergency' and suspect they want to use it for
ulterior motives rather than help the environment & humans – probably part of the
agenda to control the planet including humans?
Tallis Marsh ,
* Should say: " probably part of the agenda to take complete control of the planet including
humans?"
richard le sarc ,
The 'evidence out there' is enough to convince EVERY Academy of Science and scientific
society on Earth, all of whom concur with the theory. The natural weather and climate
disasters are, in the main, either being caused, or made worse, by the injection of added
energy into the Earth system that is caused by the increased level of heat trapping
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. XR's backers are irrelevant to the science. The world's
climate does exhibit many cycles, but they are being disturbed and exacerbated by the added
energy trapped in the Earth system. There is no 'Grand Minimum' just the end of cycle 24 of
sunspot activity. Piers Corbyn is NO climate expert-if you rely on him rather than the 99% of
real climate scientists who agree with the theory then you are very much mistaken, in my
opinion. CO2 is essential for plant growth, but it's levels need to be constant, or slowly
changing, for plants to adapt, not increasing by 50% in 200 years. Moreover climate
destabilisation brings high temperatures, floods, deluges and other manifestations that are
very deleterious to plant growth and well-being. These facts have been debated for 200 years,
and the science is 'settled'. Your proposition for further debate, as the climate rapidly
destabilises, is, in my opinion, akin to 'debating' the harms of sarin gas, as the victim
convulses before our eyes.
MLS ,
How exactly is AGW causing these fires? What is the mechanism?
Is the climate in NSW hotter, drier than before?
By how much if so?
How much worse is the burning?
Since the bush in that part of the world is 'designed' to burn periodically (many local
plants need fire in order to set seed), how do you separate the alleged AGW effect from other
natural causes and other non-AGW variables, such as reduction in pre-emptive burns over
recent years?
Tallis Marsh ,
Yes, all very good questions that need answering and debating by experts with differing
stances (not just cookie-cutter experts agreeing with each other with their official,
scripted stance of "it's part of the 'climate crisis!").
richard le sarc ,
They have ALL been debated for decades by real scientists, not fossil fuel denialist industry
paid disinformers. I can tell you that here in Australia, as the country burns, demanding
more phony 'debate' is NOT a popular opinion
Tallis Marsh ,
"I believe you, trillions wouldn't!"
This debate you speak of must have passed me by somehow! If it did happen it must have
happened before my time because all I've seen/heard in the press/tv/radio/school text books
was/is anthropogenic climate change-based.
Estompista ,
I swear, this guy: "The world is burning. Let's have another debate in case we accidentally
save the plamet!"
richard le sarc ,
You obviously don't live in Australia where denialism controls much of the MSM. Totally in
the Murdoch cancer. much of the time elsewhere, but it has no reputable scientific
supporters, just a cabal of aged renegades, fossil fuel stooges and share-holders in coal
mines. The 'debate' was OVER thirty years ago, and the rest has been fossil fuel propaganda
and the Dunning-Krugerites ventilating their lovely combination of idiocy, malice and
arrogant egotism.
richard le sarc ,
The drought in the east of Australia is unprecedented in the 200 years of White occupation.
It is almost certainly driven, to extremes of aridity, by increased average and maximum
temperatures, lack of rainfall and other depredations like widespread vegetation clearance by
Rightwing 'farmers' who hate Greenies. Every single fire fighting commissioner and other
leaders have openly stated that these fires are worsened by anthropogenic climate
destabilisation, and requested a meeting with the PM months ago, but were ignored by our PM,
a denialist religious fanatic.
MLS ,
Sorry but we need data not rhetoric.
What is the measured increase in temps in the fire-hit regions?
What is causing the drought?
What is the source for it being unprecedented? By how much?
Why would clearing vegetation increase fire risk?
I have also seen it said it's the absence of clearing – due to misguided or fake
'Green' policies – that has been exacerbating the current fires.
How can we tell which is true?
What of the claims of politically motivated arson?
Climate change & Australian bushfires are way off topic. No more of that here please. We
may well open a discussion of the latter soon.
richard le sarc ,
Rightio-forgive the last contribution, above.
richard le sarc ,
It is NOT 'rhetoric'. The facts are easily discoverable, at the BOM, CSIRO and the Climate
Council, for starters. Kindly look them up yourself.
Jen ,
My observation among others is that most bushfires are occurring in areas that never had any
before, or in recent memory anyway.
The state of Victoria always seems to have more severe annual bushfire events than other
states, even though other states are much drier and have more extreme weather. This might
suggest Victorian state govt bushfire emergency response policies might be wanting, to say
the least.
I don't live in Victoria but I'd be curious to know what the state of electricity power
lines in rural areas and through forests down there are like. The East Gippsland region in
Victoria (which has the worst bushfire crisis at present) is, erm, very forested. Or it
was.
Our firefighters can't cope because they're underfunded, they don't have modern
firefighting equipment and – this will shock overseas readers – they are not
full-time paid professional firefighters, in a country that experiences major bushfire events
every year.
Tallis Marsh ,
"they are not full-time paid professional firefighters, in a country that experiences major
bushfire events every year."
My! Yes, that is strange & shocking for somewhere like Australia! Who decided that was
a good idea; along with the idea of not managing the bush like they used to do for hundreds
of years. I read somewhere that the Aborigines used/use managed fires as part of their
culture too to maintain and protect the Bush.
richard le sarc ,
The volunteers usually have to work for weeks a year on real, and controllable, local fires.
This year threy have faced months, so far, of megafires. As for that favourite denialist
canard, that the bush is not being properly 'managed', ALL the fire authorities have
REPEATEDLY refuted that, pointing out that hazard reduction burning has increased for years,
but the window for safe burning has grown smaller and smaller as the climate has rapidly
destabilised, and fires break out even in winter. I hope that has cleared up that
misconception for you.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
CANADA is sending over a hundred skilled firefighters yesterday on top of the fifty we sent
first off. CANUCKS will put it out, don't fret. Our outback is much more Boreal forest so we
get really bad bush fires as everyone is well aware. We have tons of water bombers too and we
are in the off-season for our own bush fires so our gals n' guys will be more than happy to
go to Oz for the adventure.
MOU
richard le sarc ,
Most of the fires are burning in areas that have burned regularly, and recently. There have,
however, been places burned in recent years, like alpine heath-lands in Tasmania and
sub-tropical and temperate rainforests, that have not burned for centuries. The difference
this time is that anthropogenic climate change, principally through savage drought, has
worsened conditions markedly.
Doctortrinate ,
Taken from – the weekend Australian.
The Black Thursday conflagration of 1851 burned five million hectares and was so
intense that ships 30km off the coast of Victoria reported coming under ember attack
Those fires covered one-quarter of what is now the state of Victoria.
In the summer of 1974-75, the worst bushfire system the nation had faced in 30 years the
Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience estimates about 15 per cent of Australia's
physical landmass, about 117 million hectares, had extensive fire damage.
In a review of Queensland's recent bushfire experience, the Inspector-General of
Emergency Management, Iain Mackenzie, had this to say: "The office heard from associations
representing bushfire managers who conveyed 'indisputable facts' about vegetated areas and
their management.
"Their points were that fires will always start, and that fire management relies on, and must
be led by, managing and reducing fuel. Climate change, they said, had not influenced the past
build-up of fuel; some fires are best left to burn, and response will only be effective if
preparation and mitigation have been effective beforehand.''
"People change farming practices, they change crops they plant. In urban areas people like
vegetation between houses, they have bigger houses, bigger roofs.
"These all reflect heat into vegetation that dries out and you have fuel."
The biggest fires in terms of area burned are actually in low-population areas of the
Northern Territory, Western Australia and north Queensland.
It is when fires occur in populated areas that the explosive combination of high fuel load
and proximity of homes becomes most apparent.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
then there's the money/support – Primonster Morrison et al, wouldn't want to see
their budget surplus going up in ashes – no, it wants profit and more, so are limiting
Government spending on many essential needs – replaced from the Peoples pocket, by
charitable donations and rainy day savings etc .same old story, happy taking short on giving
– and as Rural areas are already hit hardest – add just a little more heat, and
with volunteer fire service numbers on the decline for many, it'll be back to the concrete
jungle.
noseBag ,
You: What is actually happening; how are the fires being started?
Me: Hmmmmm .dryness .heat?
You: Who is starting them?
Me: Hmmmm .the godamnded sun?
You: Why are firefighters having trouble with all of it?
Me: Hmmmm there's a fuck-ton of it?
You: Years & years of deliberate mismanagement?
Me: Yes, spot on, and ..and then
You: Arson? Sabotage? D.E.Ws/Scalar/Smart Meters? .
Me: Can we accuse the sun of arson?
Hmmmm .I'm really not sure, maybe your wisdom could guide me?
there's billions of us, all we need, is a little food and warmth – all we want, is to
get on with our lives, in Freedom and in Peace. It unfortunate then, that there exists a
small Cabal of International Interconnected players who employ Governments of the World/
Leaders of Men, instrumentally, to the construction of divisive entanglements . Sadly it
seems, the People, generation through generation, have become so accustomed to groupthink
falsity, they see themselves collectively responsibile for the ruinous designs of dictatorial
maniacs as if the experience of repeatedly being delivered into a madhouse was a natural
element of existence.
I accidentally posted this comment under the "Douma narrative crumbles" thread, admin can
delete it there , if they like.
The news alert message was supposed to be between the brackets but somehow it disappeared.
The alert msg was supposed to say
Chief BIG Trump little penis declares bombing assassination NOT DECLARATION OF WAR.
MOU
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
And I did not upvote myself above.
MOU
Brian Harry ,
I wonder if the Loonies in the CIA/MIC are currently planning to get rid of "a very important
American", and then blame it on Iran, as justification for attacking Iran. I agree that a war
against Iran would be a dreadful mistake by the USA, but, with Loonies like Pompeo, Mark
Esper, and the likes of Bolton, still lurking in the background, they'll ALL be salivating at
the thought of another War with a staggering death count(on both sides) and so will Mr
Netanyahu, sitting in Israel, pulling the strings and directing the traffic.
It's what they live and breathe for .deranged psychopaths just cannot get enough War
."Draining the Swamp" was NEVER going to happen ..
richard le sarc ,
Excellent speculation. To get rid of Trump, the obvious 'burnt offering', and get a casus
belli for Clinton's much desired 'obliteration' of Iran, Bibi's 'New Purim'-what could be
better?
Estompista ,
Pretty desperate stretch.
richard le sarc ,
Then leave yourself alone!
Brianeg ,
"Revenge is a dish best served cold!.
I am sure that America is expecting a quick retaliation and which can be quickly
countered. I am sure the Iranians are aware of that and will either carry out something that
is deniable or just put pressure on Iraq to kick all the Americans out of their country. What
can America do, bomb the whole country into the stone age?
2020 is destined to be a very bloody and long drawn out war of attrition. Whilst the
Democrats would appear to be handing Trump his second term on a plate, by his rash and badly
planned move, this might be denied him.
I do wonder if nature might intervene. You read about the build up of seismic activity in
California and wonder if this might be the year of the "Big One"? If that was to happen then
all bets are off and all military activity will subside.
I am reminded of the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon when Buster taking the part of America comes
to Jerry's defence when he whistles until that time Buster is carted off to the dog
pound.
As Putin's actions always catch me by surprise, can anybody guess what he might do if
Iran, Iraq or Syria comes under heavy attack? I am sure in the circumstances that it would
always be the right move.
"What can America do, bomb the whole country into the stone age?"
They've already done that in Korea and Vietnam, and to a lesser extent just recently in
Syria (which is why Europe has experienced a tidal wave of refugees).
2020 doesn't have to be bloody, as long as most people can get out of the tidal wave of
MSM war propaganda.
With regard to Putin, we're fast approaching the stage where Russia and China are going to
either have to stand up to America (which means war), or else they'll have to bow down and
become part of a rapidly decaying empire (an empire than can't even look after its own
people).
With the assassination of Soleimani, I think we're now at this tipping point. I don't
believe that Russia and China will bow down to the biggest bunch of criminals/psychopaths
that this world has ever known.
richard le sarc ,
They don't need to bomb every village in Iran. Just take out the power stations,
communications, hospitals (oops, we are SO sorry)warehouses, roads, water infrastructure (as
they did in Iraq)etc and a few Holy spots to indicate the religious/fascist aspect of the
assault, and sundry others (they bombed dairy farms in Iraq). Raytheon and Lockheed must be
slobbering at the profit expectations, and 'religious' fascist psychopaths, like our own
Pentecostal thug PM, 'Smoko' Morrison, drooling as their beloved End Times draw that much
closer.
Gaudy ,
As the article says, Iran isn't Iraq or Syria. The Pentagon knows that better than the man in
the street, why else has it not been invaded yet? If they start this war they could well fail
to win it. Totally different ballgame from anything seen before in the 'war on terror'.
richard le sarc ,
They won't invade-just sit back and bomb.
Loverat ,
The other thing to mention is John Simpson while an establishment buffoon has been to Iran
and wrote a book in around 1980. A not completely bad book.
Jen ,
FreeIran2020 seems to be attracting the Mojaheddin e Khalq cult crazies and deluded Pahlavi
monarchy restorationists. That tells me the movement must be relying on the same US State
Department and National Endowment for Democracy regime-change idiots, and various Washington
NGOs, who support the Banderite turds in Ukraine and the Blackshirt thugs in Hong Kong, for
money and marketing campaign ads and slogans.
The interim prime minister of Iraq has condemned the US assassination of a senior Iranian
commander, calling it an act of aggression against his country. Qassem Soleimani was killed at
Baghdad airport.
Soleimani, the commander of the elite Quds Force, was killed after his convoy was hit by US
missiles. A deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the Iraqi militia
collective backed by Iran, was killed in the same airstrike.
In a statement on Friday, the caretaker leader of Iraq's protest-challenged government, Adil
Abdul Mahdi, said the US assassination operation was a "flagrant violation of Iraqi
sovereignty" and an insult to the dignity of his country.
Also on rt.com Iran Quds Force commander killed in US strike on convoy at Baghdad
airport
He stressed that the US had violated the terms under which American troops are allowed to
stay in Iraq with the purpose of training Iraqi troops and fighting the jihadist organization
Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). He added that the killing may trigger a major escalation of
violence and result in "a devastating war in Iraq" that will spill out into the region.
The Iraqi government has called on the parliament to hold an emergency session to discuss an
appropriate response, Mahdi said.
Also on rt.com Killing of Quds commander is another sign of US frustration and weakness in
the region – Iran's Rouhani
The killing of Soleimani marks a significant escalation in US confrontation with Iran.
Washington considers the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to which Quds belongs, a
terrorist organization and claimed the slain commander was plotting attacks on American
citizens.
Tehran said the Quds commander was targeted for his personal contribution to defeating IS in
Iraq and Syria. Soleimani drove Iran's support for militias in both countries that fought
against the terrorist force.
The United States of America has fallen into the trap of its own disinformation policy, as exemplified by the
work of one of its leading strategic study centres, a neocon think tank promoting war on Iran.
During the first weeks of protests in Iraq, a dozen Iraqis burned down the Iranian consulates in Najaf,
Karbalaa and Baghdad. Western analysts based their analysis on social media images and YouTube videos,
particularly those clips which showed protestors chanting "Iran Barra..Barra. Baghdad Tibqa Hurrah" (Iran out,
Baghdad remains free). Analysts and mainstream media -- primarily people sitting thousands of kilometres away from
Iraq who have never visited the country, and never mixed with the population long enough to understand the
dynamics of the country and how Iraqis
really
think reflected and amplified the opinion that Iraq has
become hostile to Iran.
However, though every wish can come true, yet prevailing winds can defy our hopes and expectations. Analysts'
wishful thinking overwhelmed their sense of reality, notably the possibility of realities invisible to them. They
fell into the same trap of misinformation and ignorance that has shaped western opinion since the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. The invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which never
existed. An information war was waged against Syria with the goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad. The
US supported terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda for this purpose. Mainstream media coverage of the war in
Syria- mainly through WhatsApp, social media, Skype, activists and jihadists- unfolded at the expense of
destroying its own credibility, and that of western journalism in general.
The shameful irresponsibility of these reporters and analysts became obvious to a large part of the public.
There was no accountability for mass media deceptions: virtually all western media were in the same boat, totally
lacking the necessary professionalism. Western media became a mockery of the noble and demanding profession of
journalism and its mandate to report and share information without manipulation. Journalists were forced to follow
newspaper editorial policies and the political views of their owner- he who pays the piper calls the tune!
Fortunately, the internet made it possible for people to hunt for alternative sources and analyses. For instance,
to a great extent journalistic standards were upheld in Israel, the only place in the Middle East where analysts
and reporters have the freedom to tell the truth about their enemies (regardless the military censure), and about
the limitations on Israeli power. The Israeli media reported on the weakness of the domestic front in case of war
and the huge damage their enemies could inflict on the country through the deterrence policy that Israel has faced
in this century.
The Israeli government has a "Council of Risk Evaluation", which predicts the reaction of the enemy in case of
a "battle between wars", and estimates the results of Israel hitting a target or even hundreds of targets in Gaza,
Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen and Iraq. That assessment is always very close to reality, unlike that of the US.
Prestigious Western think-tanks like Brookings, Carnegie, Hudson, the Washington Institute, the "Middle East
Institute" and others promoted a belief in the protestors' anti-Iran objectives in Iraq and Lebanon. They have
advocated a 'weakness of Iran in Iraq', a phenomenon based on a few street comments and a few arson-inspired
fires. Most probably these institutions did not mean to distort reality as they revealed their limited
understanding of the Middle East. Even after the US bombing of the Iraqi Security Forces on the Iraqi-Syrian
borders, some of these analysts hinted Iran would not recover and would not be able to respond, and that "Kataeb
Hezbollah" were weaker than ever. Yet the following day their sympathizers broke into the US embassy in Baghdad
and mobilised thousands of people, creating panic and fear not only at the embassy but also at the Pentagon and
the White House.
There is no doubt President Donald Trump has little foreign policy knowledge and experience. He has never
claimed the opposite. But his Foreign and Defence ministries seem hardly more enlightened.
On 27
th
December 2019, several rockets were fired from unidentified attackers against the K1 Iraqi
military base in Kirkuk, north of Iraq. In this base, as in many others, Iraqi and US military are present on the
same ground and within the same walls, even if they have different command and control HQs. Two Iraqi policemen
and one American contractor were killed and 2 Iraqi Army officers and four US contractors were wounded.
The following day, Defence Secretary Mark Esper called the Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister to inform him of "his
decision to bomb Kataeb Hezbollah bases in Iraq". Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper to meet face-to-face, and told his
interlocutor that this would be dangerous for Iraq: he rejected the US decision. Esper responded that he was "not
calling to negotiate but to inform about a decision that has already been taken". Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper if
the US has "proof against Kataeb Hezbollah to share so Iraq can arrest those responsible for the attack on K1". No
response: Esper told Abdel Mahdi that the US was "well-informed" and that the attack would take place "
in
a few hours
".
In less than half an hour, US jets bombed five Iraqi security forces' positions deployed along the Iraqi-Syrian
borders, in the zone of Akashat, 538 kilometres from the K1 military base (that had been bombed by perpetrators
still unknown!). The US announced the attack but omitted the fact that in these positions there were not only
Kataeb Hezbollah but also Iraqi Army and Federal Police officers. Most victims of the US attack were Iraqi army
and police officers. Only 9 officers of Kataeb Hezbollah who joined the Iraqi Security Forces in 2017 were
killed. These five positions had the task of intercepting and hunting down ISIS and preventing the group's
militants from crossing the borders from the Anbar desert. The closest city to these bombed positions is al-Qaem,
150 km away.
What is the outcome of the US bombing of the Iraqi security forces?
Iran had been struggling to achieve consensus among various Iraqi political parties. In Baghdad, it had been
impossible to unite them to select a new Prime Minister following the resignation of Adel Abdel Mahdi. Political
parties, above all groups representing the Shia majority, were divided amongst themselves and incapable of
selecting a suitable candidate. Protestors were occupying the streets and the Hashd al-Shaabi flag was not
tolerated in Baghdad square.
The US bombing of the Iraqi security forces' positions fell as manna to Iran. Secretaries Pompeo and Esper's
actions were in perfect harmony with the goals of the IRGC-Quds brigade commander Qassem Soleimani. The two US
officials broke the Iraqi political stalemate and diverted the country's attention towards the US embassy and
the break-in of protestors to contest the US bombing of Iraqi security forces.
Members of Hashd al-Shaabi and other Iraqi forces units, along with families and friends of the 79 (killed and
wounded) victims demonstrated outside the US embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Flags of Hashd al-Shaabi were
flying over the entrance of the US embassy. The withdrawal of the US forces from Iraq became the priority of the
Iraqi parliament, and even of Moqtada al-Sadr.
The US paid the price of thousands of killed and wounded and trillions of dollars to maintain a zone of
influence, military bases and a friendly government in Iraq, but they have failed to achieve these objectives.
Irresponsible and erroneous analysis of the situation in Iraq and its dynamics has proved that its authors are
detached and isolated from that reality.
The US may end up being pushed out of Iraq and Syria. It may move to Kurdistan. But if the parliament fails to
reach an agreement over its presence in Iraq, US forces will no longer be in a friendly environment and may be
targeted by various Iraqi groups, bringing back memories of 2005.
One single rushed decision emanating from inexperienced US policymakers, evidently following the advice of
think tanks, has dealt the US a setback in the region. Was the advice of neocon think-tank analysts shaped by
incompetence, or simply by their agenda? They are indeed separated by a great distance from realities on the
ground in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, and US policymakers are clearly not getting sound advice on the
region.
All this plays into the hands of Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, whose only need is to capitalize on
American mistakes in the Middle East. The US is making Iran stronger, demonstrating the truth of Sayyed Ali
Khamenei's comment: "
Thank God our enemies are imbeciles
".
This will end great, a fucked up circus called congress who hasn't had the balls to do their
job and legally declare war for nearly three decades, and a president who can't even defend
himself from a gang of thugs staging a direct coup against him in his own government. What
could possibly go wrong?
The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak
suffer what they must."
Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting,
especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long
range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't
fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.
So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians
they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides
nailed it.
Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started
the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.
America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western
world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global
pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence.
Special to Consortium News
The Trump administration has brought U.S. foreign policy to the brink of crisis, if it has
not already tipped into one. There is little room to argue otherwise. In Asia, Europe, and the
Middle East, and in Washington's ever-fraught relations with Russia, U.S. strategy, as reviewed
in my
previous column , amounts to little more than spoiling the efforts of others to negotiate
peaceful solutions to war and dangerous standoffs in the interests of an orderly world.
The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than
blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of
U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the
passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.
There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's
regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump,
deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil
liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that
it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now. The crisis of U.S.
foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with
personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at
the margins.
Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this
undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?
It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end.
What ensued had various names.
There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest
achievement, and nothing would supersede it.
There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market
capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The
consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the
time.
The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual
ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.
Happier days with Russia. (Eric Draper)
Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted
in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008
financial crash followed.
I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An
economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in
Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.
The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade
must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of
our planet's impasses.
A Strategic and Military Turn
Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with
the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. The
NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change
operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be
a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed
Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live
with daily. The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in
policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at
the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a
campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.
Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.
I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what
it now calls its Belt and Road
Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai
to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to
play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic
Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.
Belt and Road Initiative. (Lommes / CC BY-SA 4.0)
In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and
diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism
and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as
Russia and the West.
Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it
apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that
established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime
change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on
which the government now in power still depends.
That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.
If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument
-- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around
him, as he acknowledged in his interview
with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From
that
"Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know Trump
is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.
The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of
imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single
original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the
now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create
quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official
told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.
Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.
Global 'Equals' Like Us?
There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all
facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view,
but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.
As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century
imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all
nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.
Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on
non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like
us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.
Can't we all just get along? (Carlos3653 / Wikimedia)
Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal
adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a
key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each
stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led
order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they
are determined to preserve them.
They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic
alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify
precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and
neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to
accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.
This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time
No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web
site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
If you valued this original article, please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
adversary: – one's opponent in a contest, conflict or dispute.
& I ask this
"Is it really thus"
"Why must it be thus"
How can China be an adversary of the USA when all their manufactured goods come from
China.
example:- a water distiller – manufactured in & purchased from China retails for
AU$70 odd.
The very same item manufactured in China – but purchased from the USA retails for
US$260 plus.
China should be a most welcome guest at the dinner table of the USA.
R Davis , September 20, 2018 at 04:28
While i'm here – where did China get all their surveillance equipment from –
the place is locked down tighter than a chicken coop plagued by foxes.
relevant article – CRAZZ FILES – Bone Chilling Footage Shows the Horrific
Tyranny Google is Now Secretly Fostering in China.
In my opinion Google is not trying to keep information out of China – BUT –
preventing information from get out of China – to the world at large.
A lockdown as severe as this – tells us that there is something seriously bad happening
inside China.
Maybe even a mass genocide
This analysis is correct as far as it goes. However, what is lacking is an analysis of the
lunatic monetary ideology that has looted the physical economy of the U.S. by putting
enormous fake profits of speculative instruments in the hands of our "elites." It is the post
industrial, information age economy which must be transformed by very painful loss of control
by these putative elites if the world is to survive their insane geopolitics. What the
Chinese are doing by rapid build up of worldwide infrastructure needs to be replicated here.
The only way of doing so is first by ending the Wall St./City of London derivatives nightmare
and then by issuing trillions of credits needed for that very purpose.
Agreed, you speak wisely of the root of the problem. Those who create and distribute money
make ALL the rules and dominate the political and media landscape.
This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
"There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost
all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my
view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques
"
Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 18:03
You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American
Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world
which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies,
a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to
war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions
of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.
This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny
that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to
be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's
predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the
Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.
Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 22:09
"How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq?
Very few."
Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War
2003-2007;
Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of
State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40
percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember
the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the
consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the
majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.
Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition
of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were
against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 23:05
You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.
PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).
"Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington."
Homer Jay , September 17, 2018 at 14:47
Respectfully, Your data backs up my comment/data. And to your larger point, again we must
be careful when describing such attitudes as "American", a country with a wide range of
attitudes/ beliefs. To suggest we are all just a war mongering mob is bigoted. You probably
will say that's defensive but it's also right. And making the recklessly inaccurate claim
that "very few" Americans opposed the war in Iraq, without taking into account the
disinformation campaign that played into the initial consent, needs to corrected more than
once.
Sari , September 14, 2018 at 15:15
I just encountered (via Voltairenet) "The Pentagon's New Map," a book written by Thomas
Barnett, an assistant once to Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (now deceased). Barnett wrote an
earlier article for the March 2003 Esquire entitled "Why the Pentagon Changes Its Map: And
Why We'll Keep Going to War" ( https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-iraq-war-primer/
) describing their ideas which are introduced thusly:
"Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an
operating theory of the world -- and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a
leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively
shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis at the
U.S. Naval War College, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving
this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now, he gives it
to you."
His basic premise: "Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity,
financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you
regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide
than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where
globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by
politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and --
most important -- the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global
terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap."
One more quote gives you the "Monarch Notes" edition: "Think about it: Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda are pure products of the Gap -- in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They
tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and
which states they would like to take "offline" from globalization and return to some
seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population,
especially Saudi Arabia).
If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record
of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a
U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity."
Of course, we all recognize how much prevarication currently exists in "implementing" this
strategy, but I would suggest that, very likely, the Pentagon is, indeed, following this "New
Map." And, yes, this "map" shows us why the U.S. has been continually at war since 9/11 and
subbornly refuses to leave Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East with their apparent justification
being "Might Makes Right." Thierry Mayssen (Voltairenet) aptly describes the Gap states as
"reservoirs of resources" driven into perpetual war, destabilization, and chaos by a
preeminently overwhelming hegemonic U.S. military.
I had to laugh. One of Barnett's reasons in promulgating this new "map" involves the
continued stability of the Core; however, what do we see today? Huge waves of immigration
greatly destabilizing every aspect of Europe and chaos and destabilization flooding the U.S.
via false/contrived polarization in every sphere of life. BUT! The military has "a Map!"
Psssstt!! Who's "creating" the Gap? Who has funded and armed Al Qaeda/DAESH/ISIS in the
Middle East? We'll need GPS to keep up with the Pentagon's "new map!"
Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 14:39
I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals.
Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political
systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for
themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make
those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people
either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations
of the World!
Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 21:54
Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was
inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate
ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made
quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities
addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also
left unexamined, so where to begin?
That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly
independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this
forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time
to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's
figure out how to begin.
So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not
The People
Jill Stein said if elected she would boycott all countries guilty of human rights abuses
and she included Saudi Arabia and Israel. She also said she would form a 9/11 commission
comprised of those independent people and groups currently reporting on this travesty.
Meanwhile we have the self-proclaimed "progressive" talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann,
defending the PNAC NEOCONS while making Stein persona non grata and throwing real progressive
candidates under the bus.
The PNAC NEOCONS understood the importance of creating a galvanizing, catastrophic and
catalyzing event but the alternative media is afraid to call a spade a spade, something about
the truth being too risky to ones career, I assume.
See much more at youtopia.guru
Bob Van Noy , September 17, 2018 at 09:19
Lee Anderson thank you for your response, I agree and I appreciate the link suggestion,
I'm impressed and will read more
didi , September 14, 2018 at 13:49
It is always the unintended consequences. Hence I disagree with some of your views. A
president who takes actions which trigger unintended/unexpected consequences can be held
accountable for such consequences even if he/she could not avert the consequences. It is also
often true that corrections are possible when such consequences begin to appear. Given our
system which makes only presidents powerful to act on war, peace, and foreign relationships
there is no escaping that they must be blamed only.
A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is
in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the
hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted
ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the
neofeudal/futile system. When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful
expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon
consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the
Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.
nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18
I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is
the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly
with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military
dimensions."
To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the
goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination:
"Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the
countries it invaded to be "Just like us."
Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR,
I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed,
it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual
"progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the
history of the country squarely.
That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15
Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years
of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational
governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970
"Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The
false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right
paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of
division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy."
But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization
among elitists is predictable.
Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they
have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion,
they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any
mainstream cause or social movement.
What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level
narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These
people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as
naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual
benefit."
Your comment is astute and valuable, and consequently deserves to be signed with your real
name, so that you can be identified as someone worth listening to.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 17:44
Screen names don't matter, content does.
OlyaPola , September 15, 2018 at 11:34
"Screen names don't matter, content does."
Apparently not for some where attribution is sought and the illusion of trust the source
trust the content is held, leading to curveballs mirroring expectations whilst serving the
purposes of others.
""The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970"
The date of publication is of significance as was Mr. Paul Craig Roberts' Alienation in
the Soviet economy of 1971, as was Mr. Andrei Amalrik's "Can the Soviet Union last until 1984
published in 1969.
The period 1968 – 1973 was one significant trajectory in the half-life of "we the
people hold these truths to be self-evident" which underpinned and maintained the "nation
state" misrepresented/branded as the "United States of America" through a change in the
assays of the amalga mutual benefit/hold these truths to be self-evident.
The last hurrah of the "red experts" – Mr. Brezhnev and associates – despite
analyses/forecasts from various agencies agreed, detente based on spheres of influence
facilitating through interaction/complicity various fiats including but not restricted to
fiat currency, fiat economy, fiat politics all dependent on mutations of "we the people hold
these truths to be self-evident".
This interaction also facilitated processes which accelerated the demise of the "Soviet
Union" and its continuing transcendence by the Russian Federation – the choice of title
being a notice of intent that some interpreted as the "End of History" whilst others
interpreted as lateral opportunity facilitated by the hubris of the "End of History".
The "red experts" were not unique in their illusions; another pertinent example is the
strategy of the PLO in maintaining the illusion of the two state solution/"Oslo accords"
facilitating the continuing colonial project branded as "Israel".
Mr. Brzezinski was one of the others who interpreted the "End of History" as linear
opportunity where the assay of amalga of form could be changed to maintain content/function
which was/is to "still" control all the players.
However in any interactive system neither omniscience nor sole agency/control is possible,
whilst by virtue of interaction the complicity of all can be encouraged in various ways to
facilitate useful outcomes in furtherance of purpose, whilst illusions of the "End of
History" and the search for the holy grail of "Full Spectrum Dominance" acted as both
accelerators and multipliers in the process of encouragement, whilst obscuring this process
in open sight through the opponents' amalga of reliance on "plausible belief based in part on
projection", "exceptionalism" and associated hubris.
The "nation state" subsuming illusions of mutual benefit and mutual purpose has always
been a function of the half-lives of components of its ideological facades and practices
– sexual intercourse wasn't invented in 1963 and "The "nation-state" as a fundamental
unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force" wasn't initiated
in 1970.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 13:43
"In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the
private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is
produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the
resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the
political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the
differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky
Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in
the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a
"peace dividend" following the end of WWII. To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only
acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of
discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/
. We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of
benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no
need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign
countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences.
What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US
dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya
etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight
back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to
discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?
All that and we constantly have to endure the bankster/MIC-controlled media proclaiming
everyone who joins the military as "heroes" defending our precious"freedoms." The media mafia
is evil.
Walter , September 14, 2018 at 09:26
The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the
"Statement of A. Wess Mitchell
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21
this year. The transcript is at :
"It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the
administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by
systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American
power. "
Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken
words
I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New
Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.
Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimer Papava
Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public
that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public
delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 13:49
"I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"
Some have an attraction to book-ends.
Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian
book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia.
This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in
any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people
hold these truths to be self-evident".
Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.
Walter , September 15, 2018 at 12:31
If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist.
This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world, of course – especially because
Chin and Rus are able to liquidate any counter-forces that attempt to create or maintain
"book-ends.
The actual spoken words to the Senate of Mr. Michell are very significant, as the removal
of them from the ostensibly real, but actually false, State Department "Transcript" implies.
Foolish Mr. Michell! He accidentally spoke the true objective of US foreign policy and also
the domestic objective – total bamboozlement of the US population "prepare the country
for " (Obvious, world war against the Heartland states that fail to "cooperate"
(surrender).
People ought to read the pdf what Michell actually spoke all of it and consider the
logical implications. Michell has a big mouth Good. He confirms the dark truths
The guilty according to circumstantial evidence has confessed his guilt so to say;
confirming the crime
An Israeli-Saudi "Greater Israel" dividing Syria between Saud and zion is of course a goal
that in effect would be a "book-end".
Too late now as it is clear that Syrian skies are probably going to soon be "no-fly-zone"
for foreign invaders
Then will come the "pitch-forks", as Napoleon's retreat from Moscow illustrated
OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 04:25
"If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist.
This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world"
Absolutes including stasis don't exist but the belief of others in book-ends including
extensive foreign bases are lands of opportunities for others facilitating pitch forking
without extensive travel.
Consequently some perceive that the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to
represent as "strategies" and "tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived
there-from.
Some would hold that the opponents' have a greater assay of the rubbing sticks school of
thermo-dynamics in "their" amalga of perception, in some regards even less perceptive than
Heraclitus although Heraclitus lived in his time/interactions as the interaction below
suggests.
One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain
comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for
others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the
"unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to
Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales
techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the
concept/construct "chaos".
A further illustration of this and how it was/is not limited to present opponents citing
trajectories during the period 1968 – 1973 and some subsequent consequences was
broadcast through this portal on the 14th of September 2018 but not "published" possibly in
ignorance of Mr. Bulgakov's contention that manuscripts don't burn.
The examples used were detente on the bases of spheres of influence agreed by the
Politburo despite contrary advice from many agencies, the strategy of the PLO and half-life
of these beliefs in the strategies of Hamas.
Detente on the basis of sphere of influence facilitated fiat currency, fiat politics, and
fiat re-branding – "neo-liberalism" -, colonial projects in Western Asia, and how
opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process (Stop the Empires War on Russia slogan being a useful example) and those
not so immersed helped facilitate the ongoing transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the
Russian Federation – the title being a notice of intent that opponents perceived as the
"End of History" as functions of their framing and projection.
OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 07:51
Some hold that New York, New York was so good they named it twice, whilst some others
wonder whether they named it twice to make it easier for the inhabitants to locate.
Following the precautionary principle I attach below a further illustration of :
" . the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to represent as "strategies" and
"tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived there-from ..
"One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain
comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for
others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the
"unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to
Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales
techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the
concept/construct "chaos".
which was alluded to in the "unpublished" broadcast which referenced
1. "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970.
2. Mr. P.C. Roberts' Alienation in the USSR (1971)
3. Mr Andrei Amalrik's Can the Soviet Union last until 1984 (1969).
in illustration of interactive amalga which some call Russiagate, presumably because the
water had flowed but apparently not under the bridge.
The recent US presidential election process including the "outcomes" were relatively easy
to predict
and required no encouragement from outside – doing "nothing" being a trajectory of
doing for those not trapped in the can do/must do conflation.
Some don't understand Russian very well and so instead of understanding Mr. Putin's remark
that Mr. Trump was "colourful" which has connotations to some with facility in the Russian
culture/language, some sought to bridge doubt by belief to attain expectation on the basis of
"plausible belief".
An increasing sum of some are no longer so immersed as illustrated in
whilst perceptual frames often have significant half-lives.
exiled off mainstreet , September 14, 2018 at 00:42
This is a great series of articles and the comments, including those having reservations,
are intelligent. Since those comments appearing not to appear later seem to have appeared,
mechanical difficulties of some sort seem to have been what occurred. I hope Mr. Tedesky, one
of the most valued commentators writing in the comments, continues his work.
Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy
since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0.
In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum
between 1990 and 2010. Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between
"Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China
however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the
geopolitical war between the two. Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of
the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to
control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US
must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus,
what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948.
Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.
Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 00:16
Mr. Etler,
I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were
both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only
the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all
aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's
Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum"
and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA,
certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be
distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.
Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which
the MSM propaganda continues to spread. There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a
false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure
if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from
doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 13:41
"This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."
Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign
policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the
contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those
regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's
wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.
Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream,
unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.
The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.
The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland"
This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of
the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this
fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .
Thus World War, as we see
Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 09:38
"Conjuring up Heraclitus "
"And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past."
Time is a synonym of interaction the perception of which and opportunities derived
therefrom being functions of analysing interactions which require notions and analyses of
upstream-perceived transition point (similar to the concept/construct zero)-downstream
lateral processes, which Heraclitus perceived and practiced.
Heraclitus lived in a previous time/interaction and the perception and uses of
thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time.
Omniscience can never exist in any lateral system, but time/interaction has facilitated
the increase of perceptions and lateral opportunities to facilitate various futures and their
encouragement through processes of fission – the process of strategy formulation,
strategy implementation, strategy evaluation, and strategy modulation refers.
Framing including attempts to deny agency to others and hence interaction thereby denying
time, leads to strategic myopia, and when outcomes vary from expectations/hopes/wishes lead
the myopic to attempt to bridge doubt by belief to attain comfort.
Categorical imperatives are kant facilitating can't, best left to Kant, although
apparently some are loathe to agree.
"The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the
status quo ante ."
The temporary socio-economic arrangement misrepresented/branded as "The United States of
America" has a vested interest in seeking to deny time/interaction including through
"exceptionalism" and a history of flailings and consequences derived therefrom.
"Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China
and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "
As above, Heraclitus lived in a previous time and the perception and uses of
thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time although apparently not
informing the perceptions and practices of some.
Understandably Heraclitus sometimes relied within his framing on notions of moments of
stasis/absolutes (steady states) such as opposites, where as like in all areas of
thermo-dynamics a more modern framework would include the notions of amalga with varying
interactive half-lives.
It would appear that your contribution is also subject to such "paradox" as in "China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "
Perhaps a more illuminating but more complex formulation would be found in :
"In other parts of planet earth the assay of amalga and their varying interactive
half-lives differ from those asserted to exist within the temporary socio-economic
arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America" thereby facilitating
opportunities to transcend coercive relationships such as those practiced by the temporary
socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America", by
co-operative socio-economic relations conditioned by the half-lives of perceptions and
practices derived therefrom.
In part that contributed and continues to contribute to the lateral process of
transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation previously leading to a limited
debate whether to nominate Mr. Brezhinsky, Mr.Clinton, Mr. Fukuyama or Mr. Wolfowitz for the
Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts facilitating the transcendence of the temporary
socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America".
Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 13:29
I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly
different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way
back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has
long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the
strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok.
That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in
WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of
the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known
as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take
a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the
sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe
billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really
an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism
and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their
excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come
riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following
Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but
refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.
The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's
been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at
least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the
primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.
Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59
Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and
simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the
chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we
are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole
trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global
power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their
own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every
excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in
Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our
thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and
more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined,
"our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 14:18
I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of
our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank,
and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya
know.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 15:33
I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the
petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our
recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would
tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world
safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.
Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 22:40
+1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and
Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that
anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private
banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China. And note
(2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the
entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks
MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18
It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force
regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as
a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today,
regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I
forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian,
and will work out about the same for NATO.
Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't
matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere
he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.
Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did
not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not
only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously
true.
TJ , September 13, 2018 at 13:47
What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who
is elected -- the same policies will continue.
Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 15:43
Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro:
"I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:02
Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to
Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose,
he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between
Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful
expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.
Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.
He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign
policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
"
Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so
many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 08:46
I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into
the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of
deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the
State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think
about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he
declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are
systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the
next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I
would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After
all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his
intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that
likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and
identify before we can move on
Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 09:35
Bob-
I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right. Many of the people involved
in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather
than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are
not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. Remember when
"Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that
became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy
seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are
embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking
system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the
world than have to share.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:42
You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to,
and against.
Thank you.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:46
I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built
and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob
Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:30
Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the
bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations
as a front organization and control mechanism. "The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 09:42
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:51
Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the
problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:36
Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his
consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal.
Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/
will , September 15, 2018 at 22:30
people have been pointing out that Woodward is the exact kind of guy the CIA would recruit
since shortly after Watergate.
The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk –
which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South
Korea.
"White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US
program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."
Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal
maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about
withdrawing troops or missiles.
Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these
days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.
You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what
isn't?
Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of
South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the
letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.
Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by
killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to
work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'
Bob once again my comment disappeared I hope someone retrieves it. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24
Here's what I wrote:
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24
Again
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 14:03
Thanks for retrieving my comments sorry for the triplicating of them. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:25
3 of my comments disappeared boy does this comment board have issues. I'm beginning to
think I'm being targeted.
Deniz , September 13, 2018 at 17:58
Dont take it personally, I see it more of a lawnmower than a scalpel.
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:36
My comment has disappeared too-it was a reply to anastasia.
Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 08:20
Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other
Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that
with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the
hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is
something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11?
In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al
QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American
targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when
ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American
Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from
Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US
can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this
Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation
& loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline
& end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that
inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire,
is over!
Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 07:57
Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.
Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 07:37
Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way
to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives
better.
mike k , September 13, 2018 at 07:14
Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately
the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum
dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the
resistance to US aggression.
This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing
now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate
disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we
are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.
OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 04:39
Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a
post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept
global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."
Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global
stability."
Framing is always a limiter of perception.
Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above,
is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and
opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by
arrangements based on co-operation.
Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process.
John Chuckman,
Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with
how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.
Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into
easy to read and digest summaries.
I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.
Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try
invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.
1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a
military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest
internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that
would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical
fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").
2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to
leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire
for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran
could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to
pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.
3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and
diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.
Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded
terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.
The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news
I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make it's two
major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US troops in Iraq and
Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies Iran has in the area?
Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the #BaghdadAirport
is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".
That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.
AND
S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on the borders
killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a violation and
internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading to difficult times for
#Iraq".
Really, the ball is in Iraq's court. This is an attack on Iraqi sovereignty as much as an act
of war on Iran. We will now see what the Iraqi are made of.
Trump was personally responsible for having the organisation Soleimani led declared a
terrorist organisation. Time to quit the "Trump is a dumbfuck led by others" Trump is around
70 and has been his own boss all his life. He is now commander in chief of the US military.
He gives the orders, nobody else. He doesn't give a shit about the cold war and Europe, hence
people thinking he is a peacenik. What he does care about is enemies of Israel and control of
energy.
The best revenge the Iraninans could have would be the expulsion of US troops from Iraq and
Syria, which by the way was also the overarching goal of Soleimani...
Trump doesn't give a shit about soft power. He believes in hard power. Iraq has no defence
against the US, and Trump intends to attack Iran. He needs a 9 11 to take the American
population with him.
Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures,
in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as
well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under
the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate
their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also
known as Da'esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United
Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support
Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the
International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven
they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
USA have made it very clear that they are not leaving Syria and the same thinking/excuses
likely applies to Iraq.
Some will argue that using UN2249 as justification for over-staying and virtual
occupation is wrong-headed. Nevertheless, USA claims to remain to ensure against a resurgence
of ISIS. Clearly they intend to stay until their goals are met or they are forced out
militarily.
I suspect I'm not the only MoA barfly who thinks the assassination of Hossein Soleymani could
have been planned with Mossad or other organisations and individuals in Israeli society.
The Iraqis are certainly capable of making life for the US very uncomfortable in Iraq and
Syria, even if not force withdrawal. The present US structure and numbers depend on Iraqi
acquiescence, and that's about shot, even before the assassination. If the position is to be
maintained without Iraqi acquiescence, then thousands more troops would be required, and that
wouldn't go down well back home in the States. That's one of the reasons why the act was a
grave miscalculation.
This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in command. He
will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis. By then it is too late.
The US and its vassals are speeding up confrontation with the Axis because they know that the
showdown is inevitable. However, It will not happen according to the US timetable.
Keep a good supply of popcorn on hand. The pandora box has plenty of surprises. The question
remains,
I figure Iran will have to retaliate and thus this will likely escalate. The Saker initially
thinks war is 80% certain, I think it's probably a bit higher than that.
Posted by: TEP | Jan 3 2020 10:49 utc | 36
The Iranians would be foolish to allow themselves to be goaded like that.
By Dr Norman Lewis, writer, speaker and consultant on innovation and technology, was most
recently a Director at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, where he set up and led their crowdsourced
innovation service. Prior to this he was the Director of Technology Research at Orange. The
rise of so-called #MeTooBots, which can identify certain digital bullying and sexual harassment
in the workplace, is a sinister threat to privacy and an attempt to harness science to further
a political and cultural offensive. In what must be one of the most sinister developments of
the new decade, #MeTooBots, developed by Chicago-based AI firm NextLP, which monitor and flag
communications between employees, have been adopted by more than 50 corporations around the
world, including law firms in London.
Capitalising on the high-profile movement that arose after allegations against Hollywood
mogul Harvey Weinstein, #MeTooBots might make good opportunist business sense for an AI
company. But this is not a development that should be welcomed or sanctioned by AI enthusiasts
or society as a whole.
This is not a new and exciting scientific application of the capabilities of AI or
algorithmic intelligence.
Instead, it is an attempt to harness science to support the Culture War, to transform it
into an all-encompassing presence in constant need of monitoring and scrutiny. This doesn't
just threaten privacy, but the legitimacy of AI.
#MeTooBots are based on the assumption that digital bullying and sexual harassment are the
default states of workplace environments. What could be wrong with employers protecting their
employees in this way? A good start might be an assumption that the people they employ are
decent, hard-working, morally sound adults who know right from wrong. That aside, the idea that
machine-learning represents a superior form of oversight than human judgment and behavior,
turns the world on its head. It simply adds to the misanthropy underpinning the Culture War
that assumes human beings (and men in particular) to be inherently flawed, animalistic and
suspect.
But this attempt to apply science in this way is not a very intelligent application of
artificial intelligence. This is a technology looking for problems to solve rather than the
other way around.
Machine learning bots today can only be taught pattern recognition. Understanding or
spotting sexual harassment can be a very subtle and difficult thing to do. Algorithms have
little capacity to interpret broader cultural or interpersonal dynamics. The only outcome one
can safely bet upon is that things will be missed or, more predictably, will lead to
over-sensitive interpretations and thus more lawsuits, discrimination and the harassment of
employees by their employers.
Any risqué joke, comment on appearance, proposal to go out for drinks, or even the
stray mention of a body part will probably be meticulously logged to be used against you at a
future date.
#MeTooBots in the workplace will also institutionalize snooping and distrust. The use of AI
in this way will transform workplaces into high-tech authoritarian social engineering
environments.
For the culture warriors, this will be welcome – as long as they have the upper hand.
But for workers it will be an Orwellian nightmare where interpretations of thoughts will now be
part of 'normal' workplace interactions. Behaviors will necessarily change. Self-censorship
will abound. Instrumental interactions will replace genuine authenticity. Mistrust will be the
default.
The final danger is that employee suspicion of their employers will only hamper the further
use of AI in the workplace – an innovation that has enormous potential for transforming
the workplace of the 21st Century for the better. Just imagine what an office would be like if
all the dull, boring and repetitive drudgery of so many jobs were performed by dumb machines
rather than dumbed-down human beings. Perhaps we need #BadManagerialDecisionBots instead?
"... That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the rug. ..."
"... The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility ..."
"... What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well, for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors! ..."
B, under the "major stories covered" title you should include Skripal, about which you wrote
many important articles; I believe ultimately - like OPCW and Russiagate - it will prove to
be history-making event in terms of impact on public perceptions of media and the ability of
the media to control public opinion. Probably eventually whistleblowers will come forward
like the OPCW, and only thin will it have it's maximum impact.
(Well, the original event was 2018 not 2019, but some of the reports were in 2019
anyway)
My predictions on these issue for next year are:
...
Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if
major new evidence comes to light.
That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a
permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to
pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main
agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the
rug.
The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on
behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility.
There are a few factors that could influence this independently of major new evidence, such
as the behaviour of a few outlier MSM's that decide to release information (and whether or
not that information then takes off in the public consciousness); pressure that could build
up in social media calling for the MSM to respond and attacking MSM credibility; or other
forms of pressure from the public calling on the MSM to respond. It is therefore a dynamic
that is not entirely predictable.
Both of the above are distinct from the emergence of new major evidence, although both
cases would seem likely to provoke new revelations in turn.
What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well,
for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors!
We need to begin by quickly summarizing what just happened:
General Soleimani was in
Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the USA on the
29th The US has now officially claimed responsibility for this murder The Iranian Supreme
Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
has officially declared that " However, a severe retaliation awaits the criminals who
painted their corrupt hands with his and his martyred companions ' blood last night "
The US paints itself – and Iran – into a corner
The Iranians simply had no other choice than to declare that there will be a retaliation.
There are a few core problems with what happens next. Let's look at them one by one:
First,
it is quite obvious from the flagwaving claptrap in the USA that Uncle Shmuel is "locked and
loaded" for even more macho actions and reaction. In fact, Secretary Esper has basically
painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by declaring
that " the game has changed " and that the US will take " preemptive action "
whenever it feels threatened . Thus, the Iranians have to assume that the US will over-react to
anything even remotely looking like an Iranian retaliation. No less alarming is that this
creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la " USS Liberty " . Right now, the
Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire
Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN
ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they
did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the
USS Liberty if you don't know about it) There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous
retaliations" by other parties (not Iran or Iranian allies) . In fact, in his message,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has specifically declared that " Martyr Suleimani is an international
face to the Resistance and all lovers of the Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his
blood . All friends – as well as all enemies – must know the path of Fighting and
Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly waiting for
those who fight in this path. " He is right, Soleimani was loved and revered by many people
all over the globe, some of whom might decided to avenge his death. This means that we might
well see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not
be the result of any Iranian actions at all. Finally, should the Iranians decide not to
retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his
putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions.
A spiritual father kisses his beloved son
If we look at these four factors together we would have to come to the conclusion that Iran
HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly .
Why?
Because whether the Iranian do retaliate or not, they are almost guaranteed another US
attack in retaliation for anything looking like a retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not
.
The dynamics of internal US politics
Next, let's look at the internal political dynamics in the USA:
I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons . What
do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly
fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria)
for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will either
get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or the
consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison
him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other
words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and
fantastically stupid is a win-win situation !
Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons) seem to be dead-set into
committing political suicide with that ridiculous (and treacherous!) impeachment nonsense. Now
think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to
strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. I suppose that their thinking will go something like
this:
Trump looks set to win 2020. We don't want that. However, we have been doing everything in
our power to trigger a US attack on Iran since pretty much 1979. Let's have Trump do that. If
he "wins" (by whatever definition – more about that further below), we win. If he
loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and we can always jettison him like a
used condom (used to supposedly safely screw somebody with no risks to yourself).
Furthermore, if the region explodes, this will help our beloved Bibi and unite US Jewry
behind Israel. Finally, if Israel gets attacked, we will immediately demand (and, of course,
obtain) a massive US attack on Iran, supported by the entire US political establishment and
media. And, lastly, should Israel be hit hard, then we can always use our nukes and tell the
goyim that "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews and wipe the only democracy in the
Middle-East off the face of the earth" or something equally insipid.
Ever since Trump made it into the White House, we saw him brown-nose the Israel Lobby with a
delectation which is extreme even by US standards. I suppose that this calculation goes
something along the lines of "with the Israel Lobby behind me, I am safe in the White House".
He is obviously too stupidly narcissistic to realize that he has been used all along. To his
(or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against
Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. However, Iran is a totally different
case as it is the "number one" target the Neocons and Israel wanted strike and destroy. The
Neocons even had this
motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran ". Now that Uncle Shmuel has lost
all this wars of choice, now that the US armed forces have no credibility left, now is the time
to restore the "macho" self-image of Uncle Shmuel and, indeed, "go to Tehran" so to speak.
Biden immediately capitalizes on these events
The
Dems (Biden) are already saying that Trump just " tossed a stick of dynamite into a
tinderbox ", as if they cared about anything except their own, petty, political goals and
power. Still, I have to admit that Biden's metaphor is correct – that is exactly what
Trump (and his real bosses) have done.
If we assume that I am correct in my evaluation that Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's
"disposable President", then we also have to accept the fact that the US armed forces the
Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" and that the US as a nation is also the
Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable nation". This is very bad news indeed, as this means that from
the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with
Iran .
In truth, the position of the Dems is a masterpiece of hypocrisy which can be summed up as
follows: the assassination of Soleimani is a wonderful event, but Trump is a monster for
making it happen .
A winner, no?
What would the likely outcome of a US war on Iran be?
I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios
here. All I will say is the following:
For the USA, "winning" means achieving regime change
or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy. For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive
the US onslaught.
This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only
win.
And, not, the Iranians don't have to defeat CENTCOM/NATO! They don't need to engage in large
scale military operations. All they need to do is: remain "standing" once the dust settles
down.
Ho Chi Minh once told the French " You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of
yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win ". This is exactly why Iran
will eventually prevail, maybe at a huge cost (Amalek must be destroyed, right?), but that will
still be a victory.
Now let's look at the two most basic types of war scenarios: outside
Iran and inside Iran.
The Iranians, including General Soleimani himself, have publicly declared many times that by
trying to surround Iran and the Middle-East with numerous forces and facilities the USA have
given Iran a long list of lucrative targets. The most obvious battlefield for a proxy war is
clearly Iraq where there are plenty of pro and anti Iranian forces to provide the conditions
for a long, bloody and protracted conflict (Moqtada al-Sadr has just declared that the Mahdi
Army will be remobilized). But Iraq is far from being the only place where an explosion of
violence can take place: the ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST is well within Iranian "reach", be it by direct
attack or by attack by sympathetic/allied forces. Next to Iraq, there is also Afghanistan and,
potentially, Pakistan. In terms of a choice of instruments, the Iranian options range from
missile attacks, to special forces direct action strikes, to sabotage and many, many more
options. The only limitation here is the imagination of the Iranians and, believe me, they have
plenty of that!
If such a retaliation happens, the US will have two basic options: strike at Iranian friends
and allies outside Iran or, as Esper has now suggested, strike inside Iran. In the latter case,
we can safely assume that any such attack will result in a massive Iranian retaliation on US
forces and facilities all over the region and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Keep in mind that the Neocon motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran "
implicitly recognizes the fact that a war against Iran would be qualitatively (and even
quantitatively) different war than a war against Iraq. And, this is true, if the US seriously
plans to strike inside Iran they would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars
since WWII look minor in comparison. But the temptation to prove to the world that Trump and
his minions are "real men" as opposed to "boys" might be too strong, especially for a president
who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons.
Now,
let's quickly look at what will NOT happen
Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this one. Neither will the USA use
this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for
a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither does Russia have any desire for a
war against the USA. The same goes for China. However, it is important to remember that Russia
and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt the US and help Iran.
There is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Yes, I
know, Uncle Shmuel does not give a damn about the UN or international law, but most of the rest
of the world very much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by Uncle Shmuel's attention
span (weeks at most) with the one of Russia and China (decades). Does that matter?
Absolutely!
If the Iraqis officially declare that the US is an occupation force (which it is), an
occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq (which it does) and that the Iraqi
people want Uncle Shmuel and his hypocritical talking points about "democracy" to pack and
leave, what can our Uncle Shmuel do? He will try to resist it, of course, but once the tiny
figleaf of "nation building" is gone, replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation,
the political pressure on the US to get the hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both
outside and even inside the USA.
In fact,
Iranian state television called Trump's order to kill Soleimani " the biggest
miscalculation by the U.S." since World War II. "The people of the region will no longer allow
Americans to stay," it said.
Next, both Russia and China can help Iran militarily with intelligence, weapons systems,
advisors and economically, in overt and covert ways.
Finally, both Russia and China have the means to, shall we say, "strongly suggest" to other
targets on the US "country hit list" that now is the perfect time to strike at US interests
(say, in Far East Asia).
So Russia and China can and will help, but they will do so with what the CIA likes to call
"plausible deniability".
Back The Big Question: what can/will Iran do next?
The Iranians are far most sophisticated players than the mostly clueless US Americans. So
the first thing I would suggest is that the Iranians are unlikely to do something the US is
expecting them to do. Either they will do something totally different, or they will act much
later, once the US lowers its guard (as it always does after declaring "victory").
I asked a well-informed Iranian friend whether it was still possible to avoid war. Here is
what he replied:
Yes I do believe fullscale war can be avoided. I believe that Iran can try to use its
political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to officially ask for the removal of US
troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can no longer occupy eastern
Syria either as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If the Americans
leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a
single shot.
I have to say that I concur with this idea: one of the most painful things Iran could do
next would be to use this truly fantastically reckless event to kick the US out of Iraq first,
and Syria next. That option, if it can be exercised, might also protect Iranian lives and the
Iranian society from a direct US attack. Finally, such an outcome would give the murder of
General Soleimani a very different and beautiful meaning: this martyr's blood liberated the
Middle-East!
Finally, if that is indeed the strategy chosen by Iran, this does not at all mean that on a
tactical level the Iranians will not extract a price from US forces in the region or even
elsewhere on the planet. For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the
destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct
retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian
Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only
that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East.
Conclusion: we
wait for Iran's next move
The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq. I will just say that while I do not believe that the US will gentlemanly
agree to any such demands, it will place the conflict in the political realm. That is –
by definition – much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might
seem. So I strongly suggest to those who want peace that they pray that the Iraqi MPs show some
honor and spine and tell Uncle Shmuel what every country out there always wanted from the US:
Yankees, go home!
If that happens this will be a total victory for Iran and yet another abject defeat
(self-defeat, really) by Uncle Shmuel. This is the best of all possible scenarios.
But if that does not happen, then all bets are off and the momentum triggered by this latest
act of US terrorism will result in many more deaths.
As of right now (19:24 UTC) I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale
war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events" (hopefully good
ones).
The Saker
PS: this is a text I wrote under great time pressure and it has not be edited for typos or
other mistakes. I ask the self-appointed Grammar Gestapo to take a break and not protest again.
Thank you
Saker, je partage votre point de vue, la pire sanction qui pourrait être
infligée aux USA, serait de leur faire quitter l'Irak (et la Syrie par ricochet)
Espérons que le parlement Irakien aura le courage de prendre cette décision
historique, toutes les factions irakiennes sont révoltées par les actions
américaines, le temps est venu pour eux d'en finir avec cette occupation
mortifère.
yandex translate mod
Saker, I share your point of view, the worst sanction that could be imposed on the USA would
be to make them leave Iraq (and Syria by ricochet) let's hope that the Iraqi parliament will
have the courage to take this historic decision, all the Iraqi factions are outraged by the
American actions, the time has come for them to put an end to this deadly occupation.
Seriously how can this happen? The USA leave? The ANZ mercenary army walk away from its
spoils?
USA formally just took control of the Oil Fields in Syria.
USA just asked all non-military to leave Iraq, USA just sent in 3500 new soldiers to
'secure' all Oil Fields in Iraq.
Seriously, there is only "One Outcome" and that is "Greater Israel", and its on track.
We know that in the past almost all the stolen oil from Iraq-Syria was shipped to Israel
via Turkey, where it was re-sold and Israel made an enormous profit.
The neocons can never lose, they're siamese twins with the neo-libs, and all NEO is ANZ;
All MSM, all country's on earth are administered by ANZ agents. Much of the 'war' between
Soros&Adelson left-vs-right NEO is just fighting over scraps that haven't yet been stolen
from the goy. NEOCON & NEOLIB are siamese twins that share a common asshole, they own the
world as the ANZ, the siamese twin is the International-Kleptocrat Elite. They have their
fingers in every nation on earth, including Iran & North-Korea. They have been
controlling China-Russia for 100+ years, all has been planned for year the 'controlled
demolition' of the USA. Most like a an engineered civil-war, followed by an ANZ re-population
of a de-populated USA with a 'beautiful wall' to protects Trumps chosen people.
The soldiers like Gabbi sent to Iraq are just mercenarys. Like Saker say's "Israel owns
the USA", Israel also owns the USA-MIL, the US-GOV, and that includes Gabbi & Trump. The
soliders in Syria&Iraq could very well die there, as the USA that they knew may not be
around in the future, but who cares? Israel controls the oil, and most likely an AIIB-SCO
deal with CHINA-ISRAEL has already been signed, with Israel as the 'Seller of Choice', China
doesn't care, and it respects Israel for its ability to lead the Goy by the nose.
The General is just one man, human life in the eye of the ANZ is worthless, the leaders of
Iran all called themselves "Living Martyrs", now their real power has begun, just like in
Lord of the Rings, when Gandolf was killed, he came back stronger.
IMHO this is all much like a 'magic show', where people talk about what Gabbi says, or
insinuate that USA will leave the mideast, all the while the USA-Israel secures the
middle-east oil fields with USA soldiers.
We know the USD is kaput, we know that Saudi oil is kaput, and the USA knows that in the
future being the worlds largest user of 'portable energy' (oil) that they need infinite free
oil.
Killing the "General", just provides the context to re-occupy Iraq, which now means just
occupying the oil-fields.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the
opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
The brain dead 'thankyou for your service' spouting American morons and deluded American
'Christian Zionists' who put another religion before their own (whilst also forgetting about
King Solomans breaking of the Covenenent made with King David they wave in everyones faces)
will be expecting action by Iran before the weekend.
If it does not come they will ignorantly and arrogantly assume 'Victory' and make threats
of further death and murder (and gross hypocracy).
The Iranians (and Russians and Chinese) do not need to act impulsively or recklessly.
Thier time (and ample opportunities to humiliate the arrogant) will come in the months and
years ahead.
Once the world fully wakes up to the fact that the Dollar is the source of all US power
and influence globally, and then turns against it – rejecting it as the evil toilet
paper (and imaginary digits on a screen) that it is, the Satanic empire of the US will
collapse under its own weight and will not be able to support (pay for and bribe) a global
empire. No massive war, no nukes exploding, just the repudiation of worthless pieces of paper
and digits on a screen called the US Dollar.
Thank you, Saker; another brilliant analysis. There are no winners here; but this event was
not unexpected, i.e. U.S. aggression but I am surprised Soleimani was in Iraq and unaware
that something like this wouldn't happen.
Saker, a wise article on the consequences of Soleimani's murder. However, I believe you may
have the wrong 'take' on Trump only being a "disposable President." Miles Mathis wrote an
article on Trump, pre-election, that is pertinent. (Since then, Mathis has been silent on
this matter; he may have been 'warned off'.)
" both Trump's parents died at Long Island Jewish Medical Center."
"So let's return to Friedrich Drumpf, Donald's great-grandfather. Two of his sisters are
listed as Elisabetha Freund and Syblia Schuster. Those are both Jewish surnames So at least
two of Trump's great-aunts married Jewish men. This reminds us that his daughter Ivanka
married a Jewish man, Jared Kushner. We are told this is an anomaly, but it isn't."
"Trump was brought up in Jamaica Estates, Queens, which has a large Jewish population. He
went to Kew-Forest School, ditto. Trump's father was on the Board of Trustees at
Kew-Forest."
"Trump allegedly went to the Wharton School of Business, a famous spook academy."
"Ivana [Trump's former wife] is also Jewish. An early boyfriend was George Syrovatka. That
is a Jewish name. Her first husband was Alfred Winklemeier. Winklemeier is a Jewish name.
Ivana went to McGill University in Montreal, a spook academy we have run across many times.
Geni.com lists her father's name as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint:
drop the second 'e'. You get Zelnick. It is Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish,
too."
"Both Trump and his father ran with top Jews in New York, including Samuel Lindenbaum and
his father Abraham (Bunny), and Roy Cohn. These guys weren't just their attorneys; they were
their enablers."
If we throw-in his moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his recognizing of Israel's
annexation of the Golan Heights, his non-censure of Israeli settlement in occupied Palestine,
and his appointment of pro-Israel & anti-Iran 'advisors', a 'pattern' emerges which is
consistent with Trump being both a crypto-Jew and a Zionist. This state-of-affairs
dramatically changes the odds of escalation to a "US" strike on Iran. If Mathis' assertion is
indeed the case, Soleimani's murder is the deliberate 'kickoff' of a series of events
pre-planned to satisfy Israeli goals
A fine analysis.Trump and Co. are so busy brown nosing the Israelis they don't seem to care
what anyone else thinks. I think every Iraqi not on US payroll will demand Yankee go home,.
The us and its corporate media and the "interagency consensus" makes it unlikely ant rational
decision making will come out of babylon on the Potomac.
This 'could' be contained and may yet well be. Or it could not.
Both Iran and Iraq have been attacked. This was NOT a defensive move. Soleimani had been
declared a terrorist by the US and also declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.
That is the figleaf of justification the US is providing. What must be considered is that
there is a bill in the US Senate that had passed committee declaring Russia to be a state
sponsor of terrorism. If that comes to pass, could Russia be given the same treatment as just
witnessed. Not to mention that China could also fall into that category at some point soon
using the same .. errr logic.
The point here is that should this be seen as an incident that doesn't directly affect
those countries within the Resistance that weren't directly attacked, or should this be seen
as the beginning of the US campaign to establish a Global Reich while there is still
time?
If the latter is true, then it would be foolish to let this play out as purely a regional
event.
Remember Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
The Anglo Saxons really believe there short presence will prevail against the ancient
dominance the Aryans(the real ones that is the Indo-Iranians) have exercised, physically and
mentally, in the region. They have no idea what they are going up against, technical
knowledge will not win a war.
Dear Saker,
I agree with you that hot war is very likely now and also on the possible USAn goals in such
a war. They had to learn at least a decade ago that a full-scale invasion of Iran would be so
impractical that it is essentially impossible for the Empire to do.
But they do not need that. I said I agreed with you that the USA need not invade: for them
(and the true instigator of this incoming conflict: Israel) it is more than enough if Iran is
devastated by naval and airstrikes.
So, in fact this war can and will be won by both sides: Iran may survive a full-scale war but
with her economy and infrastructure destroyed. That is what you called a win-win.
However, you also say that "Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this
one". And therein lies my problem.
Now please enlighten me why on Earth would the USA not deploy a couple of dozens of tactical
nukes in a disarming, debilitating first strike, thus decapitating both the political and the
military leadership of Iran, destroying all nuclear sites and also the bulk of the Iranian
infrastructure and economy (the latter one with mainly sustained conventional strikes for a
couple of weeks).
Why would they hesitate? Knowing that they need not afraid of another nuclear-armed country's
interference it would be quite rational to do so. If this happens, Iran will be in no
position for the coming decades to assist anyone else: no more aid for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,
Palestine and Yemen. In this case it really does not matter anymore if the current theocratic
democracy of Iran survives or goes away, at least from the Empire's point of view. As a
matter of fact, the USA may even claim "humanitarian reasons" to employ nuclear weapons: it
would be claimed as a painful but necessary surgical operation, far better than a
long-standing conventional war with years of bombing campaigns, siege of large cities and
full-scale assault on the ground. 'Sparing both American and Iranian lives.'
All in all: Iran may protect herself and exact a very high price for a conventional attack
but is defenseless against a nuclear one. So without Russian / Chinese guarantees against an
American nuclear strike I think Iranian resistance would prove futile. In case they lack such
guarantees they would rather capitulate than suffer complete destruction. Iran may only
manage this situation when shielded against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes – otherwise
they better give up before it begins.
The Samson Option say's Israel will not be attacked.
Given that Israel owns the world, why would they allow themselves to be attacked, they
(NSA) didn't just create TIA for nothing ( poindexer-raygun Total Information Awareness )
They know all, they control all. They own all.
Back to Real Politics, Israel owns the USA, and the USA is going down. Israel needs a new
cow to bleed, and that be China. China needs oil, so "Greater Israel", via US-MIL seizes all
middle-east oil fields, and then Israel becomes custodian, of course this will be sold as a
'peace plan'.
Doesn't really matter, as USA is kaput. Broke. USA soliders will do best to remain at
oil-fields and sell black-market oil for Israel, to make money to send home.
Russia will stand down, as in Reality Israel is doing the business of Russia. China needs
oil, Israel needs hard-cash to control the Goy, so they can control their world-wide cattle
ranch ( chattel – prostitution )
Lives whether they be Iranian, or American, or Palestinian have no value, the only life on
earth that has value is the Jewish life.
A large percentage of China are Jewish, like Xian, at least +10M Jews exist in China, and
they're in total support of the castration of the West.
The best selling book in China is called "How Israel Controls the USA", a true story of
how AIPAC took control of USA gov, and killed JFK. The Chinese don't see this book a 'shock
book' they see it as a cook-book, of how to control, farm, and tax the western goy.
I would be interested in hearing an answer to this. It seems logical to me. I don't see any
US wars as being a defeat, since they succeeding in destroying countries. Israel's border's
have not grown yet, but I am sure that is still the goal.
In my view, Russia got involved in Syria because they knew if Syria fell to the US, Iran
would be next, followed by Russia. Russia forced a momentary setback by stopping the fall of
Syria, but Usrael is proceeding on with Iran anyway. Russia, of course, then follows. Why
would Russia get involved in Syria and let Iran fall, possibly by a preemptive "humanitarian"
nuclear strike like you mention? All of Russia's work over the past decades will be destroyed
if they watch Iran get destroyed.
Bc if the terror regime in washington uses nuclear weapons that is a known redline for Russia
and Putin have made this VERY clear. I suggest you use duckduckgo and start typing in
relevant search frases, it might enlighten you.
I am sorry I am so stupid, but I still don't understand. Please explain it to me. Russia has
made it clear that if nukes are used against them, they will respond with nukes. I have not
seen the same message sent regarding third parties. And I tried Googling it.
The zionazis had to act before the US empire crumbles with the overstreched dollar, dollar
that no globalist Rothschild in the world will be able to save for much more time.
The globalists in the City want to get rid of the dollar, but they also want to hurt Iran in
order to weaken Russia (and China), and they need a still powerful USA to perform that.
The war might therefore be a powerful transition (as were the previous ones) toward a new
economical global order, while also weakening the axis of resistance .
As for Trump, one has to wonder if he is really the one who ordered those strikes, and if he
really still has any power over the Pentagon.
It's not just the US and Iran painted into a corner, Iraq, but humanity even.
This United States claimed terrorist act of this import must only mean one thing: their
own recognition the time is up, namely, dollar-as-a-reserve-currency is done for.
Every party, not just Iran, will have to figure a way forward from this shortened horizon
(a single quarter? less?) imposed by the USofA. Of course Europe doubts itself and there's no
worse time for that. I do trust the Iranians, their artfulness and rationality, I am sure
though, by themselves the effort won't suffice. They won't be alone.
The answer is surely asymmetrical, but any "symmetrical" false flag must be
prevented/minimized likewise.
The content of Iran's painful message to America
✴️محتوای پیام
دردناک ایران به
آمریکا
🔸محتوای پیام
ایران به طرف
آمریکایی داده
به گونهای بوده
که مقامات
آمریکایی را
دچار وحشت شدیدی
کرده است. هر چند
هنوز از ابعاد
این پیام اطلاعی
ندارم اما به
نظر میرسد
آمریکاییها به
شکل کامل اعتماد
بنفس خود را از
دست دادهاند،
خبرهایی که به
وسیله واسطهها
به سمت تهران در
طول ساعتهای
گذشته به گوش
رسیده بیانگر آن
است که مقامات
کاخ سفید پس از
این اشتباه
راهبردی، هر کسی
که فکر میکنند
با ایران
کوچکترین
ارتباطی داشته و
دارد و می تواند
به مقامات
ایرانی دسترسی
داشته باشد
متوسل شدند تا
پاسخی که قرار
است دریافت کنند
در همان ابعاد و
نه بیشتر باشد!!
🔸اما اگر قرار
است ابعاد این
پاسخ مشخص گردد
باید رئیس ستاد
مشترک، فرمانده
نیروی دریایی و
هوایی و بالاتر
از آن شخص ترامپ
که دستور این
ترور را صادر
کرده است کشته
شوند تا با هم
برابر شویم
(البته که باز هم
نخواهیم شد) و
این چیزی است که
آمریکاییها
خودشان بهتر می
دانند. وزیر
امور خارجه
آمریکا در طول
ساعتهای گذشته
به همراه سایر
مقامات این کشور
یک نبرد
رسانهای را
شروع کردند تا
به زعم خود
تصمیم مقامات
ایران را تحت
تاثیر قرار
دهند!! ولی آنچه
به عنوان پیام
سفارت سوئیس از
طرف ایرانیها
برای آنها
فرستاد تمام
برآوردهای آنها
را نقش بر آب کرد.
🔸دونالد ترامپ
که در سیاست
خارجی خودش به
بنبست خورده
بود و کنگره او
را به جرم خیانت
فراخوانده بود
تا محاکمه اش
کند، از سوی
دیگر در آستانه
انتخابات نمی
دانست باید
چگونه صحنه بازی
را عوض کند دست
یک قمار خطرناک
زد، این قمار آن
اندازه خطرناک
بوده که در
آمریکا هیچکس
حاضر به پذیرش
مسئولیت آن نیست
و ترامپ تحت
فشار سیاسیون
مخالف خود ناچار
شده شخصاً
مسئولیت این
اقدام جنون آمیز
را برعهده
بگیرد. ترامپ یک
قمار را شروع
کرده که سعی می
کند با تهدید و
فشار و همچنین
التماس و رایزنی
و حتا با دادن
امتیازهای
مختلف از آن
فرار کند. خودش
بهتر میداند که
آنچه درباره
مذاکره و
گفتوگو با
ایران میگوید
جز تحقیر بیش از
پیش خودش نیست.
🔸هنوز از متن
مذاکرات وزیر
خارجه آمریکا با
همتای روسی خبری
منتشر نشده اما
او در گفتگویی
با رئیس جمهور
مفلوک عراق گفته
که خواستار
افزایش تنش
نیست! و عراق
نباید محلی برای
تنش آفرینی
باشد!! این
اقدامات مقامات
مختلف آمریکایی
که شامل پمپئو،
برایان هوک مارک
اسپ و حتی
سناتورهای
نفتخواری مانند
لیندزی گراهام
می شود، در واقع
تهدید ناشی از
ترس را نشان می
دهد. لیندزی
گراهام وقتی
سهمیه اش از نفت
سوریه را گرفت،
اینگونه طرفدار
ترامپ شده است.
منافعی او در
چاههای نفت
سوریه و عراق
دارد که بعدها
مشخص خواهد شد
که چه
پیمانکارانی
وابسته به این
جانور بی شاخ و
دم هستند.
🔸در کاخ سفید
همه از وحشت
احتمالی هدف
قرار گرفتن یکی
از پایگاه های
این کشور در
عراق که صدها
نظامی در آن به
سر میبرند توسط
موشکهای زمین
به زمین ایران
خواب راحت
ندارند. آنها به
خوبی می دانند
که اگر همزمان
یکصد فروند موشک
به این
پایگاهها
اصابت کند هیچ
چیزی از آن باقی
نخواهد ماند و
تلفاتی که به
نظامیان
آمریکایی وارد
خواهد شد همه به
پای حماقت ترامپ
نوشته می شود.
بنابراین بادام
با گفتن این
واژه که دنبال
جنگ نیست و می
خواسته با این
اقدام جلوی جنگ
را بگیرد در
حقیقت دارد کلاه
سر خودش می
گذارد.
The content of Iran's message to the US has been so intense that it has frightened
American officials. Although I am not aware of the magnitude of the message yet, Americans
seem to have completely lost their confidence in themselves, the news that has been heard by
the intermediaries in Tehran over the past few hours indicates that White House officials
have since this strategically mistake, asking anyone who has the slightest connection to Iran
and can reach out to Iranian officials to ask Iran to respond their aggression in the same
dimension and no more !!
But if the magnitude of this response is to be determined, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Navy and Air Commander and even Trump who ordered the assassination must be killed in order
to equalize the crime(of course it won't) and This is what Americans know better. During the
past few hours, the US Secretary of State, along with other officials in the country, has
launched an infowar to influence the decision of the Iranian authorities! But the message
that Iran sent back via the Swiss embassy to the American government undermined all Trump
gang's plot.
Donald Trump, who had been stalled in his foreign policy and had been convicted of treason
by Congress, that the Congress is trying to prosecute him, did not know how to change the
game on the eve of the election and risked playing a dangerous gamble. It is so dangerous
that no one in America is willing to accept responsibility, and Trump, under the pressure of
his opposition, has been forced to personally take responsibility for this heinous act. Trump
has started a gamble that tries to escape with threats and pressure, as well as begging and
consulting, even by offering concessions. He knows that what he says about negotiating with
Iran is nothing more than humiliating himself.
The US Secretary of State's talks with his Russian counterpart have not yet been released,
but he has said in an interview with the beleaguered Iraqi president that he does not want
tensions to rise! And Iraq should not be a place for tension! The actions of various US
officials, including Pompeo, Brian Hook Mark Spar, and even oil senators such as Lindsay
Graham, actually show the extent of fear. Lindsey Graham has become a pro-Trump when he took
his quota of Syrian oil. His interests in the oil fields of Syria and Iraq will later
determine which contractors are connected to this hornless and tailless beast(Graham).
In the White House, everyone is scared of the potential target bases in Iraq, where
hundreds of troops are stationed. They know very well that if one hundred missiles hit these
bases at the same time, nothing will be left behind, and the casualties that will be
inflicted on American troops will all be attributed to Trump's stupidity. So, by saying the
word that he was not seeking war and wanted to stop the war by doing so, he was actually
fooling himself
پیام
قدرتمندانه
ایران اینگونه
صدای
رئیسجمهور
آمریکا را لرزش
واداشت ترامپ
چهار دقیقه و ۱۱
ثانیه در مورد
دستور ترور
سپهبد سلیمانی و
سایر همراهانش
صحبت کرد و در
تمام طول این ۴
دقیقه نتوانست
بر اعصابش مسلط
باشد و صدایش
نلرزد. خوب گوش
کنید که چگونه
پیام ایران
زنگها را در کاخ
سفید به صدا
درآورده است. به
زودی برای شما
خواهم نوشت
ایران چه پیامی
به آمریکاییها
داده که اینگونه
به هم ریخته اند.
نه خبری از سر
تکان دادن ترامپ
است و نه خبری از
شانه تکان دادن
و نه خبری از
بستن چشمان و سر
بالا گرفتن
هنگام سخنرانی.
ترامپ تازه
فهمیده بلانسبت
چه . خورده است.
@syriankhabar@syriankhabar
A machine translation:
Fear and fury in Trump's speech
Iran's powerful message shook the voice of the American president in such a way Trump
spoke for four minutes and 2 seconds about the assassination of Lieutenant General Soleimani
and his companions, and he could not control his nerves all this time. Listen well to how
Iran's message has sounded the bells at the White House. Soon, I will write to you what kind
of message Iran has given to the Americans who have messed up like this.
There is no shaking of Trump's head, no shaking of his shoulder, no closing eyes and a
high-pitched speech. Trump has just figured out what he ate.
'Secretary Esper has basically painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction
corner" by declaring that "the game has changed" and that the US will take "preemptive
action" whenever it feels threatened'.
As I mentioned in another article, the Strait of Hormuz comes to mind. What would be the
consequences of it being blocked by the Iranians is something that no one seems to consider.
Any thoughts on this?
I tend to think that odd are opposite to what you've said about hot war. With regard to
leaving ME it was presidential candidate Trump's promise. As well as declared desire of Tulsi
Gabbard. So he can easily spin it as doing it on his own volition. And than (my speculation)
redirect freed money into infrastructure repair and preparation for real economic competition
with China and Russia. Particularly in space where (for now) we have advantage due to private
enterprise..
1. To put this into an historical context. After the failure of the Douma attacks in
April, 2018, the Neocons (Globalists) were basically out of options to win the war in Syria.
But this did not mean that they would give up on their quest to control the entire
Middle-East, of which Syria was the stepping stone to Iran. They just needed a new plan (Plan
D?, E?, F??). We now see that the new plan, painstakingly put in place since April, 2018, is
to attack Iran directly.
2. The attack on Soleimani suggests to me that the U.S. strategy is to decapitate the
Iranian leadership, and then to take advantage of the anarchy that follows to install a
pro-Western puppet in Tehran.
3. I think that the Neocons (Globalists) are extremely impatient to get this done. They
need to control the M-E in order to block Eurasian integration into the Russia/China sphere,
via the Belt and Road initiative. And the window to launch a war, before the U.S. elections,
is very narrow.
4. Based on the above, I expect the U.S., or her 'allies' to rachet up the provocations,
over the next 3 or 4 months, until they get a plausible excuse to launch a full fledged
attack on Iran. I expect that such an attack would be a short, but massive, aerial campaign
with the objective of taking out the Iranian government and its institutions, with the hope
that in the anarchy that follows, a pro-Western puppet, that is already prepared and sitting
in the wings, will be able to claim power.
Trump is not a Neocon, but, about Iran, he shares a common interest with them. And he is
likely foolish enough to go along with such a scenario. As other commenters have pointed out,
the Neocons think that this is basically a win-win for the Neocons. If all goes well, they
get Iran, if not, they get rid of Trump.
Yes, a coordinated and united front in the ME against the Zionazis would be an appropriate
and proportional response a palace coup, the demise of MBS/MBZ, geopolitical realingment,
grassroots protests, rapproachment those sorts of things might shake things up enough to see
the warmongering US finally get kicked out of the ME.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that the United States and the European
Union should either comply with the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran, or
recognize it as nonexistent.
Lavrov made the comments on December 30 after meeting in Moscow with Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who said that the European signatories to the deal were "not
taking any practical steps" to support it.
The military budget of USA speaks loud. This means they are planning.
Iran will not do any foolish movements and calculate any tactic extremely careful.
China and Russia cannot allow that USA will "swallow" Iran. That's the point.
If USA is doing something foolish in order to "secure" its hegemonic aspirations the
outcome could be completely detrimental to what they had wished for.
I also can't help but notice the amount of meetings between US officials and Israeli
officials, particularly where Iran appears to be the major theme. At the time of Netanyahu's
most recent warning, US General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had
visited Israel to meet his Israeli counterpart, Aviv Kohavi, to discuss "operational
questions and regional developments." A week prior, the US Air Force chief of staff also
visited Israel to participate in the Blue Flag joint military exercise. Not long before that,
the commander of the American military forces in the Middle East arrived in Israel for
meetings with top IDF officials.
US government is throwing everything into the propaganda fire to justify its murder of Qassem
Solemani. In his desperation to connect Iran to 9/11 attacks, Mike Pence says there were 12
hijackers (forgetting they were 19 hijackers of which 15 were Saudis)
Over 16 years ago, the Bush Regime was trying to pin some of the blame for 9-11 on Iraq to
justify America's war of aggression on that nation.
Now, years later, the Trump Regime is trying to pin the blame on Iran to justify the
escalation of yet another American war.
And Pence can't even get the number of 9-11 hijackers correct, or that the majority of
these hijackers were from America's head-chopping ally of Saudi Arabia!
Very good recap. The table is set for a lot more death. Iran is damned if they do and damned
if they don't and someone else does because they will simply be blamed. It fits the agenda of
the beast.
All the flag-wavers will be out shouting U.S.A., U.S.A. because this murder has left them
more secure and safe. I don't know whether to vomit or weep.
I don't believe war can be avoided because the agenda is to topple Iran as part of their new
world order. If they won't surrender, war it will be.
This has nothing to do with anything other than the price of oil. The U$ absolutely must
force the price of oil over 100 U$D per bbl. in order to profit from U$ oil reserves, and
save the petro-dollar. If Iran does nothing overt, and Russia continues to pump oil, thus
keeping the price of crude around $60, the U$ economy will wither. I think Iran will peck at
the U$, and Iraq will most likely finally order American forces to leave, but I think
Iran/Russia/China are just going to wait on the U$ economy to collapse, and then allow the
global predator to eat itself. Of course the wild card is the U$ lashing out in its death
throes, and just flat starting a major regional conflict or worse.
Saker,
Many thanks for the clear and succinct analysis.
I for one wonder if Iran decides to go asymmetrically rather than a direct confrontation as
the Iran people have shown to be strategic in their approach. In my humble opinion, I
consider Iran has much (more) to lose if the confrontation path is chosen.
Iran and its allies have reserves of oil and are located in a strategic position vis a vis
shipping routes. Additionally, a part of the conversation that has cropped up is the falling
value (and use of) the U$D. I think that is the weakest part of the US armour.
I hope Iran resists direct retaliation and works along the lines of accelerated debasement
and usage of the U$D.
That is a longer term goal but may be shorter than others. By the way, any resulting damage
may well be permanent.
Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try
invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.
1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a
military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest
internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that
would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical
fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").
2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to
leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire
for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran
could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to
pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.
3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and
diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.
Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded
terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.
"... The Pentagon stated that Trump's move was aimed at "deterring" Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham knows better. It's time, he announced on Twitter, to prepare for a "big counterpunch," including targeting Iran's oil refineries. ..."
Middle East. But why use a blowtorch to eradicate those malignant cells?
Containment would have done the trick -- and Iran was, as it happens, contained when Trump
became president in 2016. North Korea, Barack Obama warned him, would pose his most pressing
threat. It still does. Yet Trump, intent in ripping up the Iran nuclear deal, ended up
confecting a fresh crisis, a new road to war in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un can
resume testing and expanding his nuclear arsenal. Nor is this all. China and Russia can only
marvel at Washington's continued capacity for self-destruction as it indulges in a fresh
demonstration of the arrogance of power.
Former national security adviser John Bolton, who was ousted over his hawkishness toward
Iran and North Korea, must be rubbing his eyes in disbelief. Trump has performed a volte-face
though he may not be capable of realizing it. It was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who
engineered what could be a new Sarajevo moment, cancelling his impending trip to Ukraine and
helping to ensure the retaliatory strike in Iraq against Iran.
The problem, of course, is that this sets up a fresh round of hostilities that America is
ill-equipped to manage. Like Kaiser Wilhelm in World War I, Trump is likely to find that by
acceding to a conflict that he is unable to conduct, he will have ceded control to a hawkish
camarilla that sets his presidency on the path toward an unmitigated disaster. Make no mistake:
a war with Iran can be won. But the price would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
On This Day
0 seconds Do You Know What Happened Today In History? Jan 3 2000
The last original weekday Peanuts comic strip is published.
The Pentagon stated that Trump's move was aimed at "deterring" Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham
knows better. It's time, he announced on Twitter, to prepare for a "big counterpunch,"
including targeting Iran's oil refineries.
Like not a few presidents, Trump will almost certainly revel in being a wartime president,
at least initially. But there is no constituency for more war in America. Rather the reverse.
Trump has given the Democrats a lift, perhaps most of all Senator Bernie Sanders, who has
opposed America's serial confkucts abroad, though former vice president Joe Biden has also now
attacked Trump for tossing "a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox." Essentially Trump has wiped
the slate clean for Democrats like Biden who supported the 2003 Iraq War.
Goodbye, Donald Trump restrainer. Hello Donald Trump, neocon.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest .
"... Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they were this morning, and the president is responsible for that. ..."
ran hawks have been agitating for open conflict with Iran for years. Tonight, the Trump
administration obliged them by assassinating the top IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
and the head of Kata'ib Hezbollah in a drone strike in Baghdad:
Hard to understate how big this is
• Qassem Suleimani is Iran's most powerful mil figure in Region
• He runs Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
• Both men designated by US as Terrorist
• Muhandis was at US embassy attack protest, calls himself "Suleimani soldier"
Reuters reports
that a spokesman for the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq also confirmed the deaths:
Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi militia
commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed late on Thursday in an air strike on their convoy
in Baghdad airport, an Iraqi militia spokesman told Reuters.
Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the
more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that
guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners
in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that
he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a
high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new
war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers,
diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they
were this morning, and the president is responsible for that.
It is hard to convey how irrational and destructive this latest action is. The U.S. and Iran
have been dangerously close to war for months, but the Trump administration has made no effort
to deescalate tensions. All that it would take to push the two governments over the brink into
open conflict is a reckless attack that the other side cannot ignore. Now the U.S. has launched
just such an attack and dared Iran to respond. The response may not come immediately, but we
have to assume that it is coming. Killing Soleimani means that the IRGC will presumably
consider it open season on U.S. forces all across the region. The Iran obsession has led the
U.S. into a senseless new war that it could have easily avoided, and Trump and the Iran hawks
own the results.
Trump supporters have often tried to defend the president's poor foreign policy record by
saying that he hadn't started any new wars. Well, now he has, and he will be responsible for
the consequences to follow.
When US politicians comment about the country's adversaries, a an official narrative
harangue of disinformation and Big Lies follows so often these figures likely no longer can
distinguish between truth and fiction.
Washington's hostility toward Iran has gone on with nary a letup since its 1979 revolution
ended a generation of US-installed tyranny, the country regaining its sovereignty, free from
vassal state status.
On Monday, White House envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook stuck to the fabricated
official narrative in discussing Iran at the State Department.
He falsely called Sunday's Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraqi and Syrian sites
"defensive."
They had nothing to do with "protect(ing) American forces and American citizens in Iraq" or
Syria, nothing to do with "deterr(ing) Iranian aggression" that doesn't exist and never did
throughout Islamic State history -- how the US and its imperial allies operate, not Iran, the
region's leading proponent of peace and stability.
Hook lied saying Iraqi Kata'ib Hezbollah paramilitaries (connected to the country's Popular
Mobilization Forces) don't serve "the interests of the Iraqi people."
That's precisely what they do, including their earlier involvement in combatting
US-supported ISIS.
Hook turned truth on its head, accusing Iran of "run(ning) an expansionist foreign policy"
-- what US aggression is all about, not how Tehran operates.
Like other Trump regime officials, he threatened Iran, a nation able to hit back hard
against the US and its regional imperial partners if attacked -- why cool-headed Pentagon
commanders want no part of war with the country.
Kata'ib Hezbollah, other Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, and the vast majority of Iraqi
civilians want US occupation of their country ended.
For decades, US direct and proxy aggression, including sanctions war, ravaged the country,
killing millions of its people, causing appalling human suffering.
Hook: "(T)he last thing the (US) is looking for is (war) in the Middle East "
Fact: It's raging in multiple theaters, notably Syria and Yemen, once again in Iraq after
last Sunday's US aggression, more of the same virtually certain ahead.
State Department official David Schenker participated in Monday's anti-Iran propaganda
exercise with Hook.
Claiming the US wants regional de-escalation, not escalation, is polar opposite reality on
the ground in all its war theaters and in other countries where it conducts subversion against
their governments and people.
The best way the US could protect its citizens worldwide is by ending aggressive wars,
bringing home its troops, closing its empire of bases used as platforms for hostilities against
other nations, and declaring a new era of peace and cooperative relations with other
countries.
Based on its belligerent history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries to the present day,
this change of policy, if adopted, would be un-American.
Hook: "Iran has been threatening the region for the last 40 years" -- what's true about US
aggression, not how Tehran operates anywhere.
Hook: Iran "is facing its worst financial crisis and its worst political crisis in its
40-year history."
Fact: US war on the country by other means, economic terrorism, bears full responsibility
for its economic hardships, intended to harm its people, including Trump regime efforts to
block exports of food, drugs and medical equipment to Iran.
Fact: Hostile US actions toward Iran and countless other nations are flagrant international
law breaches -- the world community doing nothing to counter its hot wars and by other
means.
Fact: The Iranian "model" prioritizes peace and stability. Endless war on humanity is how
the US operates globally -- at home and abroad.
Fact: Iran isn't an "outlaw regime," the description applying to the US, its key NATO
allies, Israel, the Saudis, and their rogue partners in high crimes.
Hostile US actions are all about offense, unrelated to defense at a time when Washington's
only enemies are invented as a pretext for endless wars of aggression.
The US under both right wings of its war party poses an unparalleled threat to everyone
everywhere.
As long as its aggression goes unchallenged, the threat of humanity-destroying nuclear war
exists.
It could start anywhere -- in the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, or against Russia by
accident or design.
On New Year's day 2020, I'd love to be optimistic about what lies ahead.
As long as Republican and Dem hardliners pursue dominance over other nations by brute force
and other hostile means, hugely dangerous tinderbox conditions could ignite an uncontrollable
firestorm anywhere.
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard
University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the
University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research
analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until
retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005.
In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on
the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen
live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project
Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
US Congresswoman Maxine Waters has allegedly fallen for a prank call in which she thought
activist Greta Thunberg was offering her a tape of Donald Trump confessing to pressuring
Ukraine into investigating his political rivals. YouTube pranksters Vladimir Kuznetsov and
Alexey Stolyarov, who go by the names Vovan and Lexus, are claiming they tricked Waters
(Dem-Calif.) into thinking she was speaking to teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg.
Vovan and Lexus made names for themselves by previously pranking Congressman Adam Schiff
(Dem-Calif.) into thinking there were nude photos of US President Donald Trump that Schiff
could get his hands on. They also claim to have pranked Waters two years
ago, in a phone call where one posed as Ukraine's prime minister.
Though Waters herself has not responded to the new video, the woman at the other end of the
phone identifies herself as the congresswoman and sounds an awful lot like her.
In the call, the pranksters pretend to be Thunberg and her father, with help from a female
colleague, and claim to have proof that Trump pressured the Ukrainian government into
investigating his political rivals, something Democrats have claimed, for months now, is
true.
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
What's not to defend? "It contained secret protocols in which the two countries agreed to invade Poland jointly
and to divide Poland and the Baltic states between them in a sharing of the spoils of
aggressive war."
Totally untrue. Northern Star is just spouting Westie propaganda.
The Russian Foreign Ministry recently opened and published all the archives, including to
so-called "secret protocols". There is nothing in that to condemn Russia, even Stalin comes
out smelling like a rose.
I covered some of this
in my blog post here .
By the time the Red Army marched throug the "corridor", there was no Polish government left
to tell them no. The Poles did it to themselves, basically. They had an opportunity to ally
with the Soviets against Germany. Instead they did their usual stubborn, stupid thing and
brought it all upon themselves.
You cock sucking piece of shit! Worthless scum bag of oozing puss! A moronic failure of
single cell life unable to form a thought worth uttering yet that doesn't stop you!
Thought I would give your approach a try. Nope, not for me.
Must Putin be 'defending the Nazi-Soviet pact'? Or could he be defending the USSR's having
made an agreement after it approached all its erstwhile allies to stand with it against the
Nazis, and got only silence? Is he defending the substance of the pact itself, or the fact
that such an agreement had to be made after every attempt to avoid it through the building of
an alliance to resist the Nazis?
Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, called the killing of General Suleimani an act of
"international terrorism" and warned it was "extremely dangerous & a foolish
escalation."
"The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," Mr. Zarif
tweeted.
... ... ...
"From Iran's perspective, it is hard to imagine a more deliberately provocative act," said
Robert Malley, the president and chief executive of the International Crisis Group. "And it is
hard to imagine that Iran will not retaliate in a highly aggressive manner."
"Whether President Trump intended it or not, it is, for all practical purposes, a
declaration of war," added Mr. Malley, who served as White House coordinator for the Middle
East, North Africa and the gulf region in the Obama administration.
Some United States officials and Trump administration advisers offered a less dire scenario,
arguing that the show of force might convince Iran that its acts of aggression against American
interests and allies have grown too dangerous, and that a president the Iranians may have come
to see as risk-averse is in fact willing to escalate.
One senior administration official said the president's senior advisers had come to worry
that Mr. Trump had sent too many signals -- including when he called off a planned
missile strike in late June -- that he did not want a war with Iran.
Tracking Mr. Suleimani's location at any given time had long been a priority for the
American and Israeli spy services and militaries. Current and former American commanders and
intelligence officials said that Thursday night's attack, specifically, drew upon a combination
of highly classified information from informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance
aircraft and other surveillance.
The strike killed five people, including the pro-Iranian chief of an umbrella group for
Iraqi militias, Iraqi television reported and militia officials confirmed. The militia chief,
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was a strongly pro-Iranian figure.
The public relations chief for the umbrella group, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq,
Mohammed Ridha Jabri, was also killed.
American officials said that multiple missiles hit the convoy in a strike carried out by the
Joint Special Operations Command.
American military officials said they were aware of a potentially violent response from Iran
and its proxies, and were taking steps they declined to specify to protect American personnel
in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.
Two other people were killed in the strike, according to a general at the Baghdad joint
command, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the
news media.
... ... ...
The United States and Iran have long been involved in a shadow war in battlegrounds across
the Middle East -- including in Iraq, Yemen and Syria. The tactics have generally involved
using proxies to carry out the fighting, providing a buffer from a direct confrontation between
Washington and Tehran that could draw America into yet other ground conflict with no
discernible endgame.
The potential for a regional conflagration was a basis of the Obama administration's push
for a 2015 agreement that froze Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
Mr. Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, saying that Mr. Obama's agreement had emboldened
Iran, giving it economic breathing room to plow hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign
of violence around the region. Mr. Trump responded with a campaign of "maximum pressure" that
began with punishing new economic sanctions, which began a new era of brinkmanship and
uncertainly, with neither side knowing just how far the other was willing to escalate violence
and risk a wider war. In recent days, it has spilled into the military arena.
General Suleimani once described himself to a senior Iraqi intelligence official as the
"sole authority for Iranian actions in Iraq," the official later told American officials in
Baghdad.
In a speech denouncing Mr. Trump, General Suleimani was even less discreet -- and openly
mocking.
"We are near you, where you can't even imagine," he said. "We are ready. We are the man of
this arena."
Multiple
news sources are reporting the assassination, near Baghdad Airport, of Suliemani, the leader of
Irans Quds force. Some commentators are saying that this is "bigger than killing Bin Laden".
According to the Pentagon, the assassination was at the direct command of President Trump. I am
afraid this event, allegedly taken to forestall further attacks on US forces in Iraq, may have
unintended consequences.
To me, the logic of Trump in doing this is unfathomable. Did he intend to provoke Iran and
the Russians? What did he expect to achieve? Clearly the stress on the Iraqi Government is
going to be extreme. How has this assassination improved the security of U.S. forces in the
region? What does the Committee think?
I agree the stress on the Iraqi government will be intense. Will they force the US out?
Did Trump order this expecting that to happen? Or did he order this at the behest of Bibi,
MbS and the neocon contingent (Pompeo, Haspel, Esper, Kushner) he has surrounded himself
with, not really thinking through the implications.
The one scenario that I speculate that took place is the low-level "warfare" between US
forces and the various Iraqi/Iranian/Syrian militias got escalated. And Trump was being
"briefed" that it was all Iranian "influenced". That would have fit his generally anti-Iran
mindset and then he was presented with this "target of opportunity" and given seconds to
decide and he went with the flow to pull the trigger.
My sense is that while Iran will heat up the rhetoric, they won't retaliate militarily in
a direct and open manner. Instead they'll pile the pressure on the Iraqi government to expel
US forces.
The Mahdi Army is reportedly being reactivated, presumably they have some more combat
experience now thanks to the ISIS war. We have some 5,000 troops in the country and God knows
how many citizens there along with whatever we have in Syria. The Iranians are pissed and
want their revenge. The Iraqis are pissed too as is Hezbollah I'd imagine. I fear that this
is going to be bad.
Who is driving US policy in the region now, who is Trump listening to?
Once again the neocons have pulled off the seemingly impossible, imagine have the power
and cunning to have a country use their own servicemen as bait and cannon fodder to serve the
interests of a foreign country. Another nail in the American coffin, unfortunately.
I guess all Col. Lang's effort for the past 2 decades have been undermined. There is no way
that the assassination of a member of an Iranian equivalent of JCS will be tolerated. The
Iranian government will consider a lack of response to be interpreted as an invitation for
more adventurism by Trump admin. The whole talk about covert action is ignorant as the
Iranian foreign minister has already stated that there will be consequences.
The dice has been cast and at this point it really doesn't matter which faction within
Trump's entourage managed to start a conflict: the king-of-gamblers, Sheldon Adelson &
the rest of NeoConLibs, got their wish.
Not happy about it but nothing to do to reverse course.
I could it see it playing out in two general ways. Clearly, this could make things much
worse, across the entire Middle East. That's a given. On the other hand.....
It MIGHT be so that there are a lot of people in Iraq, Iran (yes, Iran) silently (for now,
if they know what is good for them in the short run) celebrating this hit. A lot of Iraqis
and Iranians have been killed by this guy's forces in the last few months. Alone. Who do we
think the people in Iraq and Iran have been protesting against? Al Quds. And there might even
be a few people in the Iranian govt who think now is the time to reduce, dramatically, the
influence of Al Quds. These facts should not be dismissed out of hand. But again, on the
other hand....
it may be deemed unholy and unpatriotic to celebrate taking out this SOB...as the lament
might go, 'he's an SOB but he;s our SOB!'.
I know this...I would be tempted to evacuate our embassy. Now. Like starting
yesterday.
We'll see. But I shed no tears for this guy. Nor do I celebrate it. Because either
way...it is grim. Now, if there was someone like the Col exploiting the vacuum and shock
waves certain to come in the wake of this...I would see opportunities. I repeat, a lot of
people in the Middle East did not like this guy or his organization...even if they don't like
the US too. But that kind of thing requires a mind that plays chess. And can kill, too. And I
don't see too many minds, and souls, like that in DC anymore.
In the very early spring of this year, I gave a lecture to European military personnel interested in the Middle East. It was scarcely
a year since Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chlorine
gas against the civilian inhabitants of the
Damascus suburb of Douma on 7 April 2018, in which 43 people were said to have been killed.
Few present had much doubt that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which represents 193 member states
around the world, would soon confirm in a final report that Assad was guilty of a war crime which had been condemned by Donald Trump,
Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May.
But at the end of my talk, a young Nato officer
who specialises in chemical weapons he was not British sought me out for a private conversation.
"The OPCW are not going to admit all they know," he said. "They've already censored their own documents."
I could not extract any more from him. He smiled and walked away, leaving me to guess what he was talking about. If Nato had doubts
about the OPCW, this was a very serious matter.
When it published its final report in March this year, the OPCW said that testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and
toxicological and ballistic analyses provided "reasonable grounds" that "the use of a toxic chemical had taken place" in Douma which
contained "reactive chlorine".
The US, Britain and France, which launched missile attacks on Syrian military sites in retaliation for Douma before any investigation
had taken place thought themselves justified. The OPCW's report was splashed across headlines around the world to the indignation
of Russia, Assad's principal military ally, which denied the validity of the publication.
Then, in mid-May 2019, came news of a confidential report by OPCW South African ballistics inspector Ian Henderson a document
which the organisation excluded from its final report which took issue with the organisation's conclusions. Canisters supposedly
containing chlorine gas may not have been dropped by Syrian helicopters, it suggested, and could have been placed at the site of
the attack by unknown hands.
Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday reported in detail on the Henderson document. No other mainstream media followed up this
story . The BBC, for example, had reported in full on the OPCW's final report on the use of chlorine gas, but never mentioned the
subsequent Henderson story.
And here I might myself have abandoned the trail had I not received a call on my Beirut phone shortly after the Henderson paper,
from the Nato officer who had tipped me off about the OPCW's apparent censorship of its own documents. "I wasn't talking about the
Henderson report," he said abruptly. And immediately terminated our conversation. But now I understand what he must have been talking
about.
For in the past few weeks, there has emerged deeply disturbing new evidence that the OPCW went far further than merely excluding
one dissenting voice from its conclusions on the 2018 Douma attack.
The most recent information published on WikiLeaks, in a report from Hitchens again and from Jonathan Steele, a former senior
foreign correspondent for The Guardian suggests that
the OPCW suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who
became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed
in order to represent the truth . (The OPCW has said in a number of statements that it stands by its final report.)
At first, senior OPCW officials contented themselves by merely acknowledging the Henderson report's existence a few days after
it appeared without making any comment on its contents. When the far more damaging later reports emerged in early November, Fernando
Arias, the OPCW's director general, said that it was in "the nature of any thorough enquiry for individuals in a team to express
subjective views. While some of the views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that
I stand by the independent, professional conclusion [of the investigation]." The OPCW declined to respond to questions from Hitchens
or Steele.
But the new details suggest that other evidence could have been left unpublished by the OPCW. These were not just from leaked
emails, but given by an OPCW inspector a colleague of Henderson who was one of a team of eight to visit Douma and who appeared
at a briefing in Brussels last month to explain his original findings to a group of disarmament, legal, medical and intelligence
personnel.
As Steele reported afterwards, in a piece published by Counterpunch in mid-November 2019, the inspector who gave his name to
his audience, but asked to be called "Alex" said he did not want to undermine the OPCW but stated that "most of the Douma team"
felt the two reports on the incident (the OPCW had also published an interim report in 2018) were "scientifically impoverished, procedurally
irregular and possibly fraudulent". Alex said he sought, in vain, to have a subsequent OPCW conference to address these concerns
and "demonstrate transparency, impartiality and independence".
For example, Alex cited the OPCW report's claim that "various chlorinated organic chemicals (COCs) were found" in Douma, but said
that there were "huge internal arguments" in the OPCW even before its 2018 interim report was published . Findings comparing chlorine
gas normally present in the atmosphere with evidence from the Douma site were, according to Alex, kept by the head of the Douma mission
and not passed to the inspector who was drafting the interim report. Alex said that he subsequently discovered that the COCs in Douma
were "no higher than you would expect in any household environment", a point which he says was omitted from both OPCW reports. Alex
told his Brussels audience that these omissions were "deliberate and irregular".
Alex also said that a British diplomat who was OPCW's chef de cabinet invited several members of the drafting team to his office,
where they found three US officials who told them that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack and that two cylinders found
in one building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors, Alex remarked, regarded this as unacceptable pressure and a
violation of the OPCW's principles of "independence and impartiality".
Regarding the comments from Alex, the OPCW has pointed to the statement by Arias that the organisation stands by its final report.
Further emails continue to emerge from these discussions. This weekend, for example, WikiLeaks sent to The Independent an apparent
account of a meeting held by OPCW toxicologists and pharmacists "all specialists in CW (Chemical Warfare)", according to the document.
The meeting is dated 6 June 2018 and says that "the experts were conclusive in their statements that there is no correlation between
symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure."
In particular, they stated that "the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported
by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos
were recorded". When I asked for a response to this document, a spokesman for the OPCW headquarters in Holland said that my request
would be "considered". That was on Monday 23 December.
Any international organisation, of course, has a right to select the most quotable parts of its documentation on any investigation,
or to set aside an individual's dissenting report although, in ordinary legal enquiries, dissenting voices are quite often acknowledged.
Chemical warfare is not an exact science chlorine gas does not carry a maker's name or computer number in the same way that fragments
of tank shells or bombs often do.
But the degree of unease within the OPCW's staff surely cannot be concealed much longer. To the delight of the Russians and the
despair of its supporters, an organisation whose prestige alone should frighten any potential war criminals is scarcely bothering
to confront its own detractors. Military commanders may conceal their tactics from an enemy in time of war, but this provides no
excuse for an important international organisation dedicated to the prohibition of chemical weapons to allow its antagonists to claim
that it has "cooked the books" by permitting political pressure to take precedence over the facts. And that is what is happening
today.
The deep concerns among some of the OPCW staff and the deletion of their evidence does not mean that gas has not been used in
Syria by the government or even by the Russians or by Isis and its fellow Islamists. All stand guilty of war crimes in the Syrian
conflict. The OPCW's response to the evidence should not let war criminals off the hook. But it certainly helps them.
And what could be portrayed as acts of deceit by a supposedly authoritative body of international scientists can lead some to
only one conclusion: that they must resort to those whom the west regards as "traitors" to security WikiLeaks and others if they
wish to find out the story behind official reports . So far, the Russians and the Syrian regime have been the winners in the propaganda
war. Such organisations as the OPCW need to work to make sure the truth can be revealed to everyone. Tags
Politics
Copyright 2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else?
Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily
recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox.
Please enter a valid
email
Bombing a civilian airport in another country in order to assassinate Iranian and Iraq
leaders is a very bad diplomacy ;-)
It might well be that today this idiot blow up his chances fro reelection because revenge is
dish that should be served cold and Iran can postpone it for 11 months or so.
What is interesting is that neoliberal MSM are glad and still talking about Zelensky and
impeachment. What a country ! It looks like the decade of the twenties can be the decade of
another World War. "In every war the first casualty is truth."
Journalist Alexander Petrakov in his article he stated that the Russian Federation is a lot
of evidence of innocence Russia and militias DND in the collapse of the Malaysian "Boeing".
"Your problem is that you have lived your whole life if there are rules. But there are no
rules." Lorne Malvo (series "Fargo", 2014)
Intelligence agencies recruit pornographers to lead their disinformation operations,
apparently because porn purveyors are so lacking in ethics they will tell public lies about
anything
Optimists probably should not read any further, as well as those who think that the higher
you sit the better you know. As well as pacifists, all those for thom "peace, friendship, and
chewing gum" has the absolute value, some kind of religion. I can't convince those types for
sure.
So I address this article to those who like me understand that it's time to start to think
independently, be skeptical. And do not absorb blindly what TV talk heads are saying, no matter
in what country you currently live and you nationality.
After the terrible catastrophe Malaysian liner we can see two major hypothesis, two points
of views and two "truth": one is Russian position and the second version promoted by Ukraine
and supported by the USA (or vice versa).
Which one you should believe more? The one that promoted by MSM of G7 countries or one that
is promoted Russian MSM by and some other from the "the rest of the world". The answer, in
fact, already evident. The "world-at-large" typically assumes that the "truth" is the view
represented by CNN, Fox News and Euronews. The one that is written on the pages of The New York
Times and republished by referring to "an unnamed source in the state Department" (or our very
special Jen Psaki) Washington Post.
I personally am confident that most of as see that despite is growing evidence of innocence
of rebels in the terrible tragedy the rest of the world these days and hours sees and hears
another, "alternative" hypothesis only.
"Civilized world" talk about "persuasive evidence" of the guilt of the Russian Federation
and the rebels of Donbass. Of evidence, however, is weak and contradictive. But it does not
matter. If you repeat a lie clearly and firmly, with honest eyes on a brave face of various and
sundry talking heads let's say one thousand times - people will say it's the fact; that it is
the axiom based on which events need to interpreted. This isan all trick but it works. "Why,
everybody knows about it", "all about this and they say".
This basic factor here is the power of PR. It is like artillery in was and as Napoleon noted
God is firmly on the side of those with better artillery. Repetition lead to adoption of
information and gradually a person begins to perceive it as his/her own point of view.
Especially if the same information is provided by the whole spectrum of media outlets - TV,
radio, Internet, and newspapers.
The average American, European, Japanese or Australian are brainwashed and belave that the
rebels robbed the dead people on the aircraft and then cash credit card dead in Russia. While
adding sure that this is "Russian rebels." As these "Russian rebels" learn or pick up in the
open field access codes, passwords to the cards are for some reason forgotten. And why? In a
democratic and free world video information rules and does not require any critical thinking:
many of wisdom is much grief...
In each of the first CNN necessarily adds that "Russia is hampered the investigation", but
it owes "effective and really help Ukraine," and that it "remained days or even hours, to show
good will".
How can "interfere" investigation on foreign territory nobody elaborates. And why...
everything is clear.
Then this phantasmagoria was added to the story of the companies Dutch and Malay over which
bogumiles... and again refrain is "Russian".
From the first day of Maidan in the focus of the world media was not Ukraine, and Russia -
all of us. Saying "Russia", "Russian" we have formed a new image in the eyes of the whole
world". First it was the image of aggressor, now it is the image of criminal, terrorist. Not
only conqueror, but the murderer.
And we are from the last bum up to the first person in the state did not understand, did not
want to understand that our actions, words, "signals" nothing depends on it. Because no matter
what he says and does Putin. It is important that will show and tell CNN.
Imagine that you are playing chess. On the table is a chess Board, the figures are placed in
the proper order. You sit down and make a move, then another. All as it should be. And your
opponent starts to move the pieces in random order. Then do sweeps them away from the Board and
yells at the whole audience that he won, and you're a cheater and a crook, but when you open
your mouth begins to beat you Board on the head.
So even if the Kremlin together wore embroidered shirts and jumped around the flag "right
sector, the world would have seen more. That will show and tell him free and NeroLive media.
That's why I did not believe and do not believe that our "restraint" someone and something to
"keep" and anybody, and I will convince.
We talked about the inhumanity, the horrors of the moods of Nazism in Ukraine elites in the
US and Europe. Told those who everyone knows and understands. And who simply don't care. This
same "Russians" harness, hammer, rape, blow up, shoot... the "Russian barbarians", not
"civilized people".
Maidan created the project "Banderovskiy-oligarachat" in Ukraine" and far right nationists
were allowed to do this by the west and after the victory pumped hatred to Russia to the skies.
To suspteinit they badly need a flase flag operation like MH17 to present Russians as the
monsters.
Unfortunately Russia was caught by this false flag operation with hands down and initially
tired to play by the rules of the normal world. But that faith that the West will dela tih
Russia bases on common rules applicable in notmal world fell a few days ago from a height of 10
km and shattered into many tiny fragments.
Ukraine IMHO originally I wrote about this in March, April, may and not designed it as a
trap. It might be an unfortunate incident due to decrepit state of Ukrainian air defense forces
(but the question why they moved them to this area remain in this case unanswered). But as soon
the shooing happened the plan emerge to blame it on Russia. To present it as an act of genocide
by Russian mercenaries.
But most importantly, it was to become a stage on which the imagies of the wreckage were
used to project the horror and disgust on Russia. They want to punish, to destroy us any cost
and any methods from economic to military.
We tried to convince ourselves of the last already strength (and many still do)that any -
even the most secret of our intervention, give a reason for the aggression against us. As if it
were a "pretext" for example, you cannot create a virtual, on the computer and then show around
the world. Or not to create artificially: blowing up the plane, the train, the city, nuclear
will dance...
Remember, as Secretary Powell was shaking in the UN powder with Siberian ulcer" from Saddam.
"The plague" was then washing powder. The country was bombed to the stage of democracy, and
Powell... apologized sparingly in his memoirs.
Remember about the plots of terrible Serbian concentration camps in 1994, in Srebrenica.
It's people came out in Europe on the streets and demanded to bomb, to punish, to stop. When
the "bombed, punished, stopped, it became clear that terrible place belonged... to Bosnian
Muslims of Izetbegovica, and dying people were just Serb prisoners. At that time anybody
especially did not even apologize.
Finally, remember about the shocking footage of atrocities troops Gaddafi, killing women,
children and the elderly. Already when Gaddafi was executed so that the footage was dashed
against this background, and Libya drowned in real blood, it turned out that all the
"atrocities" were shot in Qatar at a local Studio. Filmed venerable Hollywood Directors "at the
request of the sheikhs".
Why the attack with "Boeing". No, this is not an excuse to enter NATO troops (it different
enough to sign a bilateral agreement on military assistance, and then to show images of the
"Russian occupation of Kyiv"). This is a PR-move, information technology.
In the history blown up with "Boeing" are three possible answers, but the whole world hears
only one - it blew up "Russians" militias and the Russian Federation, we all are responsible
for that. No matter what the investigation has just begun, which is not examined a "black
boxes". Tube Powell is already lying on the table Obama, and the "free media" ready to show
people the terrible Serbian concentration camp".
Russian experts have already talked about all the falsifications. Posted we have trumps,
evidence. Only the world could see and hear more. About "Russian", nadrugalas over the dead and
robbed them. And about the "Russian" the terrorists of Donbass.
The testimony of our experts, Ministers, diplomats referred to as "doubtful" and "require
additional verification". Brad Avakov, screeching Poroshenko and all the hysteria over the
possessed Yatseniuk called "serious" and "convincing" evidence. It's hard, it's really not want
to believe we are living by the rules that don't exist. But it is a reality. And other reality
and never will.
The verdict is still pending, but already discussed future sanctions and made the first
proposal for "punishing Russia". Began policy - real and cynical, as usual.
What will be after the judgment has already announced the verdict?
Kiev junta now at the level of negotiations with heads of state and official requests of the
international organization requires to recognize the militias and their educated patterns -
terrorist network. As soon as the version on the guilt of the rebels is recognized by the
Western countries, LNR and DND declared outside the law from the point of view of the
international law.
Then Ukraine will likely together with one of the permanent members of the UN security
Council (USA, France or the United Kingdom) requests to enter into the conflict zone "blue
helmets of the United Nations, but not for peace, and for "police" transactions - by analogy
with African countries, where the UN staff often help governments to disarm or destroy
terrorist groups. No "cultivation and separation of the parties in such cases is not
performed.
The composition of the police corps, representatives of Russia, as we all understanding,
will not turn on. We now state - sponsor and accomplice of terrorists." As Iran, for
example.
How many will vote for our country - I don't know and guess not want. If you support a
resolution sadly, the South-East will be cleared by the Ukrainian guards and legalized under
the UN flag armies of Western countries. Around the Crimea they will also be created land and
then Maritime cordon.
If you use the right of veto, the world media will announce that we are "proved" his guilt
and continue to cover terrorists and murderers".
Sanctions against Russia in any of these scenarios would multiply and they will be really
ambitious, hard and long. States sponsoring terrorism "South stream" is not build and Mistral
they do not sell. And we are so seriously to sanctions not prepared, more talked about it on
TV. Of course, we will survive, but we have very hard and difficult.
Ukraine will begin to arm to the teeth as she bids to join NATO despite the fact that NATO
Charter prohibits to NATO countries with unsolved territorial problems from joining. They will
assign the status of associate member bloc.
But nothing is finished. Because first we were framed as aggressors. And the rest of the
world believed. Now we were framed as terrorists. And as soon as the "civilized world" would
believe it will become a logical last move: to put us beasts.
For weeks, it was Iranian consulates and facilities that bore the brunt of Iraqi
popular unrest. Iran reacted with restraint. With our lethal attacks on the Kata'ib
Hezbollah, we changed that. Pompeo, Esper and Trump are keeping up the trash talking.
Threatening Iran by killing Iraqis whose ass was that brilliant diplomatic strategy pulled
from?
####
US Ambassador to Poland gets her 2 cents in as regards the comments of Vladimir Putin and
others in the Empire of Evil concerning the Molotov – Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact
and Polish pre-WWII connivings with Nazi Germany.
Russian politicians had earlier strongly condemned the position of Warsaw, which does not
consider itself responsible for any of the events leading up to the outbreak of WWII in
Europe. Thus, the speaker of the state Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, urged Polish "colleagues" to
apologize for the anti-Semitic remarks of Jozef Lipsky, former Polish Ambassador to Nazi
Germany, who supported some ideas of Adolf Hitler and even suggested putting up a monument to
him in honour of his plans to deport European Jews to Madagascar. Russian Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also criticized the attempt of Poland to rewrite history in
favour of its political interests.
On Sunday, the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, criticized the signing of the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and actually laid the blame on the USSR for starting WWII along with
Nazi Germany.
Head of the scientific Department of the Russian Military Historical Society, Yuri
Nikiforov, noted that the Warsaw version of events leading to WWII was a "totally ideologized
interpretation of history by orderr" and had nothing to do with the historical truth, and was
promoting its version of history in order to weaken Russian influence on the world stage.
Drogi Prezydencie Putin, to Hitler i Stalin zmówili się, aby
rozpocząć II wojnę światową. To jest fakt. Polska była
ofiarą tego okropnego konfliktu.
Dear President Putin, it was Hitler and Stalin who agreed to start World War II.
This is a fact. Poland was a victim of this terrible conflict.
Dear American business executive, entrepreneur and untrained diplomat now acting as US
Ambassador to Poland, try studying some history.
By the way, before your plum appointment as ambassador to Poland, wasn't it you who
suggested that Poland was responsible for the re-emergence of anti-Semitism across the
continent of Europe because of a law which criminalizes blaming Poland for the actions of
Nazi Germany on its soil during the Holocaust?
And wasn't it headbanger of a Polish President Andrzej Duda who stated that if you were to
be appointed as the new U.S. ambassador to Poland, then you would be accepted, despite having
made "unnecessary and mistaken" comments about his country?
Can't you see that the truth as regards WWII matters is only that which is approved by the
Poles?
The Poles are putting Germany in an awkward position.
The official position of the modern German government (based on Nurnberg, etc.) is that
Germany, and Germany alone, is responsible for the outbreak of WWII. Not the Soviet Union.
Just Germany, ma'am, just Germany.
So, in the face of this Polish revisionism, as Russian analysts are pointing out, Germany
will either have to (a) bitch-slap Poland, or (b) renounce their entire official state policy
and historical ideology since their defeat in WWII and start singing Horst Wessel Lied
again.
"... Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. ..."
"... The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The workshop, which cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative journalism." ..."
In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average
person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by
experts behind the social curtain. In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations
for the practical work of Edward Bernays , who developed "public relations" (aka propaganda) to
carry out this task for the ruling elites. Bernays had honed his skills while working as a
propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a
public relations counselor in New York City.
There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis's documentary, The
Century of Self , where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals
his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake. He says
the reason he couldn't call his new business "propaganda" was because the Germans had given
propaganda a "bad name," and so he came up with the euphemism "public relations." He then adds
that "if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace." Of
course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer
the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with
fake news broadcasts). He says "the Germans gave propaganda a bad name," not Bernays and the
United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get
their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction). He sounds
proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the
"war to end all wars" and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI , Yankee Doodle Dandy
, made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn't achieve its lofty
goal.
As Bernays has said in his book Propaganda ,
The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world
today.
He was a propagandist to the end. I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these
softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is
asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his
legerdemain. It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly
insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a
different story. The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth
sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social "scientists,"
psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by
developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the
wishes of the ruling classes. Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the
development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media,
and that agency's courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s "the
compatible left," having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is
said, "wired," and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly
controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. Ask yourself: Has
the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks
increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that
Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.
This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called "average"
people's thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably
more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above
average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple
articles that offer different perspectives on a topic. This is what some call the professional
and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling
elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces. It is this segment of the
population that considers itself "informed," but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled
with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of
important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the
know.
Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the
population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the
blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are
often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger
number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then
passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.
There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat , started by an unemployed
Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with
deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in
so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the
International Emmy Award for best documentary. The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New
York City.
Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years
shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical
attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to,
among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane
in Ukraine.
It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for
the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been
praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent
independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others. It's
had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its
US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal
at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media's wall of silence on the leaks from the
Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical
attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the
spring of 2018. Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing,
and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW
scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.
Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy , fulfilling Bernays'
point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist
Chris Hedges . Why he did so, I don't know. But that he did so clearly sends a message to those
who follow his work and trust him that it's okay to give a major cultural award to a propaganda
outfit. But then, perhaps he doesn't consider Bellingcat to be that.
Nor, one presumes, does The Intercept , the billionaire Pierre Omidyar owned
publication associated with Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, and also read by many
progressive-minded people. The Intercept that earlier this year disbanded the small
team that was tasked with reviewing and releasing more of the massive trove of documents they
received from Edward Snowden six years ago, a minute number of which have ever been released or
probably ever will be. As
Whitney Webb pointed out , last year The Intercept hosted a workshop for
Bellingcat. She wrote:
The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently
hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The
workshop, which
cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in
how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial
investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long
publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is
becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is
increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders
NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative
journalism."
Then we have Jefferson Morley , the editor of The Deep State, former Washington
Post journalist, and JFK assassination researcher, who has written a praiseworthy review of the
Bellingcat film and who supports Bellingcat. "In my experience, Bellingcat is credible," he
writes in an Alternet article, "Bellingcat
documentary has the pace and plot of a thriller."
Morley has also just written an article for Counterpunch –
"Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn't a 'Managed Massacre'" – in which he disputes
the claim that the April 7, 2018 attack in the Damascus suburb was a false flag operation
carried out by Assad's opponents. "I do not see any evidence proving that Douma was a false
flag incident," he writes in this article that is written in a style that leaves one guessing
as to what exactly he is saying. It sounds convincing unless one concentrates, and then his
double messages emerge. Yet it is the kind of article that certain "sophisticated" left-wing
readers might read and feel is insightful. But then Morley, who has written considerably about
the CIA, edits a website that advertises itself as "the thinking person's portal to the world
of secret government," and recently had an exchange with former CIA Director John Brennan where
"Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest," said in February 2017, less than a month after
Trump was sworn in as president, that:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in
opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most -- perhaps the only -- credible check
in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "
wrecking ball presidency ."
Is it any wonder that some people might be a bit confused?
"I know what you're thinking about," said Tweedledum; "but it isn't so, nohow."
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it
would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
As a final case in point, there is a recent book by Stephen Kinzer , Poisoner in Chief:
Sidney Gottlieb And The CIA Search For Mind Control, t he story of the chemist known as
Dr. Death who ran the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control project, using LSD, torture, electric shock
therapy, hypnosis, etc.; developed sadistic methods of torture still used in black sites around
the world; and invented various ingenious techniques for assassination, many of which were
aimed at Fidel Castro. Gottlieb was responsible for brutal prison and hospital experiments and
untold death and suffering inflicted on all sorts of innocent people. His work was depraved in
the deepest sense; he worked with Nazis who experimented on Jews despite being Jewish
himself.
Kinzer writes in depth about this man who considered himself a patriot and a spiritual
person – a humane torturer and killer. It is an eye-opening book for anyone who does not
know about Gottlieb, who gave the CIA the essential tools they use in their "organized crime"
activities around the world – in the words of Douglass Valentine, the author of The
CIA as Organized Crime and The Phoenix Program . Kinzer's book is good history on
Gottlieb; however, he doesn't venture into the present activities of the CIA and Gottlieb's
patriotic followers, who no doubt exist and go about their business in secret.
After recounting in detail the sordid history of Gottlieb's secret work that is nauseating
to read about, Kinzer leaves the reader with these strange words:
Gottlieb was not a sadist, but he might well have been . Above all he was an instrument of
history. Understanding him is a deeply disturbing way of understanding ourselves.
What possibly could this mean? Not a sadist? An instrument of history? Understanding
ourselves? These few sentences, dropped out of nowhere, pull the rug out from under what is
generally an illuminating history and what seems like a moral indictment. This language is pure
mystification.
Kinzer also concludes that because Gottlieb said so, the CIA failed in their efforts to
develop methods of mind control and ended MK-ULTRA's experiments long ago. Why would he believe
the word of a man who personified the agency he worked for: a secret liar? He writes,
When Sydney Gottlieb brough MK-ULTRA to its end in the early 1960s, he told his CIA
superiors that he had found no reliable way to wipe away memory, make people abandon their
consciences, or commit crimes and then forget them.
As for those who might think otherwise, Kinzer suggests they have vivid imaginations and are
caught up in conspiracy thinking: "This [convincing others that the CIA had developed methods
of mind control when they hadn't] is Sydney Gottlieb's most unexpected legacy," he asserts. He
says this although Richard Helms, the CIA Director, destroyed all MK-Ultra records. He says
that Allen Dulles, Gottlieb, and Helms themselves were caught up in a complete fantasy about
mind control because they had seen too many movies and read too many books; mind control was
impossible, a failure, a myth, he maintains. It is the stuff of popular culture, entertainment.
In an interview with Chris Hedges, interestingly posted by Jefferson Morley at his website, The Deep State , Hedges agrees with Kinzer. Gottlieb, Dulles, et al. were all deluded.
Mind control was impossible. You couldn't create a Manchurian Candidate; by implication,
someone like Sirhan Sirhan could not have been programmed to be a fake Manchurian Candidate and
to have no memory of what he did, as he claims. He could not have been mind-controlled by the
CIA to perform his part as the seeming assassin of Senator Robert Kennedy while the real killer
shot RFK from behind. People who think like this should get real.
Furthermore, as is so common in books such as Kinzer's, he repeats the canard that JFK and
RFK knew about and pressured the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro. This is demonstrably false,
as shown by the Church Committee and the Assassinations Record Review Board, among many others.
That Kinzer takes the word of notorious liars like Richard Helms and the top-level CIA
operative Samuel Halpern is simple incredible, something that is hard to consider a mistake.
Slipped into a truth sandwich, it is devoured and passed on. But it is false. Bullshit meant to
deceive.
But this is how these games are played. If you look carefully, you will see them widely.
Inform, enlighten, while throwing in doubletalk and untruths. The small number of people who
read such books and articles will come away knowing some history that has no current relevance
and being misinformed on other history that does. They will then be in the know, ready to pass
their "wisdom" on to those who care to listen. They will not think they are average.
But they will be mind controlled, and the killer cat will roam freely without a bell, ready
to devour the unsuspecting mice.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
What Armstrong fails to connect is the need for the first to be accomplished so that the
second has a chance of complete success: Russia's political-economy needed resuscitating and
strong-arming in the case of the kleptocrats for Russia's condition to be as bright as it is
on the dawn of a new decade 1/5 of the way into the 21st Century.
Armstrong also tarries at length with Putin's 2007 Munich speech wherein Putin made one
very prescient observation: "It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And
at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also
for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
Armstrong uses Putin's observation made after the Outlaw US Empire's failed attempt to
prolong its Unipolar Moment in Iraq after it attacked itself to cause that conlict to show
the self-inflicted damage has yet to stop:
"Do we not see this today? The USA is tearing itself apart over imagined Russian
collusion, imagined Russian electoral interference and real Ukrainian corruption. And,
meanwhile, the forever wars go on and on."
In 2016, I thought there was an excellent chance the D-Party would splinter in a manner
similar to 1860 that was generated by both bottom->up and top->down forces. And in
light of the court decision allowing the DNC to name whomever it wants as its POTUS and VEEP
candidates regardless of both primary and convention balloting, IMO that possibility is even
greater as like 2016 the DNC will not--cannot--anoint Sanders as its POTUS candidate. But all
that's the subject for another comment.
The dynamics of geopolitics has allowed the China/Russia team and its allies to usher the
EU into Eurasian integration over the next decade while exposing the Outlaw US Empire as
nothing but a Ponzi Scheme that will collapse upon itself at some point in time.
"2020 will be a year of milestone significance. We will finish building a moderately
prosperous society in all respects and realize the first centenary goal. 2020 will also be a
year of decisive victory for the elimination of poverty....
"Human history, like a river, runs forever, witnessing both peaceful moments and great
disturbances. We are not afraid of storms and dangers and barriers. China is determined to
walk along the road of peaceful development and will resolutely safeguard world peace and
promote common development. We are willing to join hands with people of all countries in
the world to build together the Belt and Road Initiative, and push forward the building of a
community with a shared future for mankind, and make unremitting efforts for the creation of
a beautiful future for mankind ." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, China has grasped the leadership role abandoned by the Outlaw US Empire for
promoting humanity, Trump and Pompeo's daily actions giving China's position a continual
boost.
Putin's New
Year speech is short but emphasizes his key points. Do note that for Russians the New
Year celebration is akin to the West's Christmas (or perhaps was is the better verb):
"Friends, we always prepare for the New Year in advance and, despite being busy, we
believe that the warmth of human relations and companionship are the most important thing. We
strive to do something important and useful for other people and to help those who require
our support, to make them happy by giving them presents and our attention.
"Such sincere impulses, pure thoughts and selfless generosity are the true magic of the
New Year holiday. It brings out the best in people and transforms the world filling it with
joy and smiles.
"Uplifting New Year's feelings and wonderful impressions have been living in us since
childhood and come back every New Year, when we hug our loved ones, our parents, prepare
surprises for our children and grandchildren, decorate the New Year tree with them and unpack
once again paper cut-outs, baubles and glass garlands. These, sometimes ancient, but beloved
family trinkets give their warmth to the younger generations."
His preamble is nationalist; his message paternalistic and humanist.
IMO, the Scrooges of the Outlaw US Empire's Current Oligarchy haven't a chance versus the
likes of Putin, Xi and their likeminded allies.
I'll leave my fellow barflies with this 32 year-old music video that IMO well
expresses the heart sets of Putin, Xi, and those of us who want to share the world they're
trying to build instead of what the Outlaw US Empire's trying to pull down and destroy.
Last week, we
considered how the Bush and Obama administrations worked in tandem – wittingly or
unwittingly, but I'm betting on the former – to move forward with the construction of a
US missile defense system smack on Russia's border following the attacks of 9/11 and Bush's
decision to scrap the ABM Treaty with Moscow.
That aggressive move will go down in the (non-American) history books as the primary reason
for the return of Cold War-era atmosphere between Washington and Moscow. Currently, with the
mainstream news cycle top-heavy with 24/7 'Russiagate' baloney, many people have understandably
forgotten that it was during the Obama administration when US-Russia relations really hit rock
bottom. And it had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's home computer getting allegedly
compromised by some Russia hackers.
The year is 2008; welcome to the international peace tour – although 'farce tour'
would be much more accurate. Fatigued by 8 long years of Bush's disastrous war on terror, with
over 1 million dead, maimed or on the run, the world has just let out a collective sigh of
relief as Barack Obama has been elected POTUS. Due to Obama's velvety delivery, and the fact
that he was not George W. Bush, he was able to provide the perfect smokescreen as far as
Washington's ulterior motives with regards to Russia were concerned; the devious double game
America was playing required a snake-oil salesman of immeasurable skill and finesse.
Just months into his presidency, with 'hope and change' hanging in the air like so many
helium balloons, Obama
told a massive crowd in Prague that, "To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will
negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. President Medvedev
and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that
is legally binding and sufficiently bold (Applause!)."
It would take another 8 years for the world – or at least the awakened part – to
come to grips with the fact that America's 'first Black president' was just another
smooth-talking, Wall Street-bought operator in sheep clothing. In the last year of the Obama
reign, it has been conservatively estimated that some 26,000 bombs of various size and power
were duly dropped against enemies in various nations. In other words, nearly three bombs every
hour, 24 hours a day.
But more to the point, US-Russia relations on Obama's watch experienced their deepest
deterioration since the days of the US-Soviet standoff. In fact, with the benefit of hindsight,
we can say that the 44th US president picked up almost seamlessly where Bush left off, and then
some. Initially, however, it looked as though relations with Russia would improve as Obama
announced
he would "shelve" the Bush plan for ground-based interceptors in Poland and a related radar
site in the Czech Republic. Then, the very same day, he performed a perfect flip-flop into the
geopolitical pool, saying he would deploy a
sea-based variety – which is every bit as lethal as the land version, as then Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates
admitted – instead of a land-locked one.
Following that announcement, Obama appeared intent on lulling Moscow into a false sense of
security that the system was somehow less dangerous than the Bush model, or that the Americans
would eventually agree and cooperate with them in the system. In March 2009, a curious thing
happened at the same time relations between the two global nuclear powers were hitting the
wall. A
meeting – more of a photo opportunity than any significant summit – took place
between then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
in Geneva. To the delight of the phalanx of photographers present, Clinton, in a symbolic
gesture of "resetting relations" with Russia, produced a yellow box with a red button and the
Russian word "peregruzka" printed on it.
"You got it wrong," Lavrov said to general laughter. "It should be "perezagruzka" [reset],"
he corrected somewhat pedantically. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"
Clinton gave a very interesting response, especially in light of where we are today in terms
of the bilateral breakdown: "We won't let you do that to us, I promise. We mean it and we look
forward to it."
As events would prove, the US State Department's 'mistaken' use of the Russian word for
'overcharged' instead of 'reset' was far closer to the truth. After all, can anybody remember a
time in recent history, aside from perhaps the Cuban Missile Crisis, when US-Russia relations
were more "overcharged" than now? In hindsight, the much-hyped 'reset' was an elaborate ploy by
the Obama administration to buy as much time as possible to get a strategic head start on the
Russians.
It deserves mentioning that the fate of the New START Treaty (signed into force on April 8,
2010), the nuclear missile reduction treaty signed between Obama and
then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, hung in the balance on mutual cooperation between the
nuclear powers. Nevertheless, it became clear the Obama sweet talk was just a lot of
candy-coated nothing.
What is truly audacious about the Obama administration's moves is that it somehow believed
Moscow would radically reduce its ballistic missile launch capabilities, as prescribed in the
New START treaty, at the very same time the United States was building a mighty sword along the
entire length of its Western border.
The Obama administration clearly underestimated Moscow, or overestimated Obama's charm
powers.
By the year 2011, after several years of failed negotiations to bring Russia onboard the
system, Moscow's patience was clearly over. During the G-8 Summit in France, Medvedev
expressed frustration with
the lack of progress on the missile defense system with the US.
"When we ask for the name of the countries that the shield is aimed at, we get silence," he
said. "When we ask if the country has missiles (that could target Europe), the answer is
'no.'"
"Now who has those types of missiles (that the missile defense system could counter)?"
"We do," Medvedev explained. "So we can only think that this system is being aimed against
us."
In fact, judging by the tremendous strides Russia has made in the realm of military
technologies over a very short period, it is apparent the Kremlin understood from the outset
that the 'reset' was an elaborate fraud, designed to cover the administration's push to Russian
border.
As I wrote last week on these pages: "In March, Putin stunned the world, and certainly
Washington's hawks, by announcing
in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems
– including those with hypersonic capabilities – designed to overcome any missile
defense system in the world.
These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the
benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an
aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral
pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.
As far as 'Russiagate', the endless probe into the Trump administration for its alleged
collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, not a shred of incriminating evidence has ever been
provided that would prove such a thing occurred. And when Putin offered
to cooperate with Washington in determining exactly what happened, the offer was rebuffed.
In light of such a scenario, it is my opinion that the Democrats, fully aware –
despite what the skewed media polls erringly
told them – that Hillary Clinton stood no chance of beating the Republican Donald
Trump in the 2016 presidential contest, set about crafting the narrative of 'Russian collusion'
in order to not only delegitimize Trump's presidency, possibly depriving him of a second term
in 2010, but to begin the process of severely curtailing the work of 'alternative media,' which
are in fact greatly responsible for not only Trump's victory at the polls, but for exposing the
dirt on Clinton's corrupt campaign.
These alternative media sites have been duly linked to Russia in one way or another as a
means of silencing them. Thus, it is not only Russia that has been victimized by the lunacy of
Russiagate; every single person who stands for the freedom of speech has
suffered a major setback one way or another.
Part I of this story is available
here . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the
Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Cold War George W. Bush Obama RussiagateSTART
Congratulations from me too!
Especially your work on OPCW! Even a MSM "alpha journalist" like Hitchens was forced to give
props to you reporting those otherwise not reported information about the hospital "victims"
being there even before the alleged attack!
Sadly i dont see the US pulling out of Iraq. The US is wanted there by a huge part of the
Iraqis (As counterweight to Iran), not only by Sunni, but also by many Shias.
Even a totally pro-Shia reporter like Elijah reports that. So with that large Anti-Iran
sentiment the US will not be forced to leave until Iraqis from ALL confessions, tribes,
political factions and other groups agree to force the US out.(I dont claim the Anti-Iran
sentiment in Iraq is as valid as those people think, and it certainly is fueled by Gulf state
and US propaganda, but it is a fact this sentiment is prevalent).
As Elijah writes, Iraqis are "emotional", in this context meaning easily manipulated by
(anti-Iran) propaganda/fake news, and just like the protests/riots without coherent political
plan, and realistic objectives.
Also Iran was pretty crude and Qassem Soleimani not as subtle as needed when they tried to
use their soft power in the political struggle, opposed to the gulf states and the US. At
least this is the prevailing view of the Iraqis, which makes it real for them, no matter how
valid it is or not is.
Many Iraqis felt offended by this, and they now have a very strong patriotism, which
fueled the riots and attacks on Iranian linked targets. They felt their honor was attacked,
and they acted as their culture and society demands when someone offends you: They hit back,
violently.
That the US has this time not used their power as much as before to influence Iraq in the
elections, likely made Iran's use of soft power more visible, and therefore led many Iraqis
to see the US and gulf states as the smaller evil.
This unreflected, emotional and often violent patriotism now seems to be universally for
most Iraqis. Even the Shia religious leaders agitate for a sovereign Iraqis, without any
interference from Iran or US. So the US clearly won the battle here for the moment in a
hybrid war/soft power view concerning the public image of Iran in Iraq.
Only thing that could turn this around fast would be a public outcry against the US.
If the current air strikes are enough? i dont think so. The US can claim they only
attacked Iran linked soldiers, even though they are now part of the Iraqi army command
strucure, and many Iraqis have no problem with that.
And as Iraqis are sick of war, understandable, they also dont want those Iranian linked
forces to use Iraq as a battleground against the US. And the multiple attacks in the last
weeks against US installations to which the US did not react militarily, are seen by many
Iraqis as just that; Iran misusing Iraq as a proxy battleground to fight the US. They think
the US had to react sometime.
Then there is Al Sadr, who is rumored to be the main man who instigated the riots against
Iranian targets with his forces. But he may change sides and now turn (again) against the US,
who knows.
All in all, the US now seems less interested to influence politics in Iraq directly like the
US always did before. Trump seems to really want to get out of the MENA and focus on China
etc.
But Iran would have to act more cleverly with a soft power approach to turn the Iraqis
currently bad image of Iran into something more positive and leverage that situation where
the US is less focused on the Middle East.
Then, and only then, if the Iraqis would not see Iran as a threat to sovereignty anymore,
would they force the US out of Iraq.
But all that may not matter anyway, as Iraq is on a downward spiral, and the whole political
system reeks of Weimar.
Democracy is seen by the majority now as the rule of the corrupt. The protesters rallied
for the Shia general (connected to the US) who (in their mind) saved them from Isis to take
over and clean the corrupt politicians out. Just like Saddam was a hope for most Iraqis back
in the day.
An "enlightened despot".
And while it may send shivers down many of our western political minds who believe that
our ideology is universal to humanity(Social Democracy, Neo Liberal Democracy, Socialism,
..):
Maybe it is the only realistic option; The best realistic result based on realpolitik.
The Middle East is not Western Europe. Democracy does work not in tribalism, islamic
tradition and law, sectarianism, without any real civil society whatsoever.
The only options are living like the last 1500 years politically; Anarchic and tribalistic.
Or with a central state hold together by a ruthless despot that gouverns respecting popular
demands.
Western Democracy in Iraq is an imperialistic project doomed to fail. As sad as this may be
for many of us westerners.
This Jewish Vulture Capitalism is the way our Jewish Oligarchs act all over the world.
Russia was pillaged by them in the 1990s. Putin ended their reign of terror. This is the main
reason Putin is so demonized in the Zion Vulture ruled West.
A few enlightened industrialists, such as Henry Ford, even went so far as to make the
improvement of the lives of workers a priority, and to warn the people against the growing
financial power of the international Jew.
Ford's warnings were prophetic. We are living in the second great Gilded Age in America,
but the new Jewish oligarchs of the 21st century differ from their predecessors in several
important ways. For one, they mostly built their fortunes through parasitic–rather
than productive–sources of wealth, such as usury or real estate speculation.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 DiGenova: Comey And Brennan Were 'Coup
Leaders' by Tyler
Durden Wed, 01/01/2020 - 19:30 0 SHARES
Former US Attorney Joe diGenova told OANN 's John Hines that former FBI Director
James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan were "coup leaders" in an attempt to reverse
the outcome of the 2016 US election.
DiGenova says the Obama Justice Department was corrupted under Attorneys General Eric Holder
and Loretta Lynch, "with the authority and knowledge of then-president" Obama, and that a
'stupid and arrogant' Susan Rice was dumb enough to document his knowledge in a January 20th,
2017 email.
"And you'll never forget, I'm sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of
Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a
meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement
and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the
president announced - President Obama - that he was sure that everything had been done by the
book.
I want to thank Susan Rice for being so stupid and so arrogant to write that email on
January 20th because that's exhibit A for Barack Obama - who knew all about this from start
to finish, and was more than happy to have the civil rights of a massive number of Americans
violated so he could get Donald Trump." -Joe diGenova
Moreover, diGenova says that after "all this stuff involving Trump and Page and Papadopoulos
and Michael Flynn," anyone who couldn't see that the "corrupt investigative process of the FBI
and DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d'état" is an idiot.
"This was not hard. If you're a good prosecutor you look at the facts in the Trump case,
and the Page case, the Flynn case. There's only one conclusion you can come to; none of this
makes any sense. None of these people were evil. None of them. They were framed , and the
whole process was playing out, and you knew it on July 5th 2016, when James Comey announced -
usurping the functions of the Attorney General, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a
case against Hillary Clinton. That was ludicrous! She destroyed 30,000 emails that were under
subpoena. If you or I did that, we would be in prison today . She got a break because she was
Hillary Clinton, and James Comey was trying to kiss her fanny because he wanted something
from her when she became president of the United States.
All of these people who watched that news conference and didn't think that it was a
disgrace for the FBI. And then subsequently, watched all this stuff involving Trump and Page
and Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn - and couldn't see that the corrupt investigative process
of the FBI and the DOJ was basically being used to conduct a coup d'état . I mean you
have to be an idiot. Any first year assistant US attorney would look at all these facts and
say 'there's a coup underway. There's a conspiracy.'
But for those of us thought that, the Washington Post, the New York Times. We were
'conspiracy theorists.' You know what? Pretty damn good theory, it appears today.
" To what extent is the CIA involved in this? " asked Hines.
" Well there's no doubt that John Brennan was the primogenitor of the entire
counterintelligence investigation, " replied diGenova. "It was John Brennan who went to James
Comey and basically pummeled him into starting a counterintelligence investigation against
Trump. Brennan's at the heart of this. He went around the world. He enlisted the help of
foreign intelligence services. He's responsible for Joseph Mifsud and other people."
" People do not have even the beginning of an understanding of the role that John Brennan
played in this . He is a monstrously important person, and I underscore monstrously important
person. He has done more damage to the Central Intelligence Agency - it's equal to what James
Comey has done to the FBI. It's pretty clear that James Comey will go down in history as the
single worst FBI director in history, regardless of how Mr. Durham treats him."
Brennan was just the puppet. The real question is who the power brokers were behind the
scenes pulling strings and giving all the government officials cover. That's probably what
Durham is/needs to get to the bottom of. Hillary is untouchable until those guys get the book
thrown at them. My guess is the Queen is involved, probably the Vatican and Mossad as
well.
Full agreement with Joe DiGenova. In addition, I believe President Obama was an instigator
of this coup d'état. It could only happen in the intelligence field with his consent.
His whole persona is based on his willingness to calculate political gain and he had no
qualms or ethics. He was hailed as the first "black" President. His role in this coup was
made possible by all the people who thought black people were inferior and needed an
opportunity to get ahead. Depending upon how you look at that, that picture is in tatters.
Black folks are incredibly fortunate to have President Trump who will not blame black folks
for the travesties and destruction wrought by another black man. Would a died in the wool
radical like Hillary Clinton think that way?
The good men of the agencies should punish Comey and Brennan. They have "six ways 'til
Tuesday to get even." Why not teach them a lesson from the inside? Many MANY people in the
agency have been insulted by this and they deserve justice against Comey and Brennan.
Gotta give it to the OAN network. They're not dumb. If this actually DID pan out
(indictments and such, as a result of this investigative stuff, with no help whatsoever from
Barr, etc.), then OAN will be the lead network covering this.
Needless to say, it speaks VOLUMES upon VOLUMES, that Fox News isn't covering this (other
than Hannity).
"And you'll never forget, I'm sure, that famous Susan Rice email on inauguration day of
Donald Trump, where she sends an email to the file memorializing that there had been a
meeting on January 5th with the president of the United States, all senior law enforcement
and intelligence officials, where they reviewed the status of Crossfire Hurricane and the
president announced - President Obama - that he was sure that everything had been done by the
book."
Now... let's, for a moment, imagine this scene.
We've already had a Watergate in our history, involving the spying of one party on
another during a presidential campaign season.
These people know how that turned out.
Most of them are lawyers, and at least one is a supposed Constitutional
scholar and professor of Constitutional law.
That's Blo.
Does Rice really expect us to believe they didn't know Crossfire Hurricane was based on
Clinton Campaign-paid for ********?
Wouldn't a law professor president wanna know the basis, and the veracity of the
details, of such a risky operation before authorizing it?
Or are we to believe he merely accepted the assembled "assurances" in this meeting?
Were there presidential meetings about spying on Trump that occurred well before this
one?
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Russia became America's sworn enemy in the
aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. As is often the case, however, conventional wisdom
can be illusory.
In the momentous 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a faraway dark
kingdom known as Russia, the fantastic fable goes, hijacked that part of the American brain
responsible for critical thinking and lever pulling with a few thousand dollars' worth of
Facebook and Twitter adverts, bots and whatnot. The result of that gross intrusion into the
squeaky clean machinery of the God-blessed US election system is now more or less
well-documented history brought to you by the US mainstream media: Donald Trump, with some
assistance from the Russians that has never been adequately explained, pulled the presidential
contest out from under the wobbly feet of Hillary Clinton.
For those who unwittingly bought that work of fiction, I can only offer my sincere
condolences. In fact, Russiagate is just the latest installment of an anti-Russia story that
has been ongoing since the presidency of George W. Bush.
Act 1: Smokescreen
Rewind to September 24 th , 2001. Having gone on record as the first global
leader to telephone George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Putin showed
his support went beyond mere words. He announced a five-point plan to support America in the
'war against terror' that included the sharing of intelligence, as well as the opening of
Russian airspace for US humanitarian flights to Central Asia.
In the
words of perennial Kremlin critic, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, Putin's
"acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled a reversal of two hundred years of
Russian foreign policy. Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always
considered Central Asia as its 'sphere of influence.' Putin broke with that tradition."
In other words, the new Russian leader was demonstrating his desire for Russia to have, as
Henry Kissinger explained it some seven years
later, "a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice."
This leads us to the question for the ages: If it was obvious that Russia was now fully
prepared to enter into a serious partnership with the United States in the 'war on terror,'
then how do we explain George W. Bush announcing the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty just three months later? There are some things we may take away from that move, which
Putin tersely and rightly
described as a "mistake."
First, Washington must not have considered a security partnership with Moscow very
important, since they certainly understood that Russia would respond negatively to the decision
to scrap the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. Second, the US must not considered the 'war on terror'
very serious either; otherwise it would not have risked losing Russian assistance in hunting
down the baddies in Central Asia and the Middle East, geographical areas where Russia has
gained valuable experience over the years. This was a remarkably odd choice considering that
the US military apparatus had failed spectacularly to defend the nation against a terrorist
attack, coordinated by 19 amateurs, armed with box cutters, no less. Third, as was the case
with the
decision to invade Iraq, a country with nodiscernible connection to the events of 9/11, as
well as the imposition of the pre-drafted
Patriot Act on a shell-shocked nation, the decision to break with Russia seems to have been a
premeditated move on the global chessboard. Although it would be hard to prove such a claim, we
can take some guidance from Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, who notoriously advised,
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pb-YuhFWCr4
So why did Bush abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia? The argument was that some "rogue
state," rumored to be Iran, might be tempted to launch a missile attack against "US interests
abroad." Yet there was absolutely no logic to the claim since Tehran was inextricably bound by
the same principle of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) as were any other states that
tempted fate with a surprise attack on US-Israeli interests. Further, it made no sense to focus
attention on Shia-dominant Iran when the majority of the terrorists, allegedly acolytes of
Osama bin Laden, reportedly hailed from Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Bush
administration happily sacrificed an invincible relationship with Russia in the war on terror
in order to guard against some external threat that only nominally existed, with a missile
defense system that was largely unproven in the field. Again, zero logic.
However, when it is considered that the missile defense system was tailor-made by America
specifically with Russia in mind, the whole scheme begins to make more sense, at least from a
strategic perspective. Thus, the Bush administration used the attacks of 9/11 to not only
dramatically curtail the civil rights of American citizens with the passage of the Patriot Act,
it also took the first steps towards encircling Russia with a so-called 'defense system' that
has the capacity to grow in effectiveness and range.
For those who thought Russia would just sit back and let itself be encircled by foreign
missiles, they were in for quite a surprise. In March 2018, Putin stunned the world, and
certainly Washington's hawks, by announcing
in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems
– including those with hypersonic capabilities – designed to overcome any missile
defense system in the world.
These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the
benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an
aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral
pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.
Now, US officials can only wring their hands in angst while speaking about an "aggressive
Russia."
"Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to
the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective,"
declared Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.
Putin reiterated in his Address, however, that there would have been no need for Russia to
have developed such advanced weapon systems if its legitimate concerns had not been dismissed
by the US.
"Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem," he said. "Nobody listened to us.
Now you listen!"
To be continued: Part II: Reset, or 'Overcharged' The views of individual
contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags:
Deep State
Russiagate
Russia has received a lot of criticism over the bombing of alleged 'hospitals' in Syria
which were registered on a UN sponsored list. The Russian military argued that the positions on
the UN list were not of real hospitals but of ammunition depots or command centers of the
Jihadists. After it had published dozens of articles bashing Russia's campaign the New York
Times has finally admitted that Russia was right:
United Nations officials only recently created a unit to verify locations provided by relief
groups that managed the exempt sites, some of which had been submitted incorrectly, The Times
found. Such instances of misinformation give credibility to Russian criticisms that the
system cannot be trusted and is vulnerable to misuse.
...
The groups give locations of their own choosing to the United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the agency that runs the system.
A document prepared by the agency warned that participation in the system "does not
guarantee" the safety of the sites or their personnel. The document also stated that the
United Nations would not verify information provided by participating groups.
...
While investigating an airstrike in November, The Times discovered that a relief group had
provided coordinates for its health center that were around 240 meters away. When another
hospital was bombed in May, The Times found that the coordinates submitted by its supporting
organization pointed to an unrelated structure around 765 meters north.
After questions from The Times prompted the organization to review its deconfliction list,
a staff member discovered that it had provided the United Nations with incorrect locations
for 14 of its 19 deconflicted sites . The original locations had been logged by a pharmacist.
The list had been with the United Nations humanitarian agency for eight months, and no one
had contacted the organization to correct the locations, a member of the organization's staff
said.
Interesting news. ANNA NEWS, in a recent report, announced an investigation into the infamous
"White Helmets". The material promises to be very interesting, with an abundance of exclusive
video, details, interviews etc. The film should be released tomorrow (December 30 at 19h
Moscow time).
Btw, I do not exclude the possibility that when this movie is released, the ANNA NEWS
youtube channel account will suddenly be blocked again without explanation. Will see.
Breaking news from the NYT: 19 of the 20 reports so far of the destruction of the last
hospital in Idlib were untrue. The incorrect locations were submitted by the White Helmets
(just an honest mistake).
I linked to ZeroHedge's reposting because of the comments which reflect skepticism about
the apparent death of Jeffery Epstein as well as James Le Mesurier:
Zappalives This guy is probably having a cocktail with epstein and his new girl whores.
Kreator Coroner concluded that this suicide was one of the most unusual ones that he ever saw.
Founder of White Helmets was found stabbed, hanged and shot.
Colonel Klinks Ghost This has CIA/Mossad written ALL over it. And Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. Got
it!
Cluster_Frak White Helmet is a CIA fraud, and the founder retired with full pension and benefits.
Suicide was just a cover for a job well done exit.
Baghdadi's killing was also rather strange.
One either believes the Empire kills those in its service when they have become
inconvenient liabilities or these guys (Le Mesurier, Epstein, Baghdadi) were extracted and
are living comfortably in retirement.
I didn't see it in the NYT article, but the false reporting of the hospital locations by
"multiple NGOs" was supposedly just done "accidently". That's according to an NYT
investigator who used to work for Bellingcat. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1211384089472843778
My previous comment about the last hospital in Idlib was a joke, but the NYT's Mr.
Triebert seems to be serious about the accidental fake news about hospital locations. RIP
satire.
The take away quote
"
Up until the OPCW leaks, WikiLeaks drops always made mainstream news headlines. Everyone
remembers how the 2016 news cycle was largely dominated by leaked Democratic Party emails
emerging from the outlet. Even the relatively minor ICE agents publication by WikiLeaks last
year, containing information that was already public, garnered headlines from top US outlets
like The Washington Post , Newsweek, and USA Today. Now, on this exponentially more important
story, zero coverage.
The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of
equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole
litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world;
questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they
normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the
existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such
conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to
account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in
that conspiracy of silence?
"
Imbecilization of discussion of controversial issues like in case of your comment is a normal
development typical for the periods of intellectual declines which naturally follows the economic
decline of a given empire.
There's growing evidence the West is going through the same process as the USSR.
Mike Figueroa from The Humanist Report has got a bunch of angry leftists hating on Tulsi
Gabbard for her Christmas greeting
today on twitter and youtube, they are claiming Tulsi is "too religious" or "she is pandering
to evangelicals." They have gone insane obviously and are hating on Tulsi for other reasons
(she dares challenge Bernie for president). Pam Ho breaks it all down for you at Like, In The
Year 2024
The take away quote
"
Up until the OPCW leaks, WikiLeaks drops always made mainstream news headlines. Everyone
remembers how the 2016 news cycle was largely dominated by leaked Democratic Party emails
emerging from the outlet. Even the relatively minor ICE agents publication by WikiLeaks last
year, containing information that was already public, garnered headlines from top US outlets
like The Washington Post , Newsweek, and USA Today. Now, on this exponentially more important
story, zero coverage.
The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of
equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole
litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world;
questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they
normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the
existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such
conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to
account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in
that conspiracy of silence?
"
"Why do so many people in the West have this knee-jerk need to try to build false
equivalencies between their criminal empire and other systems, or voice cynical and unfounded
assumptions of malfeasance by those other systems whenever those other systems demonstrate
superiority? It is an egotistical tribal sickness."
It is a symptom of the "West is Best" syndrome.
Or in its specific American incarnation, the ideology that America is the Shining City on
Hill, Exceptional Country, and Indispensable Nation.
People indoctrinated into this belief system cannot brook the idea that there may be an
alternative to their own way of life that is, in some respects, better. Hence, they will
instinctively attack and smear this alternative as bad.
In many ways, Western Liberal "Democracy" (or what passes for democracy) is a secular
religion and fundamentalist ideology.
As Francis Fuckuyama stated at the end of the Cold War with his pronouncement of the End
of History, Western Liberal Democracy is the highest form of human socio-political evolution
and government.
Thanks for pointing that out,
Caitlin Johnston may be revealing the extent to which Integrity Initiative or maybe
Institute for Statecraft have now bought even more editors than previously revealed in those
leaked papers. OUTRAGE is the mildest term that comes to mind. What spineless media bedevils
this world.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States.
I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of
the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits
amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the
deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be
true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand
families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to
rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you
out!"
Islam stands in their way of usury-ripping of mankind of their
resources and defrauding mankind via bank thefts.
Bring on the Shariah Law. I would much rather live under Shariah, God's Constitution than
under Euoropean/Western diabolic, satanic, fraudulent monies, homosexual, thievery, false flag
hoaxes, WMD's, bogus wars, Unprovoked oppression, tel-LIE-vision, Santa Claus lies, Disney
hocus pocus , hollywood, illuminati, free mason, monarchy, oligarchy, millitary industrial
complex, life time congressman/senators, upto the eye balls taxation, IRS thievery, Fraudulent
federal reserve, Rothchild/Rockerfeller/Queens and Kings city of London satanic cabal, opec
petro$$$ thievery, ISISraHELL's, al-CIA-da hoaxes, Communist, Atheist, Idol worshippers, Fear
Monger's, Drugged and Drunken's oxy crystal coccaine meth psychopath, child pedeophilia,
gambler's, Pathological and diabolical liars, Hypocrites, sodomites ..I can't think of any
right now, because my mind is exploding with rage because of these troubling central banker's
satanic hegemony!
Quran Chapter 30
39. The usury you practice, seeking thereby to multiply people's wealth, will not multiply
with God. But what you give in charity, desiring God's approval -- these are the
multipliers.
40. God is He who created you, then provides for you, then makes you die, then brings you back
to life. Can any of your idols do any of that? Glorified is He, and Exalted above what they
associate.
41. Corruption has appeared on land and sea, because of what people's hands have earned, in
order to make them taste some of what they have done, so that they might return.
The consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union!
26th of December is the anniversary of the collapse of the USSR.
Russia/Russian Soviet Socialist Republic
30,000 Medium to large scale factories in 1990 (before the collapse). That number is
reduced down to 5000.
GDP of 1996 was 63.1% of the 1991 GDP keep in mind that the economy of the USSR in 1991
was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the GDP of 1996 would be even
smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
Number of hospitals has halved from 10700 to 5400.
Similarly, the number of schools has dropped from almost 70,000 to 42,600.
In just 17 years, from 2000-2017 26700,000,000,000 rubles have been illegally stolen
from the people outside of Russia.
At least Russia is number one at some things like first at the number of
Millionaires.
In terms of billionaires they are in 4th place.
22,000,000 Russians are in poverty
86% of Russians struggle to buy the most basic things
23,000 towns, villages and cities have been abandoned in the last 20 years
Because of Capitalism and the massive hit we took after the collapse of the USSR
including the horrible living conditions and poverty that broke out the Russian population
lost 30 Million in terms of demographics(More than in ww2)
Kazakhstan(Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic)
only from 1981-1986 - 400 enterprises/factories were built, in 1983 we had more than 9
million cattle, 36 million sheep and supplied meat to almost all Soviet Republics.
engineering and metalworking enterprises/factories fell from 2000 to 100
machine building in the total industrial production fell from 16% to 3% (mostly oil and
gas now)
light industry - 15% fell to 0.6%, from 1990-2006 (all products are imported)
refined 18 million tons of oil, this number fell to 13.7 million tons (+ imported from
Russia)
education expenditure 8% fell to 3% = shortage of qualified personnel + it's not always
free.
Free medical care will soon be abolished too
GDP of 1996 was only 69.3% of the 1991 Soviet GDP, keep in mind that the economy of the
USSR in 1991 was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the GDP of 1996 would
be even smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
Ukraine/Ukrainian SSR.
Ukraine seemed like it would become the next European power. It had 3 military districts
left over from the USSR with the best weaponry in the world including 700,000 troops as well as
a nuclear arsenal of 3000 that made it the 3rd strongest country in the whole world after the
US and Russia. By the time of the war in the Donbass the number of military personnel dropped
down to 168,000 while selling huge quantities of Soviet weaponry.
Scientists within the country reduced from 313 079(1990) down to 94,274 in (2017).
Doctors within the country reduced from 227 thousand (1991) down to 187 thousand in
(2016).
nursing staff halved since the collapse of the USSR
Electricity generation, billion kWh per year fell from 238 (1980) down to 167 (2000)
Stone mining(Coal thousand tons per year) 197 100 (1980) down to 81 100 (2000)
Steel production (thousand tons per year) around 48 000 (1980) down to 31 767 (2000)
Production of tractors (thousand pieces) around 130, 000 (1980) down to 4000 (2000)
Production of mineral fertilizers (thousand tons per year) around 4 850 (1991) down to 1
554 (2000)
Grain Harvest (million tons per year) dropped from 51 (1990) down to 25,7 (2000)
Around 250 planes a year were being built, that number dropped to 1-2 a year after
Capitalism.
The Ukranian GDP of 1996 was only 47.2% of the 1991 Ukranian SSR GDP, keep in mind that
the economy of the USSR in 1991 was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the
GDP of 1996 would be even smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
The destruction of democracy
The 1991 referendum of keeping the USSR in one way or the other gained a 78% positive
vote. However, this was thrown out of the window and the USSR was torn apart
nonetheless.
In 1993 when the Parliament ie (Supreme Soveit) tried to remove Yeltsin, he ordered
tanks to drive into Moscow and shoot the Parliament building. Crowds of Soviet Citizens
tried to stop the attack, but were unsuccessful. Over 100 of comrades died that day.
https://images.app.goo.gl/eqRAJBrvyDRBRFUR9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBmtkW3Tl8&t=423s (live footage from the day).
This allowed Yeltsin to change the constitution and increase his own power while selling
Russia off to Western capital.
Consequences for the Soviet people
We lost our democracy.
We lost our right to free education, which used to be the best in the world.
We lost our right to free healthcare, which used to be the best in the world.
We lost our right to not be homeless.
We lost our right to not be jobeless.
According to the UN Human Development Index -- which measures levels of life expectancy.
Commenting on the situation in the former Soviet Union after capitalist restoration, Fabre
stated, "We have catastrophic falls in several countries, which often are republics of the
former Soviet Union, where poverty is actually increasing. In fact poverty has tripled in the
whole region".
To sum it up for the Soviet people - "98 Russian billionaires hold more wealth than Russians
combined savings" or 200 Russian oligarchs have 485 billion USD most of which come from post
Soviet factories that used to be owned by the workers but were sold off at extremely low
prices.
Effects on the rest of the world
The USSR had connections with China, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Eastern Germany,
Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Birma,
India, Indonesia, Mongolia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Mali,
Ghana, Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Somalia, Congo, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar. As
the USSR was collapsing/collapsed Socialism and Socialist organisations in all of these
countries would fall apart too leaving them at the grasp of the capitalists.
Cuba had huge economic problems as it was dependant on the USSR.
DPRK had a huge famine in the 90's due to the collapse of the USSR.
Many Socialist nations around the world reverted back to the first stage of
Socialism.
Civil wars within the USSR
Many love to say that "the USSR's collapse was bloodless".
This is a list of all the civil wars between Soviet countries and peoples:
Tajikistan Civil War - 50,000 dead
2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic riots - 2000 dead
Tajikistan Insurgency - 200 dead
East Prigorodny Conflict - 550 dead
First Chechen War - around 60,000 dead
War of Dagestan - 300 dead
Second Chechen War - around 80,000 dead
War in Ingushetia - 900 dead
insurgency in the North Caucasus - 4200 dead
Nagorno-Karabakh War - 33,000 dead
1991–1992 South Ossetian War - 1000 dead
Georgian Civil War - 20,000 deaths
Russo-Georgian War - 500 dead
Transnistria War - 1500 dead
Euromaidan - 200 dead
Russo-Ukrainian War - 15,000 dead
Overall - roughly 270,000 Soviet citizens have died from direct causes of the war.
Millions and millions have been displaced and have been thrown into poverty.
Conclusion
The Soviet Union was once the leader in all aspects of life, guaranteeing a tomorrow for all
of its citizens where they would not fear losing a job, being homeless, being hungry, unabling
to afford medical care. The Soviet Union produced its own planes, cars, hydroelectric dams,
nuclear power stations, rockets while the workers used to own the means of production. In 1991,
they took away our freedom while selling off all that my people have worked for, the
consequences of which will be felt around the world until Capitalism finally falls.
It's funny that the westerners/pro-westerns were always scared of a "Big Brother" scenario
but they never realised there was 2 opposites in their time, one keeping another from
becoming the "Big Brother" Now they're cheerful at the "Big Brother" - the USA level 1
The Soviet Union may've been a bit top-down for my liking, but its fall was undoubtedly a
tragedy and one of the worst losses of life outside of war in the 20th century. level 1
The illegal dissolution of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the past 50 years, perhaps
of the last century. The movement for our liberation will recover, but it has cost us decades
of progress and hundreds of thousands of lives. Rest in peace to our champion. level 1
It is a well researched article, thank you for posting it. Looking forward to other
analysis around international states' affairs and their link to current CIS countries level
2
Bourgeois scum has stolen the meaning of democracy, you seriously think that voting once
every 4 year for one particular rich fuck and his coterie of rich fucks to be exalted is the
sole measure and implementation of democracy? level 3
Its not just that, can you remove a manager from his position for example? Of course you
can't, you will have to deal with him for years while you can lose your job with a snap of
his finger. In the USSR, managers and everyone in the hierarchy was elected, thus you could
remove your manager or whoever by popular vote. level 3 Comment deleted by user
5 days ago level 4
Rule number 3, u/bolshevikshqiptar already warned you.
Proof or don't say anything. Im from the USSR and people voted in my country, my uncle was
the ex mayor of his town elected by the people. level 4
Democracy ? Where is democracy in Russia? Kazakhstan? Belarus? Shooting the Parliament
building is democracy isn't it? Go educate yourself and read my post about Soviet democracy,
maybe it will change your mind. Forced labor? Now you complain that having a job is
guaranteed? level 2
true but the oligarchs still standing and the capitalist took advantage of it -> making
it worser for the people imo. level 3 Comment deleted by user
5 days ago level 4
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among
others, especially those less powerful, so that they cannot unite in opposition.
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that
are around at the moment. In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim
that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that
group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can
mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set
of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something
new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy
of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two
interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity
groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity.
Self-government requires uniting through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared
future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the
political community gets fragmented. It becomes harder for people to see each other as part
of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame
racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within
society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that
further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a
shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of
class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which
individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this
means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and
thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in
politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the
space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and
austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the
very groups that inclusionary neoliberals claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of
the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better than economic
policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the
war in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal
democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq lead to a domino effect that
swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic
State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are
dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a
peaceful transition to stable democracy but instead civil war and instability, with thousands
dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups. On the grounds
of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those
motivated to expand human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as
humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment
have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers largely assumed that all good things would go
together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening China to
trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought
Russia would become liberal through swift democratization and privatization. They were
wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was
desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They
were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump had nothing to do with
them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political
strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things
became much more clear.
Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represent a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their
primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it
was correct for first decade or so of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower
middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with Brexit) and that where
identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics
as the political strategy of the "soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the
suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism,
resurgence which I think is capable to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now
is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups, such as we can find in
corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of
medical professionals, etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most
problems are relatively minor and can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because
the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal ideology. And they
can't be solved within this framework.
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
"... Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal' mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore. ..."
"... Israel and its US relationship I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning, the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a series of impossible demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day US bullying towards Venezuala and other states and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with Qatar not long ago ..."
"... Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. ..."
"... Media deception and propaganda The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia. ..."
"... Appeasement because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way. ..."
"... False flags for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army. On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media ..."
As a history student years ago I remember our teacher explaining how past events are linked to what happens in the future. He
told us human behaviour always dictates that events will repeat in a similar way as before. I remember we studied 20th century history
and discussed World War I and the links to World War II. At this time, we were in the middle of the Cold War and in unchartered waters
and I couldn't really link past events to what was likely to happen next. Back then I guess like many I considered US presidents
more as statesman. They talked tough on the Soviet Union but they talked peace too. So, the threat to humanity was very different
then to now. Dangerous but perhaps a stable kind of dangerous. After the break up of the Soviet Union we then went through a phase
of disorderly change in the world. In the early 1990s the war in the Former Yugoslavia erupted and spread from republic to republic.
Up until the mid-to-late nineties I didn't necessarily sense that NATO and the West were the new threat to humanity. While there
was a clear bias to events in Yugoslavia there was still some even-handedness or fairness. Or so I thought. This all changed in 1999
with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges
and so on. But my wake-up call was the daily NATO briefings on the war. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being
destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage
of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative.
When the peace agreement was reached, out of 300 Serbian tanks which had entered Kosovo at the start of the conflict, over 285
were counted going back into Serbia proper which was
confirmation he had been
lying .
From this conflict onwards I started to see clear parallels with events of the past and some striking similarities with the lead
up to previous world wars. This all hit home when observing events in Syria and more recently Venezuala. But looking around seeing
people absorbed in their phones you wouldn't think the world is on the brink of war. For most of us with little time to watch world
events there are distractions which have obscured the picture historians and geopolitical experts see more clearly.
Recent and current
western leaders haven't been short people in military uniform shouting. That would be far too obvious. It's still military conflict
and mass murder but in smart suits with liberal sound-bites and high-fives. Then the uncool, uncouth conservative Trump came along
and muddied the waters.
Briefly it seemed there might be hope that these wars would stop. But there can be little doubt he's been
put under pressure to comply with the regime change culture embedded in the Deep State. Today, through their incendiary language
we see US leaders morphing into the open style dictators of the past. The only thing missing are the military uniforms and hats.
Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal'
mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up
to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore.
Let's look at some of these:
1) Military build up, alliances and proxy wars for all the chaos and mass murder pursued by the Obama Administration he did
achieve limited successes in signing agreements with Iran and Cuba. But rather than reverse the endless wars as promised Trump cancels
the agreements leaving the grand sum of zilch foreign policy achievements. NATO has been around for 70 years, but in the last 20
or so has become obsessed with military build up. Nowadays it has hundreds of bases around the world but keeps destablising non-aligned
states, partly to isolate Russia and China. And Syria sums up the dangers of the regime change model used today. With over a dozen
states involved in the proxy war there is a still high risk of conflict breaking out between US and Russia. The motives for military
build up are many. First there are powerful people in the arms industry and media who benefit financially from perpetual war. The
US while powerful in military terms are a declining power which will continue, new powers emerging. The only return on their money
they can see is through military build up. Also there are many in government, intelligence services and media who can see that if
the current order continues to crumble they are likely to be prosecuted for various crimes. All this explains the threatening language
and the doubling-down on those who challenge them. In 1914, Europe had two backward thinking military alliance blocks and Sarajevo
showed how one event could trigger an unstoppable escalation dragging in many states. And empires such as Austro-Hungary were crumbling
from within as they are now. So a similar mentality prevails today where the powerful in these empires under threat favour conflict
to peace. For these individuals it's a last throw of the dice and a gamble with all our lives.
2) Israel and its US relationship I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning,
the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and
unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US
has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a
series of impossible
demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic
as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day
US bullying towards Venezuala and other states and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with
Qatar not long ago.
3) Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is
in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. In addition we face a situation
of highly unpredictable, ideological regional leaders in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Most worrying of all, the language, threats
and actions of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton suggests there are psychopathic tendencies in play. Behind this is a Deep State and Democrat
Party pushing even harder for conflict. The level of paranoia is discouraging any notion of peace. 30 years ago Russia and US would
sit down at a summit and reach a consensus. Today a US leader or diplomat seen talking to a Russian official is accused of collusion.
When there are limited channels to talk in a crisis, you know we are in trouble. In Germany in the 1930s, ideology, propaganda and
creating enemies were key in getting the population on side for war. The leaders within the Nazi clique, Hitler, Goring and Himmler
look disturbingly similar to the Trump, Pompeo, Bolton line up.
4) Media deception and propaganda The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public
would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been
a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia.
The terms and words; regime change, mass murder and terrorist have all been substituted by the media with 'humanitarian intervention',
'limited airstrikes' and 'moderate rebels' to fool a distracted public that the victims of the aggression are the bad guys. Western
funded 'fact checking' sites such as Bellingcat have appeared pushing the misdirections to a surreal new level. Obama was portayed
in the media as a cool guy and a little 'soft' on foreign policy. This despite the carnage in Libya, Syria and his drones. Sentiments
of equal rights and diversity fill the home affairs sections in the liberal press, while callous indifference and ethno-centrism
towards the Middle East and Russia dominate foreign affairs pages. In the press generally, BREXIT, non-existent anti-Semitism and
nonsense about the 'ISIS bride' continues unabated. This media circus seeks to distract from important matters, using these topics
to create pointless divisions, causing hostility towards Muslims and Jews in the process. The majority of a distracted public have
still not twigged largely because the propaganda is more subtle nowadays and presented under a false humanitarian cloak. A small
but vocal group of experts and journalists challenging these narratives are regularly smeared as
Putin
or Assad "apologists" . UK journalists are regularly caught out lying and some long standing hoaxes such as Russiagate exposed.
Following this and Iraq WMDs more people are starting to see a pattern here. Yet each time the media in the belief they've bamboozled
enough move on to the next big lie. This a sign of a controlled media which has reached the point of being unaccountable and untouchable,
deeply embedded within the establishment apparatus. In the lead up to World War II the Nazis ran an effective media propaganda campaign
which indoctrinated the population. The media in Germany also reached the point their blindingly obvious lies were rarely questioned.
The classic tactic was to blame others for the problems in Germany and the world and project their crimes on to their victims. There
are some differences as things have evolved. The Nazis created the media and state apparatus to pursue war. Nowadays this is the
opposite way around. Instead the state apparatus is already in place so whoever is leader whether they describe themself as liberal
or conservative, is merely a figurehead required to continue the same pro-war policies. Put a fresh-looking president in a shiny
suit and intoduce him to the Queen and you wouldn't think he's the biggest mass murderer since Hitler. Although there are some differences
in the propaganda techniques, all the signs are that today's media are on a similar war-footing as Germany's was just prior to the
outbreak of World War II.
5) Appeasement because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli
aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for
time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily
unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way.
6) False flags for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by
Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of
the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army.
On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being
played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media. The next flashpoint in Syria is Idlib, where it's highly
likely a new chemical fabrication will be attempted this Spring. In the 1930s the Nazis were believed to use false flags with increasing
frequency to discredit and close down internal opposition. Summary We now live in a society where exposing warmongering is a more
serious crime than committing it. Prisons hold many people who have bravely exposed war crimes yet most criminals continue to walk
free and hold positions of power. And when the media is pushing for Julian Assange to be extradicted you know this is beyond simple
envy of a man who has almost single-handedly done the job they've collectively failed to do. They are equally complicit in warmongering
hence why they see Assange and others as a threat. For those not fooled by the smart suits, liberal platitudes and media distraction
techniques, the parallels with Germany in the 1930s in particular are now fairly obvious. The blundering military alliances of 1914
and the pure evil of 1939 with the ignorance, indifference and narcissism described above make for a destructive mix. Unless something
changes soon our days on this planet are likely be numbered. Depressing but one encouraging thing is that the indisputable truth
is now in plain sight for anyone with internet access to see and false narratives have collapsed before. It's still conceivable that
something may create a whole chain of events which sweep these dangerous parasites from power. So anything can happen. In the meantime
we should keep positive and continue to spread the message.
Kevin Smith is a British citizen living and working in London. He researches and writes down his thoughts on the foreign wars
promoted by Western governments and media. In the highly controlled and dumbed down UK media environment, he's keen on exploring
ways of discouraging ideology and tribalism in favour of free thinking.
2- 'Israel and its US relationship'. The 'hands off' policy of the Western powers, guarantees that Syria cannot even be a trigger
to any 'global conflict', supposing that a 'global conflict' was on the cards, especially when Russia is just a crumbling shadow
of the USSR and China a giant with feet of clay, heavily dependent on Western oligarchic goodwill, to maintain its economy and
its technological progress.
In 1914, the Serbian crisis was just trigger of WWI and not a true cause. It is not even clear if it was Germany that dragged
Austria-Hungary into the war or Russia. Although there was a possibility (only a possibility), that a swift and 'illegal' attack
by Austria-Hungary (without an ultimatum), would have localised and contained the conflict.
There is no similarity whatsoever between the 1914 'diktats' and modern US policy, as the US is the sole Superpower and its
acts are not opposed by a balancing and corresponding alliance. Save in the Chinese colony of North Korea, where the US is restrained
by a tacit alliance of the North Eastern Asiatic powers: China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, that oppose any military action
and so promote and protect North Korean bullying. Qatar, on the other hand, is one of the most radical supporters of the Syrian
opposition and terrorist groups around the muslim world, even more than Saudi Arabia and there are powerful reasons for the confrontation
of the Gulf rivals.
You should go back in Time and STUDY what really happened .. that means going back to the Creation of the socalled British Empire
..the Bank of England , the British East Indian Company , the Opium Wars and the Opium Trafficing , the Boer Wars for Gold and
Diamonds , the US Civil War and its aftermath , the manipulations of Gold and Silver by socalled british Financial Interests ,
The US Spanish Wars , the Japanese Russian War , the failed Coup against Czar Russia 1905 , the Young Turk Coup against the Ottoman
Empire 1908, the Armenian Genocide , the Creation of the Federal Reserve 1913 , the Multitude of Assinations and other Terror
Attacks in the period from 1900 and upwards , WHO were the perpetraders ? , , WW 1 and its originators , the Bolshevik Coup 1917
, the Treaty of Versailles and the Actors in that Treaty ,the Plunder of Germany , the dissolution of Austria Hungary , the Bolshevik
Coup attempts all over Europe , and then the run up to WW 2 , the Actions of Poland agianst Germans and Czechs .. Hitler , Musolini
and finally WW 2 .the post war period , the Nuernberg Trials , the Holocaust Mythology , the Creation of Israel , Gladio , the
Fall of the Sovjet Empire and the Warshav Pact , the Wars in the Middle East , the endless Terror Actions , the murder of Kennedy
and a mass of False Flag Terrorist Attacks since then , the destruction of the Balkans and the Middle east THERE IS PLENTY of
EXCELLENT LITERATURE and ANALYSIS on all subjects .
It was your Obama that 'persecuted' Mr Assange !!!
Syria demonstrates that there has NOT been a Western strategy for regime change (specially after the 'defeats' in Iraq and
Afghanistan), let alone a proxy war, but, on the contrary, an effort to keep the tyranny of Assad in power, in a weaker state,
to avoid any strong, 'revolutionary' rival near Israel. Russia has been given a free hand in Syria, otherwise, if the West had
properly armed the resistance groups, it would have been a catastrophe for the Russian forces, like it was in Afghanistan during
the Soviet intervention.
Trump's policy of 'equal' (proportional) contributions for all members of NATO and other allies, gives the lie to the US military
return 'argument' and should be understood as part of his war on unfair competition by other powers.
The 'military' and diplomatic alliances of 1914 were FORWARD thinking, so much so that they 'repeated' themselves during WWII,
with slight changes. But it is very doubtful that the Empires, like the Austro-Hungarian o the Russian ones, would have 'crumbled'
without the outbreak of WWI. They were never under threat, as their military power during the war showed. Only a World War of
cataclysmic character could destroy them. A war, triggered, but not created, by the 'conflict seeking mentality' of the powerful
in the small countries of the Balkans.
Generally attributed to Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918 that 'when war comes the first casualty is truth' is as much a truism
now as it was then.
I'm more inclined to support hauptmanngurski's proposition that the members of the armed forces, from both sides, who return
from conflicts with life-changing injuries or even in flag-draped caskets defended only the freedom of multinational enterprises
and conglomerates to make and continue to make vast profits for the privileged few at the population's expense.
As Kevin Smith makes abundantly clear we are all subject to the downright lies and truth-stretching from our government aided
and abetted by a compliant main stream media as exemplified in the Skripal poisoning affair, which goes far beyond the counting
of Serbian tanks supposedly destroyed during the Balkans conflict. The Skripals' are now God knows where either as willing participants
or as detainees and our government shows no signs of clarifying the matter, so who would believe what it put out anyway in view
of its track record of misinformation ? The nation doesn't know what to believe.
Sadly, I believe this has always been the way of things and I cannot even speculate on how long it will be before this nation
will realise it is being deliberately mis-led.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'tat against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'tat against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' Franois Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicols Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chvez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chvez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicols Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chvez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam, Lebanon,Somalia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending wars are expensive
was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
Looks like CrowdStrike was was to plant the evidence of the Russian hack
Notable quotes:
"... All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government -- namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA court. ..."
"... All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0 character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as "supposed trolls of the Russian government". ..."
"... Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government. ..."
"... Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the public domain. ..."
BILL BINNEY: I basically have always been saying that all of this Russian hack never
happened, but we have some more evidence coming out recently.
We haven't published it yet, but what we have seen is that there are at least five items
that we've found that were produced by Guccifer 2.0 back on June 15th, where they had the
Russian fingerprints in them, suggesting the Russians made the hack. Well, we found the same
five items published by Wikileaks in the Podesta emails.
Those items do not have the Russian fingerprints, which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0
was inserting these into the files to make it look like the Russians did this hack. Taking that
into account with all the other evidence we have; like the download speeds from Guccifer 2.0
were too fast, and they couldn't be managed by the web.
And that the files he was putting together and saying that he actually hacked, the two files
he said he had were really one file, and he was playing with the data; moving it to two
different files to claim two hacks.
Taking that into account with the fabrication of the Russian fingerprints, it leads us back
to inferring that in fact the marble framework out of the Vault 7 compromise of CIA hacking
routines was a possible user in this case.
In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making
it look like the Russians were doing the hack. So, when you look at that and also look at the
DNC emails that were published by Wikileaks that have this phat file format in them, all 35,813
of these emails have rounded off times to the nearest even second.
That's a phat file format property; that argues that those files were, in fact, downloaded
to a thumb drive or CD-rom and physically transported before Wikileaks posted them. Which again
argues that it wasn't a hack.
So, all of the evidence we're finding is clearly evidence that the Russians were not in fact
hacking; it was probably our own people. It's very hard for us to get this kind of information
out. The mainstream media won't cover it; none of them will. It's very hard. We get some
bloggers to do that and some radio shows.
Also, I put all of this into a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. I did that because
all of the attack on him was predicated on him being connected with this Russian hack which was
false to being with.
All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government --
namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in
this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA
court.
All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0
character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as
"supposed trolls of the Russian government".
Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the
government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government.
They basically were chastised by the judge for fabricating a charge against this company.
So, if you take the IRA and the trolls away from that argument, and Guccifer 2.0, then the
entire Mueller report is a provable fabrication; because it's based on Guccifer 2.0 and the
IRA.
Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for
the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the
public domain.
So, we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the
understanding and knowledge of what's really happening away from the public of the United
States. That's the really bad part. And the mainstream media is a participant in this; they're
culpable.
His dissent from the consensus view that Russia interfered with the 2016 US election
appears to be based on Russian disinformation."
They provide no footnote or linked-to source for their allegation
Ever since Binney went public criticizing U.S. intelligence agencies, they have been trying
to discredit him.
Thus far, however, their efforts have been nothing more than insinuations against his
person, without any specific allegation of counter-evidence that discredits any of his actual
assertions.
Martin Usher ,
The "Russia" thing was never able to differentiate between "Russians" and "the Russian
state". Its a product of a Cold War mindset that can't conceive of that country without it
being 150 million puppets all controlled by string from an office in the Kremlin. In reality
its just another country, one that offers goods and services to the world just like anywhere
else. So while we just assume that a company like SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent) would
have personnel from and offices in many countries and have contracts with various political
parties in many countries we just can't seem to get our heads around the idea that a company
operating inside -- or even headquartered -- in Russia isn't automatically some kind of
Kremlin front. (Well, yes, it could be but the same way that a company in the UK could be a
front for the UK government, e.g. the Gateside Mill story in Scotland's Daily Record).
Another factor that might come into play is the idea that 'analytics', the key to business
on the Internet, is actually nothing more than a sophisticated form of traffic analysis, a
well known espionage tool. Any government worth its salt that's likely to be on the receiving
end of a propaganda campaign would be very interested in understanding the reach of such a
tool and learning how to manage that reach. So its possible that if we find the Russian
government taking out advertisements on Facebook through a front company to 'influence'
people its likely that they're more interested in evaluating that reach than the simplistic
view that they're 'trying to influence an election' (its not as if foreign interests or even
governments ever try to influence elections)(color revolution, anyone?). Allowing unfettered
access by these tools to one's nation is a bit like taking down one's defenses -- fine if
you're happy with vassal state ("ally") status but not if you're potentially an adversary --
so its important to know how to control it, no less important than having a decent air
defense system.
And in a further retort to all this nonsense, Harold Wilson, the last socialist leader of the
Labour Party back in the 1970s, won four general elections, a feat that's never been
repeated by any party leader.
This does directly relate to this thread, because the Americans overthrew Wilson. Just as they have done now with Corbyn. You really need to take your country back, whether you're a Brit or American.
paul ,
We are fortunate that there are still persons of integrity even in the spook organisations
– Binney, Kyriakou, Manning, Snowden. Without them and Assange a lot of this
criminality would never have seen the light of day.
Jack_Garbo ,
Diagnosing the disease does not imply the cure has been found. You simply know how much
sicker you are. Not helpful.
Nothing has changed despite all the revelations of intelligence shenanigans. Apologies do not
cure the patient when they're still spreading the disease. In fact, the opposite.
paul ,
Wikipedia holds out the begging bowl to anybody who uses it now.
I don't know why – they get plenty of CIA and Soros money.
All they've got to do now is wheel out the psychopath and war criminal, Tony Blair, to say:
"it's the Russians wot dunnit".
Oh my God
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
ZigZagWanderer ,
@ 1.15.58 "Intelligence community has become a self licking ice cream cone"
Larry Johnson and Bill Binney always worth listening to. Try to find the time.
Antonym ,
True except for Trump. Just look how hard deep state tries to unseat him.
Damaging your own puppet is not normal for a puppeteer.
J_Garbo ,
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that – "hell freezes over" – as they say.
The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the
Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely
increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc.
The unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two parties' strengthens the false
perception that there is a choice when voting.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... "The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said in his Dec. 16 opinion ( pdf ). ..."
"... In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it late. ..."
"... Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation. ..."
"... Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something it could allege was false. ..."
"... Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers, Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview." ..."
"... Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI investigation of election meddling. ..."
"... Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what his first team of "counselors" advised. ..."
"... Flynn is as deep state as it gets. He would throw the book at any one of you. Make no mistake. Being a general is a political appointment. ..."
"... Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore. ..."
"... "Michael Flynn reportedly filed paperwork on Tuesday for the $530,000 worth of work he did last year that "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey." https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/08/michael-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying ..."
"... NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet. ..."
"... They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile. ..."
"... Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses. ..."
"... Oh how soon you forget that Flynn commited war crimes in Grenada. ..."
"... Then bring him up on those charges. In court those kinds of leaps are inaddmissable. ..."
"... Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year ..."
"... Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is sentencing him is PISSED. ..."
"... Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say you weren't warned. ..."
"... They threatened his son if he did not plead guilty. Of course, to you Dems the means justifies the end. He will be pardoned, and deservedly so. ..."
"... I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other criminals. ..."
A federal judge has denied requests by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to prompt the government to
give him information he deems exculpatory and to dismiss the case against him .
District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the government in arguing that Flynn was
already given all the information to which he was entitled. The judge also dismissed Flynn's
allegations of government misconduct, noting that Flynn already pleaded guilty to his crime and
failed to raise his objections earlier when some of the issues he now complains about were
brought to his attention.
"The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of
innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said
in his Dec. 16 opinion (
pdf ).
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, pleaded guilty on Nov. 30, 2017, to
one count of lying to the FBI. He's been expected to receive a light sentence, including no
prison time, after extensively cooperating with the government on multiple investigations.
In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the
government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it
late.
Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they
testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told
the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should
have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to
show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation.
Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place
and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something
it could allege was false.
Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers,
Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview."
Flynn was interviewed by two FBI agents, Joe Pientka and Peter Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, two
days after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's national security adviser.
The prosecutors argued that the FBI had a "sufficient and appropriate basis" for the
interview because Flynn days earlier told members of the Trump campaign, including soon-to-be
Vice President Mike Pence, that he didn't discuss with the Russian ambassador the expulsion of
Russian diplomats in late December 2016 by then-President Barack Obama.
Flynn later admitted in his statement of offense that he asked, via Russian Ambassador to
the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, for Russia to only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner and
not escalate the situation.
The FBI was at the time investigating whether Trump campaign aides coordinated with Russian
2016 election meddling. No such coordination was established by the probe, which concluded more
than two years later under then-special counsel Robert Mueller.
Powell argued that whatever Flynn told Pence and others in the transition team was none of
the FBI's business.
"The Executive Branch has different reasons for saying different things publicly and
privately, and not everyone is told the details of every conversation,"
she said in a previous court filing .
"If the FBI is charged with investigating discrepancies in statements made by government
officials to the public, the entirety of its resources would be consumed in a week."
Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI
investigation of election meddling.
Sullivan, however, thought otherwise, using a broader description of the investigation. The bureau, he said, probed the "nature of any links between individuals associated with the
[Trump] Campaign and Russia" and what Flynn said was material to it. The description Sullivan used appears to omit the context of the probe, which focused
specifically on the Russian election meddling.
Powell was dealt a bad hand by Flynn's previous corrupt and incompetent attorneys. The
judge has an obligation to honor the new views of new counsel. He can't assume that Flynn had
been well advised by former counsel. There's no evidence or history of that. They sold him
out.
Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring
Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting
Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what
his first team of "counselors" advised.
He's so Deep State that Brennen and Clapper went to Soetoro to get him fired after the
election. Flynn was going to rat them out on the treasonous Iran deal. When Obama said no
because it was too close to the end of his presidency they then criminally framed Flynn.
Flynn was lied to. Flynn was a 30 year veteran and General. Flynn couldn't imagine his
country turning against him like this. None of us could. But with the cabal running our
country, it could and did happen. Now we have to stamp out the cockroaches before it's too
late.
Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without
disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore.
NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet.
This ***** judge will give him a mouse sentence to protect his own *** . We don't know the half of it . How close is the judge to Obama ? I think we are going to find out .
President Trump should step in now and Pardon Gen.Flynn and Roger Stone both trial were
fixed unethical and not based on fact and law. In Stones case a radical jury of Demon
Rat-Brains were assembled to hand down a guilty verdict.
They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.
Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile.
Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses.
Those who violated the constitution and rule of law are media pundants and
undisturbed.
Orange dotard please divert some of your swamp creatures from destroying Iran, Venezuela
and Bolivia.
America needs the secret police smashed and held accountable for sedition and treason.
Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year
The minute they let Flynn off he talks and they sure as hell don't want that. They want to drag this out as long as possible and hope for a miracle (Trump gets beat
) or at least time enough for them to bugger off. FISA has known for years they were lied to by the FBI and now it has been confirmed . So why didn't they do anything then or now ? Were they in on it ? How do you draw any
other conclusion ?
Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead
guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is
sentencing him is PISSED.
Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner
you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in
bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn
inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say
you weren't warned.
I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other
criminals.
Flynn can ask to withdraw plea, but he's turned down that opportunity three times, so
judge might not allow it. Then everything Powell has been doing becomes relevant. Up to this point it's just a bunch
of noise, unfortunately.
So let me just be sure I understand this: he is being denied evidence that could prove
innocence on a trial related to a guilty plea, which was largely the result of persecution by
the FBI and we ALLOW this to happen in America? What has happened to this country?
"... an inquiry by cabinet secretary Lord Hunt in 1996 concluded that "a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5" had "spread damaging malicious stories". ..."
"... Well, if a cabinet secretary says that it must be true. MI5, not MI6 - I think MI5's the heavy mob - but I just wondered if our spooks had passed these tricks on to the lads who put the Steele dossier about. ..."
Massive win, Colonel, that as far as I know nobody predicted. Not the polls, not the political blogs. But I didn't follow it that
closely so that's just a general impression.
My man, Nigel Farage, got squeezed mercilessly. I was looking around the BBC site to find out how mercilessly when I came across
a picture of the bete noir of my father's time, Harold Wilson. Wilson was convinced that MI something was out to get him - bugged
his office, spread smear stories about him around the press, even a possible coup.
The odd rumour of all this had spread to my corner of the English provinces and I'd always wondered if there was anything in it.
So I clicked on the BBC article -
" .. A 1987 inquiry concluded the allegations of a security service plot against Wilson were untrue. However, an inquiry
by cabinet secretary Lord Hunt in 1996 concluded that "a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5" had "spread damaging malicious stories".
Well, if a cabinet secretary says that it must be true. MI5, not MI6 - I think MI5's the heavy mob - but I just wondered if
our spooks had passed these tricks on to the lads who put the Steele dossier about.
On another security matter I note with concern above - "Those are Jacobite tribesmen at the top. Some of my ancestors were
such as they." I thought so. '15 and '45 caused us a lot of trouble and just in case the tradition remained in your family I'm
opening a file. We're very happy with our present Queen, thank you, and we don't want you replacing her with some Stuart relic you
might happen to have dug up.
Though I suppose it would only be poetic justice. We've just had a go at toppling your President so why shouldn't you return the
compliment and topple Her Majesty.
The infinity war We say we're a peaceful nation. Why do our leaders always keep us at war? The infinity war We say
we're a peaceful nation. Why do our leaders always keep us at war? Sam Ward (For The Washington Post) By Samuel Moyn
and Stephen Wertheim December 13, 2019
Add to list On my list
Now we know, thanks to
The
Afghanistan Papers published in The Washington Post this past week, that U.S. policymakers doubted almost from the start that
the two-decade-long Afghanistan war could ever succeed. Officials didn't know who the enemy was and had little sense of what an achievable
"victory" might look like. "We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking," said Douglas Lute, the Army three-star
general who oversaw the conflict from the White House during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
And yet the war ground on, as if on autopilot. Obama inherited a conflict of which Bush had grown weary, and victory drew no closer
after Obama's troop "surge" than when Bush pursued a small-footprint conflict. But while the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971 during
the Vietnam War, led a generation to appreciate the perils of warmaking, a new generation may
squander this opportunity
to set things right. There is a reason the quagmire in Afghanistan, despite costing thousands of lives and
$2 trillion
, has failed to shock Americans into action: The United States for decades has made peace look unimaginable or unobtainable.
We have normalized war.
President Trump sometimes disrupts the pattern by
vowing to end America's "endless
wars." But he has
extended and escalated them at every turn, offering nakedly punitive and exploitative rationales. In September, on the cusp of
a peace deal with the Taliban, he discarded an agreement negotiated by his administration and
pummeled
Afghanistan harder than ever (now he's back to wanting to talk). In Syria, his promised military withdrawal has morphed into
a grotesque redeployment to
"secure" the country's
oil .
It is clearer than ever that the problem of American military intervention goes well beyond the proclivities of the current president,
or the previous one, or the next. The United States has slowly slid away from any plausible claim of standing for peace in the world.
The ideal of peace was one that America long promoted, enshrining it in law and institutions, and the end of the Cold War offered
an unparalleled opportunity to advance the cause. But U.S. leaders from both parties chose another path. War -- from drone strikes
and Special Operations raids to protracted occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has come to seem inevitable and eternal, in practice
and even in aspiration.
Given World War II, Korea, Vietnam and many smaller conflicts throughout the Western Hemisphere, no one has ever mistaken the
United States for Switzerland. Still, the pursuit of peace is an authentic American tradition that has shaped U.S. conduct and the
international order. At its founding, the United States resolved to steer clear of the system of war in Europe and build a "new world"
free of violent rivalry, as Alexander Hamilton put it
.
Indeed, Americans shrank from playing a fully global role until 1941 in part because they saw themselves as emissaries of peace
(even as the United States conquered Native American land, policed its hemisphere and took Pacific colonies). U.S. leaders sought
either to remake international politics along peaceful lines -- as Woodrow Wilson proposed after World War I -- or to avoid getting
entangled in the squabbles of a fallen world. And when America embraced global leadership after World War II, it felt compelled to
establish the United Nations to halt the "scourge of war," as
the U.N. Charter says right at the
start. At America's urging, the organization outlawed the use of force, except where authorized by its Security Council or used in
self-defense.
Even when the United States dishonored that ideal in the years that followed, peace remained potent as a guiding principle. Vietnam
provoked a broad-based antiwar movement. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (WPR) to tame the imperial presidency. Such opposition
to war is scarcely to be found today. (The Iraq War inspired massive protests, but they are a distant memory.) Consider that the
United States has undertaken more armed interventions since the end of the Cold War than during it. According to the Congressional
Research Service, more than 80 percent of all of the country's
adventures abroad since 1946 came after 1989. Congress, whether under Democratic or Republican control, has allowed commanders in
chief to claim the right to begin wars and continue them in perpetuity.
Legal constraints on U.S. warmaking -- including international obligations, domestic statutes and constitutional duties -- ought
to have returned to the fore after the Cold War, the rationale for America's vast mobilization in the second half of the 20th century.
Instead, they have eroded to dust. At the outset of the 1990s, as President George H.W. Bush promised a
"peace dividend" for Americans and a "peaceful international
order" for all, the United States did rely more faithfully than before on Security Council approval for military operations.
The Persian Gulf War, blessed by the United Nations to repel Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, was legal under international law. But
enthralled by its exorbitant primacy in world affairs, the United States turned away from international prohibitions on war, finding
the rules too restricting.
The next two presidents, attracted to liberal internationalist and neoconservative creeds that embraced armed force, treated international
law cavalierly. Bill Clinton abused U.N. resolutions meant to control Saddam Hussein's weaponry to justify new attacks, including
the bombing of Iraq in December 1998. The next year, the U.S.-led NATO operations in Kosovo suggested that America would unleash
its military for ostensibly noble causes -- in this case to prevent heart-rending atrocity -- even without the pretense of legality.
Despite failing to obtain U.N. approval, the Clinton administration said the intervention should not be treated as a precedent (though
it became one). Others excused it as "illegal but legitimate," with self-professed moral intentions permissibly trumping law. "For
the purpose of stopping genocide," commented
the New Republic's Leon Wieseltier, "the use of force is not a last resort; it is a first resort."
Once such arguments gained currency, their authors lost control of them. Conservative hawks found that a law-optional approach
suited their agenda as well, and their liberal counterparts, if they disagreed at all, did so mostly as a matter of tactics, not
principle. George W. Bush benefited from this permissive context when he launched the Iraq War, whose
illegality was
flagrant and catalytic, since it was unauthorized by the United Nations and
relied on the administration's dangerous claim that "anticipatory
self-defense" justifies invasion. The world took notice. Russia, in particular, seized on the new U.S. position as a
spectacular excuse to make incursions of its own in
Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014.
Obama won election in part because he ran against the Iraq War. In office, however, he cemented more than reversed America's disregard
of international constraints on warmaking. While failing to end the war in Afghanistan, his administration
exceeded the Security Council's authorization
by working to overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, converting a permission slip to avert atrocity into a blank check for regime
change. Then, to punish the Islamic State, Obama bombed Syria on a contrived
rationale
-- one that allowed attacks against nations unwilling or unable to control terrorists on their territory. When he nearly struck
again in response to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, Obama
laid the legal
foundation for Trump to strike the Syrian government, again without a U.N. sign-off. Once highly valued, then defied only with
controversy, international law now scarcely figures in U.S. decisions of war and peace.
Like international law, U.S. domestic law enshrines an expectation of peace, setting a high bar for the resort to war. If war
is to be waged, the Constitution requires Congress to declare it -- a purposeful grant of authority to the branch of government that
best reflects the diverse interests of the people and therefore should be harder to rouse to conflict than one commander in chief.
Yet the nation has drifted from that tradition, too. After defaulting on its constitutional obligation during the Cold War (partly
on the grounds that the speed of a potential nuclear strike required a president who could respond quickly), Congress declined to
reassert its authority after the Soviet threat passed.
In the 1990s, Congress might at least have kept faith with the WPR, which it passed in 1973 to rein in future presidents. The
resolution calls for Congress to authorize "hostilities" within 60 days of their start; otherwise U.S. forces must withdraw. Throughout
the 1980s and 1990s, members of the House of Representatives
brought presidents to
court for taking military action in violation
of the statute -- in El Salvador
, the Persian Gulf War and
Kosovo , for example. But advocates of the strategy
all but gave up, and Congress itself increasingly deferred to presidential wars in the age of terrorism. By the time Obama intervened
in Libya, the WPR lay in tatters. In a final indignity during the Libya operation, one administration lawyer
explained that "hostilities" was an "
ambiguous term of art
" that might exclude aerial bombardment, so Congress did not need to approve a war that toppled a regime.
This deference has proved costly, allowing Trump to pose as an antiwar candidate against the mainstream of two political parties,
a somnolent Congress and inactive courts. Once in power, this wildly unpredictable chief executive finally clarified the danger of
entrusting the world's mightiest military to one man's whims. Congress has begun to stir. In voting this year to end U.S. involvement
in Yemen's civil war, it invoked the WPR for the first time while forces were active in battle.
President Trump speaks to U.S. troops at Bagram air base in Afghanistan last month.
though he has pledged to end America's "endless wars,"
Trump, like past presidents, has instead extended them. (Tom Brenner/Reuters)
Ultimately, elevating peace as a priority will require not merely changing legal norms but overturning the militarized concept
of America's world role that permeates Washington. Somehow, despite waging near-perpetual war, the leaders of the most powerful country
on Earth have convinced themselves that America is always on the brink of turning "isolationist," a peril against which
every president since Ronald
Reagan has warned as their terms wound down. Trump is likely to deviate from that rhetorical tradition, but the rest of the establishment
carries on and doubles down. Today, it is military withdrawals, not destructive deployments, that freak out pundits and spur Cabinet
members to resign, as Jim Mattis
did last year over Trump's vow to pull troops from Syria. Abandoning the Kurds there this fall was Trump's "
great betrayal ," lamented Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, who did not appear to lose sleep over our past
military incursions.
Under Trump, who applies "maximum pressure" to all foes foreign and domestic,
American militarism is more perilous than ever. It is also more undeniable. That is one reason the current moment is surprisingly
hopeful. The call to
end
"endless war" continues to rise on the flanks of both parties, even as it is flouted by leaders of each. More and more Americans
insist that, whatever interests are served by endless war, their own are not. More than
twice as many Americans prefer
to lower than raise military spending, according to a 2019 Eurasia Group Foundation survey.
Veterans support
Trump's pledge to bring Middle East wars to a close: A
majority of vets deem the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria not to have been worth fighting. The Afghanistan Papers ought to
strengthen the consensus. Americans deserve a president who will act accordingly.
The United States would find partners far and wide, in nations great and small, if it put peace first. It could make clear that
while spreading democracy or human rights remains worthwhile, values cannot come at the point of a gun or serve as a pretext for
war -- and that international peace is, in fact, a condition for human flourishing. Every time Washington searches for a monster
to destroy, it shows the world's despots how to abuse the rules and hands demagogues a phantom to inflate. The alternative is not
"isolationism" but something closer to the opposite: peaceful, lawful international cooperation against the major threats to humanity,
including climate change, pandemic disease and widespread deprivation. Those are the enemies worth fighting, and bombs and bullets
will not defeat them.
Samuel Moyn is Henry R. Luce professor of jurisprudence and professor of history at Yale University and a fellow of the
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and Stephen Wertheim is deputy director of research and policy at the Quincy Institute
for Responsible Statecraft. He is also a research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University
Follow @samuelmoyn and @stephenwertheim
Clapper and Brennan will be shaking in their boots after watching Barr's interview: done in
"bad faith" = SEDITION !!!! Deep State operatives...ie, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Stork, Lisa,
McCabe, should be held accountable. Obama should probably be impeached.
The hard fact is, that the top of the FBI knew, in advance, that the "dossier" was just bs
invented by Russian liars, for money, to be used as political lies for kilary's campaign. It
Wasn't evidence and Comey knew far in advance of crossfire hurricane. I can't see less than 20
years in comey's future. That same includes barak, brennan and clapper, who were all informed,
willing accomplices in this crime.
10:30
Whoever in FBI that intentionally misled the court using the Steele dossier knowing that the
dossier was "total rubbish" as Barr states, needs to be inditing immediately. Why we are
continuing to investigate instead of inditimg while continuing to investigate. Until these people
are held accountable I don't think our country will begin to heal and media and others apologize
to the country for the damage they have done.
7:49 -
"Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance, and therefore couldn't be questioned
about classified matters." Well now, isn't that interesting. Haven't heard that one before.
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News' Pete Williams
about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the Russia
investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
I'm So glade we have a competent attorney General pushing back on the massive
disinformation narrative that comes from Giant News outlets of which are used to being
unchallenged, unchecked by today's "journalistic standards"
so this guy really asked Bahr"why not open an investigation even with little evidence?"
because is a violation of civil liberties to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens. You
need compelling evidence for something so huge
Horowitz should be instructed to edit or update his Report to discuss The Question of Bias
and Evidence of Bias. He has clearly misguided Americans with his choice of words and has
omitted important facts underpinning bias.
AG Barr is an outstanding role model, a man of integrity and wisdom, calm in a raging
political storm. I have full confidence he will make those who fabricated evidence and hid
exculpatory evidence finally face justice. AG Barr for President 2024!
Barr is a straight shooter and I love it. It sounds like we will get to the real truth
eventually through Durhams investigation I just hope it doesnt take another year to get to
the prosecutions.
So, I watched the interview... The video is called, "Full Interview: Barr Criticizes
Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation." Not once did I hear him criticize the
I.G.'s report. In fact, A.G. Barr clarified that the I.G.'s report was limited in scope
because of the limitations put on the I.G. He said that the report was appropriate.
It's scary to see how powerful the corruption of the Democratic Party has grown. It
represents a serious threat to all our personal freedom. The Democratic Party has to be
stopped.
Ok after watching this interview its quite clear that Barr and Durham is going after these
criminals and people are going to jail. Maybe there is hope for US yet becuase this dane
consider US atm a banana republic. Spying on political candidates? Forging documents? You FBI
behaving like Stalins secret police. Lets see what happen.
Amazing for the AG to go in deep into enemy territory at the heart of the opposition media
to lay out a case for the criminal activities that undermined our country prior to and after
the 2016 election. The deep state is trembling at the prospect of being held accountable
after all the facts are laid out to the american people that these activities cannot be
brushed aside or swept under the carpet if we are to continue as a country.
The corrupt media is trying to act like they have not been involved in this treasonous
scam since the beginning working directly with the treasonous cabal. The media has been lying
and pushing fake news for 3 years calling Trump a Russia agent and called him treasonous. I
knew the whole time that they were lying there was evidence from day one that this was all
lies and if I can see that from the public then they can definitely see that from the inside
they are purposefully lying.
I dare anyone on here to research Barr's History back to his involvement in the
assignation of JFK, the cover up, defending Nixon, Epstein, and many other illegal and
immoral activities. After reviewing the evidence, I walked away believing that Barr is trying
to cover up his tracks so he does do jail time. No need to reply. Either take my dare or not.
God Bless America and ALL her people, Stephan
The public are sick of waiting . I find myself skipping through a half hour news show in 5
minutes flat looking for arrests ,whereas before I was rivited to every minute of the half
hour show but it goes on and on and at the there is Nothiing .The Democrats are the masters ,
it's obvious . If they break the law they get off scott free . If you are republican wave bye
bye , you will be in jail for years . America is not the free and fair country it is all
cracked up to be . It is corrupted by the democrats who have peoiple in high places that
thwart real justice.
Mifsud approached George! Who was Mifsud working for (western asset) and why did he
approach George? He’s the one who offered George dirt on Hill. Then invited him to meet
the fake “niece”, of Putin, in England! What about this information? Someone set
George up to make this happen outside the US, because of EO 12333. It had to happen outside
the US so they could go to the fisa court!
I dont trust Christopher Wrey. He keeps slow-walking all the FBI documents and
declassifications. He also fights judicial watch and judges that rule in their favor and
continue not giving over what is ordered! This last judge was ready to hold him in contempt
for refusing to cooperate with court ordered documents.
Why did the FBI continue to investigate Trump after January when the case collapsed? To
try and find a way to impeach Trump. Remember the Washington Post headlined article right
after the inauguration "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already
underway." The FBI "insurance" policy was essential!
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become immediately, and for many years to come required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
Copyright 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org
was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
? 
Share 
Copy
Print
I think this is pertinent to
the "Russian Sitrep" issue. Can one or more persons with a clearer view than mine comment on
the constant rhetoric regarding Ukraine being "at war with Russia" and more specifically
in a "hot war with Russia?"
Well, in a word, it's BS.
It's a civil war (note where the shooting started 
@Bill H
Re: Kremlinology.
thanks patrick!
Martin Sieff
January 27, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia Retired Red Army
Lieutenant Colonel Anatoly Shapiro was proud of his lifetime service in the Red Army: He spent
the last years of his life combatting the Big Lie of Holocaust denial by neo-Nazis.
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/insight/2015/11/29/how-chrystia-freeland-became-justin-trudeaus-first-star/gal1-freeland-grandpa-wilbur.jpg)
Daniel Lazare January 8, 2020 | Security Who Created the Persian Gulf Tinderbox? Joe Biden's
statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by
assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an
all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?
Print this article See also 
January 7, 2020 
Bernie Sanders Walks Straight Into the Russiagate
Trap
(@DrJillStein) 
the withdrawal of
heavy weapons, while Turkey continues to support the jihadists. However, it has started to move
them out of Idlib to Djerba (Tunisia), and onwards to Tripoli (Libya), where the United States
wishes to rekindle the war.
To the top
Vierotchka
wardropper
Berlin beerman
Dungroanin
Dungroanin
richard le sarc
Your
comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
Search
History
History as Propaganda: Why the USSR Did Not 'Win' World War II (I)
Strategic Culture
Print
![Iraqi security forces are seen at Ain al-Asad airbase in Anbar province [File: Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters]](https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2020/1/8/691173f4ac6b42f6b95df126ad4421bd_18.jpg "Iraq army says no Iraqi casualties as 22 missiles strike bases")
Media playback is unsupported on your device
<img data-attachment-id="8190" data-permalink="https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/hoe-de-verenigde-staten-in-irak-in-eigen-voet-schoten-en-de-wensdromen-van-hun-think-tanks/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a/" data-orig-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?fit=596%2C397&ssl=1" data-orig-size="596,397" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?fit=596%2C397&ssl=1" src="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?w=1000&ssl=1" alt="" srcset="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?w=596&ssl=1 596w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 596px) 100vw, 596px" data-recalc-dims="1" />
<img data-attachment-id="8191" data-permalink="https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/hoe-de-verenigde-staten-in-irak-in-eigen-voet-schoten-en-de-wensdromen-van-hun-think-tanks/6obco-j5-jpg-medium/" data-orig-file="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?fit=720%2C960&ssl=1" data-orig-size="720,960" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="6OBco-J5.jpg-medium" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?fit=225%2C300&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?fit=720%2C960&ssl=1" src="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?w=1000&ssl=1" alt="" srcset="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?w=720&ssl=1 720w, https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?resize=225%2C300&ssl=1 225w, https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?resize=600%2C800&ssl=1 600w" sizes="(max-width: 720px) 100vw, 720px" data-recalc-dims="1" />
<img data-attachment-id="8192" data-permalink="https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/hoe-de-verenigde-staten-in-irak-in-eigen-voet-schoten-en-de-wensdromen-van-hun-think-tanks/olyjr7od/" data-orig-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?fit=1100%2C618&ssl=1" data-orig-size="1100,618" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="olyJR7OD" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?fit=300%2C169&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?fit=1000%2C562&ssl=1" src="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=1000%2C562&ssl=1" alt="" srcset="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=1024%2C575&ssl=1 1024w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=300%2C169&ssl=1 300w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=768%2C431&ssl=1 768w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=600%2C337&ssl=1 600w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?w=1100&ssl=1 1100w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" data-recalc-dims="1" />
Thank you. It really is an interesting and useful site. For example, if one's relatives, friends, co-workers or acquaintances start the "democratic activists" lament again, one can send them a link to this article:
Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham's Abu Abdullah al-Shami on Meeting Western Analysts
March 10, 2020
Or to this article:
"Oh People of al-Sham: Be Steadfast, Be Steadfast"- New Speech by Sheikh Abu Himam al-Shami of Hurras al-Din
March 9, 2020
Posted by: S | Mar 11 2020 9:59 utc | 89