Was in de veronderstelling dat de BBC John Nettles aan de kant had geschoven vanwege zijn fascistoïde racistische (eigenlijk dubbelop, ‘maar goed……’) uitspraken en handelen. Echter zag gisteravond tijdens het zappen dat BBC First een nieuwe serie ‘Midsomer Murders’ met deze ploert op de rol heeft staan, vanaf 10 april worden de nieuwe afleveringen uitgezonden………
Om een voorbeeld van zijn schoftengedrag te geven: Nettles weigert gekleurde mensen voor deelname aan deze serie…….
Ziggo is één van de kabelaars die BBC First doorgeeft (wat betreft de publieke zendgemachtigden: ook KRO-NCRV zenden deze serie uit, waar de NPO zich al eens druk heeft gemaakt over het feit dat BBC First deze waardeloze detective uitzendt…..)…… De NPO, je weet wel, de ‘onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde’ die zwarte piet weigert te schrappen…..
Tijd voor een boycot van deze serie en degenen die deze serie met Nettles blijven uitzenden, ondanks dat ze op de hoogte zijn van deze zaak!! (overigens zijn er ook seizoenen waaraan deze Nettles niet heeft meegewerkt, kortom: ‘het kan wel’ zonder deze ploert)
Vergeet bij dit alles niet, dat er al dik meer dan 100 jaar veel gekleurde mensen in Engeland wonen, dit i.t.t. Nederland.
Voor meer berichten over Midsomer Murders en/of John Nettles, klik op dat label, direct onder dit bericht.
Toevoeging op 8 december 2020: het is al helemaal schunnig dat de BBC de series met Nettles blijft uitzenden na de grote Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstraties van 2019 en begin 2020…… Heb aan de labels ook BLM toegevoegd voor berichten over deze demonstraties.
Rutte stelde eerder t.a.v. de ‘moordaanslag’ op ex-dubbelspion Skripal zowaar, eerst onomstotelijk bewijs te willen zien waaruit de Russische schuld voor die aanslag zou blijken, voordat hij actie wilde ondernemen. Echter na een theekrans in Brussel stuurt het onzelfstandig VVD ventje en opperhufter Rutte nu 2 Russische diplomaten naar huis, zonder ook maar een flinter van bewijs voor die Russische verantwoordelijkheid…….
Om deze beslissing te steunen stelde VVD volksverlakker Blok dat Rusland met de bewijzen moet komen, dat het deze aanslag niet heeft gepleegd……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Uiteraard zal Rusland dit niet doen, te zot voor woorden, maar Blok zal daarop zeggen dat het wel duidelijk is:’ Rusland is onomstotelijk bewezen de dader….’ Blok, die stelde dat Rusland moet meewerken aan het onderzoek, vertelt het Nederlandse volk natuurlijk niet, dat Rusland een onafhankelijk onderzoek eiste en zelf deel wil uitmaken van het onderzoek’, iets dat NB door de Britten werd afgewezen!!
Het BNR nieuws van 9.00 u. vanmorgen haalde de uitspraak in deze van zijne kwaadaardigheid Turnbull, de Australische premier aan: deze flapdrol durfde te zeggen dat Rusland voor het eerst sinds WOII gifgas heeft gebruikt in Europa…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Sinds WOII is er heel veel gifgas gebruikt in Europa, namelijk traangas en dat door diverse staten, waaronder Nederland, godbetert tegen de eigen bevolking!!!
Na 9.30 u. op Radio1 in het programma ‘Smaakmakers’ (ofwel: praatjesmakers) werd Ben Bot gevraagd naar deze zaak en hij begon over de pokerface van Putin, die hij daarna dan ook de schuld voor de aanslag op Skripal en zijn dochter in de schoenen schoof……
Uiterst vermakelijk waren daarna de uitlatingen van de ‘journalisten’ in het onvolprezen suffe ‘Mediaforum’ (Radio1 na 10.00 u.). Vooral Joost Oranje, de regeringsgetrouwe hoofdredacteur van Nieuwsuur was ronduit humoristisch, ondanks dat er totaal geen bewijs is voor Russische betrokkenheid bij de aanslag op Skripal, weet hij het middels veel geblaat zeker: Rusland is de dader! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Tja we moeten nu eenmaal de geheime diensten vertrouwen (althans Oranje vertrouwt ze volledig), ook de Engelse en ja als die dan allen stellen dat Rusland de dader is, kan er geen twijfel bestaan……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Alsof de geheime diensten ook maar voor 20% geloofwaardig zijn…….. Een herhaling van zetten zoals in Russiagate, waar men durfde te stellen dat alle geheime diensten van de VS tot dezelfde conclusie waren gekomen: Rusland heeft de presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 gemanipuleerd en daarmee zou het bewijs geleverd zijn……. Echter van de meer dan 15 geheime diensten in de VS waren dit er 3: de FBI, de NSA en de CIA, alle 3 bekend om hun enorme leugens……. Het hele Russiagate verhaal is dan ook (en bepaald niet alleen vanwege deze leugen) niets meer dan bewezen enorme kul!
Overigens was voor Oranje ook zwaarwegend dat de Nederlandse regering overtuigd is van de Russische schuld in deze…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Hoe kan je de Nederlandse regering nu plotsklaps als geloofwaardig zien, terwijl het door de leider van deze regering verlangde onomstotelijke bewijs volledig ontbreekt??!!!
Opvallend trouwens: op de landelijke radio nieuwszenders, BNR en Radio1 (en die in Duitsland en Groot-Brittannie), hoor je het woord ‘novitsjok’ (novichok), de naam die aan het gif werd gegeven, amper of niet meer terug…….
Zie voorts de reacties van Artwave Art onder dit bericht!
Israëlische bronnen meldden onlangs dat Israël bezig is met de voorbereiding op een oorlog, die op meerdere fronten gevoerd moet gaan worden…… Hierin staat Israël bepaald niet alleen, ook de VS is daar mee bezig gezien de feiten en agressie in Syrië en tegen Iran, en diezelfde agressie, al is het nog niet met (volledig) militair geweld tegen Rusland, Noord-Korea en… China.
De VS stelt de soevereiniteit en democratie van landen als de Filipijnen, Japan en Taiwan ‘te verdedigen*‘ tegen Chinese ‘agressie’, agressie die bestaat uit het opspuiten van eilandjes in de Zuid-Chinese Zee, een zee die niet aan de VS grenst, maar zoals de naam al doet vermoeden, wel aan China…….
Gezien de grootschalige terreur die de VS verspreidt in bijvoorbeeld het Midden-Oosten (waartoe men voor voor het gemak ook Afghanistan en Libië rekent) en het feit dat de VS rond China en Rusland meer dan 600 militaire bases hebben ingericht, is het bepaald niet vreemd dat China een buffer rond haar land probeert in te richten. (een buffer rond Rusland werd door de uiterst agressieve VS met de NAVO aan de lijn, voor een groot deel afgebroken, dit volkomen tegen de eerder gemaakte afspraken met Gorbatsjov in…….)
Tel daar de VS import heffingen op Chinees staal en aluminium bij op en je kan niets anders zien dan het begin van een handelsoorlog….. Het plaatje is compleet: ook China moet zich onderwerpen aan de VS hegemonie, daar het anders te maken krijgt met het leger van de VS……..**
Het nieuwe budget voor de VS defensie, uh oorlogsvoering is hoger dan ooit tevoren, ondanks dat het Pentagon 11,5 biljoen over de laatste jaren niet kan verantwoorden…… (en niet goedgekeurd door het congres) Gezien dit enorme budget en het voorgaande, kan je niet anders concluderen dan dat het hier om een oorlogsbudget gaat, niet alleen voor de illegale oorlogen die de VS nog voert (Afghanistan, Irak en Syrië), maar vooral t.b.v. komende (illegale) oorlogen, die de ‘neocons***‘ op hun verlanglijst hebben staan…… Deze neocons hebben in feite het Witte Huis overgenomen…..
De grote winnaar van dit alles? Het militair-industrieel complex!!
US Warship Infuriates China After Sailing Within 12 Miles of Disputed Island
(ANTIMEDIA) — A U.S. Navy destroyer carried out a “freedom of navigation” operation on Friday, coming within 12 nautical miles of one of China’s artificial islands, according to an exclusive Reuters report.
Speaking to Reuters on the condition of anonymity, U.S. officials said the destroyer Mustin traveled close to Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands and carried out maneuvering operations. Washington’s intention was to counter what it sees as China’s attempts to limit the freedom of navigation in the strategically located waters.
The navigation reportedly infuriated Beijing, which still has territorial disputes with its neighbors. As Reuters highlighted, 12 nautical miles is an internationally recognized territorial limit and fits a recent pattern of U.S. navigational behavior. However, it is highly likely that the U.S. purposely brought the ship as close as possible, as it has become increasingly concerned that China’s build-up in the area will eventually drive the U.S. out and make its so-called free nautical movement non-existent.
According to Reuters, the U.S. military believes its activities are carried out under international law and relies on the fact that American forces regularly operate in the region.
“We conduct routine and regular freedom of navigation operations, as we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future,” Lieutenant Commander Nicole Schwegman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said, as quoted by Reuters.
China’s response to this latest move was to send two naval ships of its own to identify the ships and warn the destroyer to leave. In turn, China has vowed to accelerate its plans for the region in order to combat the American presence.
“The provocative behaviour by the U.S. side will only cause the Chinese military to further strengthen building up defense abilities in all areas,” a Chinese Defense Ministry statement read.
Its navy will also carry out combat drills in the South China Sea, calling the development part of regular annual exercises.
This is not the first time this year Washington has sent a warship to the area, rattling China in the process. In January, China vowed to take “necessary measures” to protect its sovereignty after the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Hopper came within 12 nautical miles of Huangyuan Island, which is subject to a rival claim by the Philippines.
This latest operation occurred just one day after Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum that will target $60 billion in Chinese goods with tariffs following a 30-day consultation period that will begin once the list of targeted Chinese goods is published. China already warned against this provocative move, urging the U.S. to step away from what it termed as “the brink.”
The move also follows the revelation that the Trump administration signed the Taiwan Travel Act into law. The bill calls for increased high-level visits to Taiwan by U.S. civilian and military leaders. Just last week, Anti-Mediareleased a report predicting that the situation would quietly start to escalate with little more than a blink from the media, which is busy debating gun control, Facebook’s much-needed scrutiny, and anything else that doesn’t involve a potential nuclear holocaust.
In early February, President Trump said he planned to nominate Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, as ambassador to Australia. Not long after, Harris was quick to advise Congress to prepare for a war with China in the South China Sea.
Australia has recently been caught in a war of words of its own with China and had plans to send a British warship into the South China Sea earlier this month, as well.
It might sound simplistic, but Washington’s concern with the area and rationale for risking an all-out confrontation is about one thing: money. China’s use of the South China sea attracts approximately $5 trillion in ship-borne trade every year, according to Reuters.
All that is preventing China from injecting itself into the rest of the global market eastward through the Pacific Ocean is a chain of islands known as the “first island chain,” an island chain that includes the Kuril Islands of Russia, the Japanese archipelago, Taiwan, the northern Philippines, and Borneo. America has blocked China through its control of these islands and with the help of its allies on the ground, but this has recently started to change.
Since August last year, China has had an incursion of its own into the area, flying bombers and intelligence aircraft near these southern outlying islands of Japan. Russia, a stalwart ally of China, is also looking to build a naval base in the area even though control of the islands in question continues to be a point of dispute between Japan and Russia. It seems likely that Russia’s military presence will only aid China’s regional ambitions — as opposed to presenting a buffer to it — as the two nuclear powers often view U.S. hegemony through the same lens. Further complicating this issue, in February of this year, 2,000 Russian troops held military exercises on the Southern Kurils, irking Japan in the process.
Clearly, things are building up for a reason, though one would be hard-pressed to find any mainstream media outlet that pays this story the amount of coverage it deserves.
Israëlische
bronnen meldden onlangs dat Israël bezig is met de voorbereiding op
een oorlog, die op meerdere fronten gevoerd moet gaan worden…… Hierin staat Israël bepaald niet
alleen, ook de VS is daar mee bezig gezien de feiten en agressie in
Syrië en tegen Iran, en diezelfde agressie, al is het nog niet met (volledig) militair geweld tegen Rusland, Noord-Korea en… China.
De
VS stelt de soevereiniteit en democratie van landen als de Filipijnen, Japan en
Taiwan ‘te verdedigen*‘ tegen Chinese ‘agressie’, agressie die bestaat uit het
opspuiten van eilandjes in de Zuid-Chinese Zee, een zee die niet aan
de VS grenst, maar zoals de naam al doet vermoeden, wel aan China…….
Gezien
de grootschalige terreur die de VS verspreidt in bijvoorbeeld het
Midden-Oosten (waartoe men voor voor het gemak ook Afghanistan en
Libië rekent) en het feit dat de VS rond China en Rusland
meer dan 600 militaire bases hebben ingericht, is het bepaald niet
vreemd dat China een buffer rond haar land probeert in te richten. (een buffer rond Rusland werd door de uiterst agressieve VS met de NAVO aan de lijn, voor een groot deel afgebroken, dit volkomen tegen de eerder gemaakte afspraken met Gorbatsjov in…….)
Tel
daar de VS import heffingen op Chinees staal en aluminium bij op en je kan niets anders zien dan het begin van een handelsoorlog….. Het plaatje is
compleet: ook China moet zich onderwerpen aan de VS hegemonie, daar
het anders te maken krijgt met het leger van de VS……..**
Het nieuwe budget voor de VS defensie, uh oorlogsvoering is hoger dan ooit tevoren, ondanks dat het Pentagon 11,5 biljoen over de laatste jaren niet kan verantwoorden…… (en niet goedgekeurd door het congres) Gezien dit enorme budget en het voorgaande, kan je niet anders concluderen dan dat het hier om een oorlogsbudget gaat, niet alleen voor de illegale oorlogen die de VS nog voert (Afghanistan, Irak en Syrië), maar vooral t.b.v. komende (illegale) oorlogen, die de ‘neocons***‘ op hun verlanglijst hebben staan…… Deze neocons hebben in feite het Witte Huis overgenomen…..
De grote winnaar van dit alles? Het militair-industrieel complex!!
US
Warship Infuriates China After Sailing Within 12 Miles of Disputed
Island
(ANTIMEDIA) — A
U.S. Navy destroyer carried out a “freedom of navigation”
operation on Friday, coming within 12 nautical miles of one of
China’s artificial islands, according to an
exclusive Reuters report.
Speaking
to Reuters on the condition of anonymity, U.S.
officials said the destroyer Mustin traveled close to Mischief Reef
in the Spratly Islands and carried out maneuvering operations.
Washington’s intention was to counter what it sees as China’s
attempts to limit the freedom of navigation in the strategically
located waters.
The
navigation reportedly infuriated Beijing, which still has territorial
disputes with its neighbors. As Reuters highlighted,
12 nautical miles is an internationally recognized territorial limit
and fits a recent pattern of U.S. navigational behavior. However, it
is highly likely that the U.S. purposely brought the ship as close as
possible, as it has become increasingly concerned that China’s
build-up in the area will eventually drive the U.S. out and make its
so-called free nautical movement non-existent.
According
to Reuters, the U.S. military believes its activities are
carried out under international law and relies on the fact that
American forces regularly operate in the region.
“We
conduct routine and regular freedom of navigation operations, as we
have done in the past and will continue to do in the
future,” Lieutenant
Commander Nicole Schwegman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Pacific
Fleet, said, as quoted by Reuters.
China’s
response to this latest move was to send two naval ships of its own
to identify the ships and warn the destroyer to leave. In turn, China
has vowed to accelerate its plans for the region in order to combat
the American presence.
“The
provocative behaviour by the U.S. side will only cause the Chinese
military to further strengthen building up defense abilities in all
areas,” a
Chinese Defense Ministry statement read.
Its
navy will also carry out combat drills in the South China Sea,
calling the development part of regular annual exercises.
This
is not the first time this year Washington has sent a warship to the
area, rattling China in the process. In January,
China vowed to take “necessary measures” to protect its
sovereignty after the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Hopper came within 12
nautical miles of Huangyuan Island, which is subject to a rival claim
by the Philippines.
This
latest operation occurred just one day after Donald Trump signed a
presidential memorandum that will target $60 billion in Chinese goods
with tariffs following a 30-day consultation period that will begin
once the list of targeted Chinese goods is published. China already
warned against
this provocative move, urging the U.S. to step away from what it
termed as “the brink.”
The
move also follows the revelation that the Trump administration signed
the Taiwan
Travel Act into
law. The bill calls for increased high-level visits to Taiwan by U.S.
civilian and military leaders. Just last week, Anti-Mediareleased
a report predicting
that the situation would quietly start to escalate with little more
than a blink from the media, which is busy debating gun control,
Facebook’s much-needed scrutiny, and anything else that doesn’t
involve a potential nuclear holocaust.
In
early February, President Trump said he planned
to nominate Admiral
Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, as
ambassador to Australia. Not long after, Harris was quick to
advise Congress to prepare for a war with China in the South China
Sea.
Australia
has recently been caught in a war of words of its own with China and
had plans to send a British
warship into
the South China Sea earlier this month, as well.
It
might sound simplistic, but Washington’s concern with the area and
rationale for risking an all-out confrontation is about one thing:
money. China’s use of the South China sea attracts approximately $5
trillion in ship-borne trade every year, according to Reuters.
All
that is preventing China from injecting itself into the rest of the
global market eastward through the Pacific Ocean is a chain of
islands known as the “first
island chain,” an
island chain that includes the Kuril Islands of Russia, the Japanese
archipelago, Taiwan, the northern Philippines, and Borneo. America
has blocked China through its control of these islands and with the
help of its allies on the ground, but this has recently started to
change.
Since August
last year,
China has had an incursion of its own into the area, flying bombers
and intelligence aircraft near these southern outlying islands of
Japan. Russia, a stalwart ally of China, is also looking to build
a naval base in the area even
though control of the islands in question continues to be a point of
dispute between Japan and Russia. It seems likely that Russia’s
military presence will only aid China’s regional ambitions — as
opposed to presenting a buffer to it — as the two nuclear powers
often view U.S. hegemony through the same lens. Further
complicating this issue, in February of this year,
2,000 Russian troops held military exercises on the Southern Kurils,
irking Japan in the process.
Clearly,
things are building up for a reason, though one would be hard-pressed
to find any mainstream media outlet that pays this story the amount
of coverage it deserves.
* ‘Verdedigen’, ofwel de VS is bezig haar sleutelposities in de regio van de Zuid-Chinese Zee uit te breiden……….
** Dit zet ten overvloede nog eens het belachelijke praatje van Heleen Mees in het juiste daglicht, deze neoliberale hufter weet niet waar ze over praat, als ze zegt dat Trump groot gelijk heeft met het instellen van importheffingen, immers een handelsoorlog eindigt meestal in een echte oorlog, zoals de geschiedenis ons leert….. Zie: ‘Heleen Mees, Trump heeft gelijk met zijn handelsoorlog tegen China………‘
*** Neoconservatieven die verdomd veel gemeen hebben met het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme.
In het volgende artikel uitleg van Edward Snowden over hoe de deep state werkt (in de VS). Zoals je wellicht al bekend was, het gaat bepaald niet alleen om de geheime diensten, maar bijvoorbeeld ook om de ambtenaren op sleutelposities, die na een wisseling van presidenten niet hoeven te vertrekken. Jammer dat Snowden niet de grote bedrijven en banken noemt, daar deze wel degelijk deel uitmaken van deep state……
Gezien dat laatste, hebben ook de miljardairs veel invloed, immers zij bezitten bedrijven of hebben de meerderheid van aandelen van bedrijven in handen, zoals die van de grote dagbladen >> niet voor niets dat de ‘journalistiek’ in die bladen allesbehalve onafhankelijk is….
Snowden legt uit hoe presidenten worden ingepakt door deep state, alle hervormingen die zij willen doorvoeren, zoals hervorming, dan wel opheffen van geheime diensten, stranden en zullen blijven stranden…… (althans zoals het er nu uitziet en er moet wel een enorme catastrofe passeren wil daar verandering in komen……)
Snowden Explains How the Deep State Influences Presidents
(TIM) — Famed whistleblower Edward Snowden was recently interviewed by Italian publication La Repubblic. The publication noted the 5-year mark of Snowden’s historic act of blowing the whistle on the NSA’s expansive surveillance programs and that “many thought he would end up very badly, but when he connects via videolink for this interview with la Repubblica, he seems to be doing very well: the frank smile and peaceful face of someone who is easy in his mind.”
In an excerpt from the exclusive interview, Snowden explained how the presidencies of both Obama and Trump are shaped by the Deep State following an illuminating question by journalist Stefania Maurizi.
Stefania Maurizi: We saw that President Obama, who was an outsider to the US military-intelligence complex, initially wanted to reign in the abuses of agencies like the CIA and the NSA, but in the end he did very little. Now we see a confrontation between president Trump and so-called Deep State, which includes the CIA and the NSA. Can a US president govern in opposition to such powerful entities?
Edward Snowden: Obama is certainly an instructive case. This is a president who campaigned on a platform of ending warrantless wiretapping in the United States, he said “that’s not who we are, that’s not what we do,” and once he became the president, he expanded the program. He said he was going to close Guantanamo but he kept it open, he said he was going to limit extrajudicial killings and drone strikes that has been so routine in the Bush years. But Obama went on to authorize vastly more drone strikes than Bush. It became an industry.
As for this idea that there is a Deep State, now the Deep State is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go, they influence policy, they influence presidents and say: this is what we have always done, this is what we must do, and if you don’t do this, people will die.
It is very easy to persuade a new president who comes in, who has never had these powers, but has always wanted this job and wants very, very badly to do that job well. A bureaucrat sitting there for the last twenty years says: I understand what you said, I respect your principles, but if you do what you promised, people will die. It is very easy for a president to go: well, for now, I am going to set this controversy to the side, I’m going to take your advice, let you guys decide how these things should be done, and then I will revisit it, when I have a little more experience, maybe in a few months, maybe in a few years, but then they never do.
This is what we saw quite clearly happen in the case of Barack Obama: when this story [of Snowden exposing the NSA’s mass surveillance] came forward in 2013, when Obama had been president for five years, one of the defences for this from his aides and political allies was: oh, Obama was just about to fix this problem! And sure enough, he eventually was forced from the wave of criticism to make some limited reforms, but he did not go far enough to end all of the programs that were in violation of the law or the constitution of the United States. That too was an intentional choice: he could have certainly used the scandal to advocate for all of the changes that he had campaigned on, to deliver on all of his promises, but in those five years he had become president, he discovered something else, which is that there are benefits from having very powerful intelligence agencies, there are benefits from having these career bureaucrats on your side, using their spider web over government for your benefit.
Imagine you are Barack Obama, and you realise – yes, when you were campaigning you were saying: spying on people without a warrant is a problem, but then you realise: you can read Angela Merkel’s text messages. Why bother calling her and asking her opinion, when you can just read her mind by breaking the law? It sounds like a joke, but it is a very seductive thing. Secrecy is perhaps the most corrupting of all government powers, because it takes public officials and divorces them from accountability to the public.
When we look at the case of Trump, who is perhaps the worst of politicians, we see the same dynamic occurring. This is a president who said the CIA is the enemy, it’s like Nazi Germany, they’re listening to his phone calls, and all of these other things, some claims which are true, some claims which are absolutely not. A few months later, he is authorizing major powers for these same agencies that he has called his enemies.
And this gets to the central crux of your question, which is: can any president oppose this? The answer is certainly. The president has to have some familiarity going in with the fact that this pitch is going to be made, that they are going to try to scare him or her into compliance. The president has to be willing to stand strongly on line and say: ‘I was elected to represent the interests of the American people, and if you’re not willing to respect the constitution and our rights, I will disband your agency, and create a new one’. I think they can definitely be forced into compliance, because these officials fear prison, just like every one of us.
he wants to see all his files published,how he looks at #Skripal and at the increasingly close relationships #Facebook,#Amazon,#Google and the intel (English)
In het volgende artikel uitleg van
Edward Snowden over hoe de deep state werkt (in de VS). Zoals je wellicht al
bekend was, het gaat bepaald niet alleen om de geheime diensten, maar
bijvoorbeeld ook om de ambtenaren op sleutelposities, die na een
wisseling van presidenten niet hoeven te vertrekken. Jammer dat
Snowden niet de grote bedrijven en banken noemt, daar deze wel
degelijk deel uitmaken van deep state……
Gezien dat laatste, hebben ook de
miljardairs veel invloed, immers zij bezitten bedrijven of hebben de
meerderheid van aandelen van bedrijven in handen, zoals die van de grote
dagbladen >> niet voor niets dat de ‘journalistiek’ in die bladen
allesbehalve onafhankelijk is….
Snowden legt uit hoe presidenten worden
ingepakt door deep state, alle hervormingen die zij willen
doorvoeren, zoals hervorming, dan wel opheffen van geheime diensten,
stranden en zullen blijven stranden…… (althans zoals het er nu uitziet en er moet wel een enorme catastrofe passeren wil daar verandering in komen……)
Snowden
Explains How the Deep State Influences Presidents
(TIM) — Famed
whistleblower Edward Snowden was recently interviewed by Italian
publication La Repubblic. The publication noted the 5-year mark of
Snowden’s historic act of blowing the whistle on the NSA’s
expansive surveillance programs and that “many thought he would end
up very badly, but when he connects via videolink for this interview
with la Repubblica, he seems to be doing very well: the frank smile
and peaceful face of someone who is easy in his mind.”
In
an excerpt from the exclusive interview, Snowden
explained how the presidencies of both Obama and Trump are shaped by
the Deep State following an illuminating question by journalist
Stefania Maurizi.
Stefania
Maurizi: We
saw that President Obama, who was an outsider to the US
military-intelligence complex, initially wanted to reign in the
abuses of agencies like the CIA and the NSA, but in the end he did
very little. Now we see a confrontation between president Trump and
so-called Deep State, which includes the CIA and the NSA. Can a US
president govern in opposition to such powerful entities?
Edward
Snowden: Obama
is certainly an instructive case. This is a president who campaigned
on a platform of ending warrantless wiretapping in the United States,
he said “that’s not who we are, that’s not what we do,” and
once he became the president, he expanded the program. He said
he was going to close Guantanamo but he kept it open, he said he was
going to limit extrajudicial killings and drone strikes that has been
so routine in the Bush years. But Obama went on to authorize vastly
more drone strikes than Bush. It became an industry.
As
for this idea that there is a Deep State, now the Deep State is not
just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to
the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in
powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch
presidents come and go, they influence policy, they influence
presidents and say: this is what we have always done, this is what we
must do, and if you don’t do this, people will die.
It
is very easy to persuade a new president who comes in, who has never
had these powers, but has always wanted this job and wants very, very
badly to do that job well. A bureaucrat sitting there for the last
twenty years says: I understand what you said, I respect your
principles, but if you do what you promised, people will die. It is
very easy for a president to go: well, for now, I am going to set
this controversy to the side, I’m going to take your advice, let
you guys decide how these things should be done, and then I will
revisit it, when I have a little more experience, maybe in a few
months, maybe in a few years, but then they never do.
This
is what we saw quite clearly happen in the case of Barack Obama: when
this story [of Snowden exposing the NSA’s mass surveillance] came
forward in 2013, when Obama had been president for five years, one of
the defences for this from his aides and political allies was: oh,
Obama was just about to fix this problem! And sure enough, he
eventually was forced from the wave of criticism to make some limited
reforms, but he did not go far enough to end all of the programs that
were in violation of the law or the constitution of the United
States. That too was an intentional choice: he could have certainly
used the scandal to advocate for all of the changes that he had
campaigned on, to deliver on all of his promises, but in those five
years he had become president, he discovered something else, which is
that there are benefits from having very powerful intelligence
agencies, there are benefits from having these career bureaucrats on
your side, using their spider web over government for your benefit.
Imagine
you are Barack Obama, and you realise – yes, when you were
campaigning you were saying: spying on people without a warrant is a
problem, but then you realise: you can read Angela Merkel’s text
messages.
Why bother calling her and asking her opinion, when you can just read
her mind by breaking the law? It sounds like a joke, but it is a very
seductive thing. Secrecy is perhaps the most corrupting of all
government powers, because it takes public officials and divorces
them from accountability to the public.
When
we look at the case of Trump, who is perhaps the worst of
politicians, we see the same dynamic occurring. This is a president
who said the CIA is the enemy, it’s like Nazi Germany, they’re
listening to his phone calls, and all of these other things, some
claims which are true, some claims which are absolutely not. A
few months later, he is authorizing major powers for these same
agencies that he has called his enemies.
And
this gets to the central crux of your question, which is: can any
president oppose this? The answer is certainly. The president has to
have some familiarity going in with the fact that this pitch is going
to be made, that they are going to try to scare him or her into
compliance. The president has to be willing to stand strongly on line
and say: ‘I was elected to represent the interests of the American
people, and if you’re not willing to respect the constitution and
our rights, I will disband your agency, and create a new one’. I
think they can definitely be forced into compliance, because these
officials fear prison, just like every one of us.
he wants to see all his files published,how he looks at #Skripal and at the increasingly close relationships #Facebook,#Amazon,#Google and the intel (English)
Edward Snowden: “Poisoning people who are long out of their service is contemptible”
In an exclusive interview, Edward Snowden tells La Repubblica what has changed in the five years since he blew the whistle on the NSA, how presidents Obama and
De minister van landbouw, natuur en voedselkwaliteit*, ‘Christen‘Unie lobbyist voor de intensieve martelveehouderij, Schouten heeft gelogen over een wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar pulsvisserij!
Vroege Vogels meldde gistermorgen het de eigen schuld is van ‘Nederland’ dat de EU de pulsvisserij heeft verboden (pulsvisserij: vissen op de bodem van de zee met een stroomstoot dwingen op te zwemmen, waarna men deze dieren in een net kan dwingen……. of alweer: het martelen van dieren…).
Al in 2010 beloofde de destijds verantwoordelijke minister dat Nederland de pulsvisserij wetenschappelijk zou laten onderzoeken, waarna Nederland toestemming kreeg van de EU om te experimenteren met deze vorm van visserij.
Schouten dacht weg te komen met de leugen dat Nederland het wetenschappelijk onderzoek nog moet afronden…… Nu is gebleken dat dit kul is en nog praktisch het hele onderzoek moet worden uitgevoerd……
Als je verstandig bent eet je geen vis (of vlees) daar m.n. vis afgeladen is met door de EU toegestane grote hoeveelheden gif, zoals kwik, pesticiden, medicijnresten en plastic….. In kweekvis vind je ook nog eens antibiotica……. Wat betreft de toegestane hoeveelheden gif, zie de noot hieronder.
* Wat een belachelijke combinatie overigens, daar een minister die de landbouw moet bedienen tegenstrijdige belangen heeft bijvoorbeeld als het gaat om landbouwgrond terug te geven aan de natuur, zodat natuurgebieden aan elkaar kunnen worden gekoppeld en we niet meer te maken hebben met dieren die op een postzegel grond verhongeren……… Een nog gevaarlijker belangenverstrengeling ontstaat bij landbouwproducten en voedselkwaliteit, immers de belangen van de landbouw gaan nu eenmaal in 95% van de gevallen voor op de volksgezondheid, waarmee de voedselkwaliteit op gespannen voet kan komen te staan met die volksgezondheid…… Neem de hoeveelheid gif die landbouwproducten mogen bevatten, waar de toegestane hoeveelheden altijd te hoog zijn, dit daar men kijkt naar een bepaalde hoeveelheid van giftige bestanddelen in een product, terwijl de meeste consumenten te maken hebben met een stapeling van de bestanddelen van een aantal soorten gif die in meerdere landbouwproducten en levensmiddelen voorkomen……
Met de benoemingen van John Bolton, een gewetenloze
psychopaat en zijn collega psychopaat Pompeo, kan je gerust
stellen dat Trump een oorlogskabinet heeft gevormd, zo betoogt Robert
Mackey terecht. Op 23 maart jl. publiceerde hij een
artikel op The Intercept, over de benoeming van Bolton.
Hierin vertelt Mackey o.a. dat Bolton aan
gevluchte Iraniërs in de VS heeft beloofd dat voor 2019 Iran een
andere regime zal hebben (een door de VS gewenst regime, zoals je begrijpt….) en hij dan feest komt vieren in
Teheran……..
Naast psychopaat is deze misdadiger ook nog eens
ongelofelijk dom immers in Irak is er nog steeds geen vrede, ondanks
de meer dan achterlijke vaststelling van zijne domme hufterigheid en oorlogsmisdadiger Bush
dat de ‘mission accomplished’ was, is het in feite nog steeds oorlog
in Irak, een oorlog die intussen aan dik meer dan 1,5 miljoen mensen het leven heeft gekost……….
Hoe denkt topidioot Bolton dan Iran in
een jaar tijd te kunnen verslaan? Iran heeft een uitermate goed
getraind leger, dit i.t.t. tot het leger dat Saddam Hoessein in Irak
ter beschikking stond….. Kernraketten gebruiken tegen Iran staat zo te horen niet op de
verlanglijst van Bolton, daar hij zelf feest wil vieren in Teheran, al zal het me niet verbazen als Bolton denkt dat een zwaar radioactief besmet gebied binnen een paar maanden ‘schoon waait’. Voorts zijn er nog de nieuwe tactische kernwapens van de VS, kernwapens die op het slagveld gebruikt moeten gaan
worden en daar alleen ‘een beperkt gebied’ zwaar radioactief besmet zouden maken……..
Dan is er nog de vraag wat Rusland en
China zullen doen, als de VS een oorlog tegen Iran begint (met
de kans dat de VS ook een tweede front opent op Noord-Korea), gezien de
troepenopbouw her en der…….
AMONG
THOSE MOST alarmed
by President Donald Trump’s selection of John
Bolton as
his new national security adviser on Thursday were supporters of the
Iran nuclear deal, the 2015 international agreement that curbed
Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a partial lifting of
economic sanctions.
Rob
Malley, who coordinated Middle East policy in the Obama
administration, observed that Bolton’s appointment, along with the
nomination of Iran deal critic Mike Pompeo as secretary of state,
seemed to signal that the agreement would most likely be “dead
and buried”
within months. Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American
Council wrote
on Twitter:
“People, let this be very clear: The appointment of Bolton is
essentially a declaration of war with Iran. With Pompeo and Bolton,
Trump is assembling a WAR CABINET.”
Their
alarm was understandable. Bolton, who made his name as a belligerent
member of George W. Bush’s State Department and a Fox News
contributor, has not only demanded that
the Trump administration withdraw from the nuclear deal, he also
previously advocated bombing
Iran instead.
Bolton has spent the better part of a decade calling
for the
United States to help overthrow the
theocratic government in Tehran and hand power to a cult-like group
of Iranian exiles with no real support inside the country.
Just
eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the
Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People’s
Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal
of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a
“viable” alternative.
“The
outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine
that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution will not last until
its 40th birthday,” Bolton
said.
(The 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution will be on February
11, 2019.) “The declared policy of the United States should be the
overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran,” Bolton added. “The
behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change
and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.”
As
the Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi noted, Bolton
concluded his address to the exiles with a rousing promise: “And
that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”
#JohnBolton 8 months ago among MEK supporters tells them they will overthrow #Iran’s regime and celebrate in #Tehran with Bolton himself present, “before 2019”
To
understand how extraordinary it is that the man about to become the
president’s most senior national security official made this
promise to the MEK, it is important to know that, until recently, the
Iranian dissidents had spent three decades trying to achieve their
aims through violence, including terrorist attacks.
After
members of the MEK helped foment the 1979 revolution, in part
by killing
American civilians working
in Tehran, the group then lost a bitter struggle for power to the
Islamists led by the revolution’s leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini. With its leadership forced to flee Iran in 1981, the MEK’s
members set up a government-in-exile in France and established a
military base in Iraq, where they were given arms and training by
Saddam Hussein, as part of a strategy to destabilize the government
in Tehran that he was at war with.
In
recent years, as The
Intercept has reported,
the MEK has poured millions of dollars into reinventing itself as a
moderate political group ready to take power in Iran if
Western-backed regime change ever takes place. To that end,
it lobbied
successfully to
be removed from the State Department’s list
of foreign terrorist organizations in
2012. The Iranian exiles achieved this over the apparent opposition
of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in part by paying a
long list of former U.S. officials hefty
speaking fees of between $10,000 to $50,000 for hymns of praise like
the one Bolton delivered last July.
If
the current government is not Iranians’ first choice for a
government, the MEK is not even their last — and for good reason.
The MEK supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. The
people’s discontent with the Iranian government at that time did
not translate into their supporting an external enemy that was firing
Scuds into Tehran, using chemical weapons and killing hundreds of
thousands of Iranians, including many civilians. Today, the MEK is
viewed negatively by most Iranians, who would prefer to maintain the
status quo than rush to the arms of what they consider a corrupt,
criminal cult.
Despite
such doubts that the MEK’s political wing, the National Council of
Resistance of Iran, is any more reliable than Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi
National Congress proved to be, spending lavishly on paid
endorsements has earned the group a bipartisan roster of Washington
politicians willing to sign up as supporters. At a
previous gala,
in 2016, Bolton was joined in singing the group’s praises by
another former U.N. ambassador, Bill
Richardson; a
former attorney general, Michael
Mukasey; the
former State Department spokesperson P.J.
Crowley; the
former Homeland Security adviser Frances
Townsend; the
former Rep. Patrick
Kennedy,
D-R.I.; and the former Vermont Gov. Howard
Dean.
That Paris gala was hosted by Linda
Chavez,
a former Reagan administration official.
At
a similar event this January, the backdrop behind former Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich, as he praised MEK leader Maryam Rajavi, made
the aim of the group’s investment in American politicians clear.
Newt
Gingrich addressed a Paris conference of the Iranian exile group
known as the MEK in January.
Photo:
Sipa via AP Images
Unsurprisingly,
leading figures from among the exile group’s Washington
followers have expressed delight over Bolton’s impending elevation
to the White House
At
the group’s celebration of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, in Albania
on Tuesday, Rajavi was joined
on stageby
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City.
Mr. Giuliani reiterated that unlike other countries in the region, there is an alternative to the ruling regime in Iran. Thus, its overthrow will lead to peace and tranquillity in a region that has been severely threatened by the clerical regime.#Iran#IranProtests
Although
the official announcement from the White House was not made until
Thursday, Giuliani told the group, to loud applause, that Bolton “is
going to be President Trump’s national security adviser.”
In
case there was any doubt among the exiles that Bolton might not
advise Trump to overthrow Iran’s government, Giuliani assured them
that “if anything, John Bolton has become more determined that
there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement
needs to be burned, and that you need to be in charge of that
country.”
Moments
later, Giuliani led the crowd in chanting “regime change.”
Despite
the fact that Trump ran for office as a critic of the decision to
invade Iraq, Bolton still refuses to call the preemptive attack a
mistake.
That
position stunned even Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, during an
interview two weeks ago. After Carlson pointed
out that
Bolton had called for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Syria,
and the first of those had been “a disaster,” Bolton disagreed,
saying, “I think your analysis is simple-minded, frankly.”
“I
think the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that military action, was a
resounding success,” Bolton told Carlson. The chaos that followed
in Iraq, he said, was caused by a poorly executed occupation that
ended too soon. On the bright side, Bolton said, the mistakes the
U.S. made in Iraq offered “lessons about what to do after a regime
is overthrown” in the future.
Top
Photo: At a 2017 celebration of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, in
Albania, Maryam Rajavi, the MEK leader and self-styled
president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, met
international supporters including John Bolton, second from left, a
former United StatesAmbassador
to the United Nations. Bolton was flanked by Pandeli Majko, a former
prime minister of Albania, far left, and David Muniz, the deputy
chief of the U.S. Embassy in Albania.
Mensen ik had het bericht, waarin wordt ‘gesproken’ over de vervanging van figuren rond het beest Trump, ‘nog niet gepubliceerd’* of men maakte bekend dat McMaster, zelf al een enorme ploert van formaat, werd afgezet door het beest, om plaats te maken voor John Bolton, ofwel de duivel zelf….. (zo niet dan toch één van diens trouwste medewerkers…)
Bolton schreef onlangs ‘geheel toevallig een’ opiniestuk’ in de Wall Street Journal dat de VS Noord-Korea moet aanvallen…. uit zelfbehoud!!! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Alsof Noord-Korea ooit ook maar een miljoenste van een seconde een gevaar is geweest voor de VS……. Ja ik lach wel, maar deze opperploert is werkelijk een gevaar voor de hele wereld…….
Alsof je een oorlogsmisdadiger, die je minstens als terrorist moet zien, minister van defensie maakt…. Oh ja, deze benoeming is in feite nog erger…!!
Bolton is één van de hoofdverantwoordelijken voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, waar hij de massavernietigingsfabel bleef herhalen als ambassadeur bij de VN……… Al moest je ofwel een topidioot zijn om dit te geloven, dan wel een kwaadaardige collaborateur van de VS, of lobbyist van andere westerse regeringen zijn die achter deze illegale oorlog stonden (zoals de reguliere westerse media….)…. Hoewel een lobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex, of een combi van het e.e.a. heel goed mogelijk is………
Met Pompeo, een andere opperschoft op Buitenlandse Zaken, een groot voorstander van oorlog tegen Iran en Noord-Korea, laat zich raden wat er op het ‘menu staat…..’ (één of het liefst twee illegale oorlogen, misschien zelfs met het gebruik van ‘tactische’ kernwapens, zodat deze getest kunnen worden in de praktijk…….)
Ik hoef je niet te vertellen wat hiervan het gevolg zal zijn….. Och, waarom ook niet: Rusland zal dit zeker niet pikken en waarschijnlijk zal China al evenmin op de handen blijven zitten, ofwel WOIII zal dan een voldongen feit zijn………
Hoe is het mogelijk dat de westerse media zo relatief gelaten reageren op deze laatste benoemingen…..??? Ach ja, die zien niet eens de grootschalige terreur die de VS uitoefent op een explosief deel van de wereld….. Sterker: nog steeds durft men daar niet te stellen dat de VS meehelpt aan een genocide op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen……
Darius Shahtahmasebi noemt Bolton America’s Worst Nightmare, ik zou een stap verder willen gaan en hem daarom de ergste nachtmerrie voor de wereld willen noemen…..
(ANTIMEDIAOp-ed) — John Bolton’s inclusion in the Trump administration as Donald Trump’s new national security advisor is nothing short of a nightmare.
Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, will be replacing General H.R. McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor, who replaced former “disgraced” national security advisor Michael Flynn. When the president struck a Syrian airbase in April 2017, it was McMaster who drew up and briefed Trump on the strike proposals, one of which was reportedly very extensive.
McMaster was also reportedly one of the main backers of a secret plan to give North Korea’s Kim Jong-un a “bloody nose strike,” a limited strike to dismantle its nuclear ambitions without risking an all-out war.
However, despite this, it appears McMaster wasn’t hawkish enough for Donald Trump’s needs. While McMaster publicly berates Iran and North Korea on a regular basis, he persistently warned against Trump’s plan to completely derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) formed with Iran in 2015. He also later denied the claims that the Trump administration was looking to deliver the “bloody nose strike” on North Korea, perhaps indicating he was not completely on board with the idea after all (or had decided otherwise at that particular juncture in history).
Enter John Bolton. Less than month ago, he wrote an op-ed article published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) entitled “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First” — an idea so bad, it seems, that about a week later, the WSJ published a counter viewpoint simply entitled “Striking North Korea First Is a Bad Proposal.”
In Bolton’s short-sighted op-ed — aside from the fact that he offers no real legal analysis at all (those who do consider it a legal analysis must explain why the argument of preemptive self-defense applies to the U.S. but not to North Korea, which faces American aggressionnear its borders on a routine basis) — it’s also quite telling that he relies on the evidence of CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who alleged in January that Pyongyang was only “a handful of months” away from being able to strike the American mainland with nukes.
It is no coincidence that next in line for Donald Trump’s secretary of state position is Pompeo himself.
Together, Bolton and Pompeo will be able to advise Trump on anti-North Korean and anti-Iranian platforms so hawkish there is no telling what’s to come (though we have a fairly decent idea).
As some of you may know, John Bolton’s hawkishness has already led to some of the most despicable foreign policy agendas of our generation.
“We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” Bolton famously said in 2002 while serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security. He also called Hussein a “threat to the region” and claimed he needed to be “disarmed.”
“But the end of the story is clear here. And if Saddam Hussein does not co-operate we have made it clear this is the last chance for him…I think the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” he added.
Even when this rationale for invading Iraq and destabilizing an entire region turned out to be one of the worst editions of “fake news” ever to sting the planet, in 2015 – some 12 years later – Bolton still claimed the Iraq War was worth it and said that, conversely, the worst decision involving Iraq was the “2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces.” In 2016, he then changed his mind to say that the only mistake of the Iraq War was that the U.S. did not get rid of Saddam Hussein sooner.
If John Bolton leads the cheers to invade Iran or North Korea, who will hold him accountable?
Apparently having learned no lessons at all from the criminal invasion of Iraq, Bolton also wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” in 2015. He made it quite clear that “only military action” could accomplish what was required to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In Bolton’s eyes, the JCPOA doesn’t cut it.
Mensen
ik had het bericht, waarin wordt ‘gesproken’ over de vervanging van figuren rond het beest
Trump, ‘nog niet gepubliceerd’* of men maakte bekend dat
McMaster, zelf al een enorme ploert van formaat, werd afgezet door
het beest, om plaats te maken voor John Bolton, ofwel de duivel
zelf….. (zo niet dan toch één van diens trouwste medewerkers…)
Bolton
schreef onlangs ‘geheel toevallig een’ opiniestuk’ in de Wall Street Journal
dat de VS Noord-Korea moet aanvallen…. uit zelfbehoud!!! ha! ha!
ha! ha! ha! Alsof Noord-Korea ooit ook maar een miljoenste van een
seconde een gevaar is geweest voor de VS……. Ja ik lach wel, maar
deze opperploert is werkelijk een gevaar voor de hele wereld…….
Alsof
je een oorlogsmisdadiger, die je minstens als terrorist moet zien,
minister van defensie maakt…. Oh ja, deze benoeming is in feite nog erger…!!
Bolton
is één van de hoofdverantwoordelijken voor de illegale oorlog tegen
Irak, waar hij de massavernietigingsfabel bleef herhalen als
ambassadeur bij de VN……… Al moest je ofwel een topidioot zijn
om dit te geloven, dan wel een kwaadaardige collaborateur van de VS, of lobbyist van andere westerse regeringen zijn die achter deze illegale oorlog stonden (zoals de reguliere westerse media….)…. Hoewel een lobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex, of een combi van het e.e.a. heel goed mogelijk is………
Met
Pompeo, een andere opperschoft op Buitenlandse Zaken, een groot
voorstander van oorlog tegen Iran en Noord-Korea, laat zich raden wat
er op het ‘menu staat…..’ (één of het liefst twee illegale oorlogen,
misschien zelfs met het gebruik van ‘tactische’ kernwapens, zodat deze getest kunnen worden in de praktijk…….)
Ik
hoef je niet te vertellen wat hiervan het gevolg zal zijn….. Och,
waarom ook niet: Rusland zal dit zeker niet pikken en waarschijnlijk
zal China al evenmin op de handen blijven zitten, ofwel
WOIII zal dan een voldongen feit zijn………
Hoe
is het mogelijk dat de westerse media zo relatief gelaten reageren op
deze laatste benoemingen…..??? Ach ja, die zien niet eens de
grootschalige terreur die de VS uitoefent op een explosief deel van
de wereld….. Sterker: nog steeds durft men daar niet te stellen
dat de VS meehelpt aan een genocide op de sjiitische bevolking van
Jemen……
Darius Shahtahmasebi noemt Bolton America’s Worst Nightmare, ik zou een stap verder willen gaan en hem daarom de ergste nachtmerrie voor de wereld willen noemen…..
(ANTIMEDIAOp-ed) — John
Bolton’s inclusion in the Trump administration as Donald Trump’s
new national security advisor is nothing short of a nightmare.
Bolton,
a former U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush, will be replacing
General H.R. McMaster as Trump’s national security advisor, who
replaced former “disgraced” national security advisor Michael
Flynn. When the president struck a Syrian airbase in April 2017, it
was McMaster who drew up and briefed Trump on the strike
proposals,
one of which was reportedly
very extensive.
McMaster
was also reportedly one
of the main backers of a secret plan to give North Korea’s Kim
Jong-un a “bloody nose strike,” a limited strike to dismantle its
nuclear ambitions without risking an all-out war.
However,
despite this, it appears McMaster wasn’t hawkish enough for Donald
Trump’s needs. While McMaster publicly
berates Iran and
North Korea on a regular basis, he persistently warned against
Trump’s plan to completely derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) formed with Iran in 2015. He also later denied the
claims that the Trump administration was looking to deliver the
“bloody nose strike” on North Korea, perhaps indicating he was
not completely on board with the idea after all (or had decided
otherwise at that particular juncture in history).
Enter
John Bolton. Less than month ago, he wrote an op-ed article published
by the Wall
Street Journal (WSJ) entitled “The
Legal Case for Striking North Korea First” — an idea so bad, it
seems, that about a week later, the WSJ published
a counter viewpoint simply entitled “Striking North Korea First Is
a Bad Proposal.”
In
Bolton’s short-sighted op-ed — aside from the fact that he offers
no real legal analysis at all (those who do consider it a legal
analysis must explain why the argument of preemptive self-defense
applies to the U.S. but not to North Korea, which faces American aggressionnear
its borders on a routine basis) — it’s also quite telling that he
relies on the evidence of CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who alleged in
January that Pyongyang was only “a handful of months” away from
being able to strike the American mainland with nukes.
It
is no coincidence that next in line for Donald Trump’s secretary of
state position is Pompeo himself.
Together,
Bolton and Pompeo will be able to advise Trump on anti-North Korean
and anti-Iranian platforms so hawkish there is no telling what’s to
come (though we have a fairly decent idea).
As
some of you may know, John Bolton’s hawkishness has already led to
some of the most despicable foreign
policy agendas of
our generation.
“We
are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass
destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” Bolton
famously said in
2002 while serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of
state for Arms Control and International Security. He also called
Hussein a “threat to the region” and claimed he needed to be
“disarmed.”
“But
the end of the story is clear here. And if Saddam Hussein does not
co-operate we have made it clear this is the last chance for him…I
think the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t
welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” he
added.
Even
when this rationale for invading Iraq and destabilizing an entire
region turned out to be one of the worst editions of “fake news”
ever to sting the planet, in 2015 – some 12 years later – Bolton
still claimed the
Iraq War was worth it and said that, conversely, the worst decision
involving Iraq was the “2011
decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces.”
In 2016, he then changed
his mind to
say that the only mistake of the Iraq War was that the U.S. did not
get rid of Saddam Hussein sooner.
If
John Bolton leads the cheers to invade Iran or North Korea, who will
hold him accountable?
Apparently
having learned no lessons at all from the criminal invasion of Iraq,
Bolton also wrote a New
York Times op-ed entitled
“To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” in 2015. He made it quite
clear that “only military action” could accomplish what was
required to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In Bolton’s
eyes, the JCPOA doesn’t cut it.
