Nadat zaterdag 23 maart jl. een Russisch militair vliegtuig ongeveer 100 Russische militairen en militaire goederen afleverde in Caracas is men in het Witte Huis volgens gebruikelijke hypocriete manier theatraal de bol uitgegaan….. Eerst liet Trump al weten dat deze provocatieve actie van Rusland een ernstig gevaar is voor de ‘internationale vrede’ (waar? ha! ha!) en veiligheid in de regio……
Bolton de psychopathische adviseur van Trump, als Trump een oorlogsmisdadiger, herhaalde deze woorden en voegde daar de waarschuwing aan toe voor partijen van buiten de westerse ‘hemisfeer’, niet te proberen een bruggenhoofd te vormen in Venezuela of andere gebieden in het westen, daarbij uiteraard doelend op Rusland als ‘bruggenhoofd bouwer….’ (hoewel hij met deze woorden natuurlijk ook China waarschuwt…)
Je vraagt je werkelijk af waar de twee het gore lef vandaan halen anderen te beschuldigen van zaken en hen daarvoor te waarschuwen, zaken die de VS bij herhaling zelf elders doet, sterker nog: de VS heeft meer dan 800 militaire bases over de wereld en dat bepaald niet alleen in de ‘westerse hemisfeer……’ De VS gaat trouwens ook op ander gebied veel verder, dat middels een genocide gestolen land voert de ene illegale oorlog na de andere en bemoeit zich met binnenlandse aangelegenheden zonder daarvoor te zijn gevraagd, zoals nu weer in Venezuela…… Rusland trad niet eigenhandig op in Syrië en Venezuela, maar op uitdrukkelijke vraag van het bevoegde gezag in die landen, want wat de VS ook vindt en zegt over die landen, het zijn en blijven soevereine landen waar de VS niets, maar dan ook helemaal niets te zoeken heeft…..
Het is maar goed dat de Trump administratie niet in Moskou is gevestigd, immers dan hadden we al lang en breed in WOIII gezeten, gezien de westerse agressie langs de grenzen met Rusland, een plek waar de VS, noch haar oorlogshond de NAVO, iets te zoeken hebben, zoals blijkt uit een overeenkomst in 1991 gesloten met Michail Gorbatsjov, de ex-president van de Sovjet Unie… Dit alles terwijl Rusland niet eens hetzelfde doet langs de grenzen van de VS……. (mocht Rusland hetzelfde proberen langs de grens van de VS >> het land zou te klein zijn voor de verontwaardiging en hysterie die dit zou oproepen, zie het voorbeeld daarvan: de Cubacrisis in 1962…… de link is naar dat onderdeel op Wikipedia, dus let op, daar deze site tegenwoordig deels is afgeladen met niet te corrigeren onzin…)
Tot slot nog dit: als er één land is dat zelfs de wereldvrede bedreigt en overal waar het illegaal ingrijpt dood en verderf zaait, is het de VS wel, of het nu gaat om de westerse of oosterse hemisfeer…..
De VS is verreweg de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde en heeft vanaf WOII tot nu toe al meer dan 22,5 miljoen mensen vermoord in illegale oorlogen; geheime militaire acties onder bevel van de CIA; het organiseren van opstanden in meerdere buiten landen; voorts vielen de doden bijstaatsgrepen gepleegd door de CIA en bij standrechtelijke executies van verdachten, nu vooral gedaan middels drones…..* Veel van de hiervoor genoemde VS terreur werd NB uitgeoefend in Latijns-Amerika…….
Het volgende bericht komt van Zero Hedge en werd geschreven door Tyler Durden:
Stay Out Of Western Hemisphere! Bolton Warns Russia Over Troops In Venezuela
The White House has dramatically stepped up its rhetoric threatening action against Russia’s military presence in Venezuela after the Kremlin deployed a troop contingency to Caracas last Saturday.
Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton took tensions to a new level, on Friday issuing a new Monroe doctrine of sorts, telling Moscow any attempt to establish or expand military operationsin the western hemisphere constitutes a “provocative” and “direct threat” to international peace and security in the region.
“We stronglycaution actors external to the Western Hemisphere against deploying military assets to Venezuela, or elsewhere in the Hemisphere, with the intent of establishing or expanding military operations,” Bolton said in a statement.
“We will consider such provocative actions as a direct threat to international peace and security in the region,” he added. This follows the president’s own warning on Wednesday that“all options” are on the table regarding potential expanding Russian presence in Venezuela.
Two Russian aircraft carrying about 100 servicemen and 35 tons of cargo arrived in Caracas last Saturday, led by Russian General Vasily Tonkoshkurov, identified as chief of the Main Staff of the Ground Forces and First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Land Forces of Russia.
This prompted Trump’s Wednesday warning to Russia against involvement in the Latin American nation; he told reporters in the Oval Office that:
“Russia has to get out.”
Kremlin officials responded by explaining that it deployed military specialists merely to service preexisting arms contracts with Venezuela, and that Russia is not interfering in the Latin American country’s internal affairs.
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a press briefing on Thursday when asked how long the Russian troop contingency led by a high ranking general will stay:
“How long? As long as they need to, and as long as the Venezuelan government needs them. It all is being done based on bilateral agreements.”
Russia’s position is that it is not interfering in Venezuela’s internal affairs by merely cooperating on legal and existing service contracts, and that no other country should do so either. It said that only “specialists”had entered Venezuela under a pre-existing agreed upon military cooperation deal.
However, the White House isn’t buying it, as Bolton’s Friday statement further condemned Maduro’s “use of foreign military personnel in his attempt to remain in power, including the introduction of Russian military personnel and equipment into Venezuela.”
“Maduro will only use this military support to further repress the people of Venezuela; perpetuate the economic crisis that has destroyed Venezuela’s economy; and endanger regional stability,” Bolton said.
All of this also comes as the Maduro government stripped US-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido of his position in the National Assembly, further barring him from holding public office for 15 years.
(de opgeblazen oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo beweert dat Hezbollah werkzaam is in Venezuela en daar een leger heeft dat gezien zijn woorden amper onderdoet voor de gezamenlijke NAVO troepen… ha! ha! ha! Ook hier is totaal geen bewijs voor deze belachelijke beschuldiging…)
De show van Stephen Colbert is een propaganda orgaan voor de rechtse democraten en is dat in feite al heel lang. Daarmee staat Colbert ook achter de illegale oorlogen die onder de democratische ‘vredesduif’ Obama werden aangegaan, dit onder regie van zijn rechterhand destijds Hillary Clinton (minister van BuZa), een oorlogsmisdadiger van formaat…..
Colbert had onlangs de democraat Tulsi Gabbard in zijn show en in tegenstelling tot de omgang met andere politici van de Democratische Partij, was dit geen gesprek met opgeklopte ‘humor’.
Colbert probeerde Gabbard zelfs in het kamp te duwen van fascist David Duke (voormalig Ku Klux Klan top), en dat van rechtse rotzakken als Steve Bannon en Matt Gaetz……
Wat betreft de illegale oorlogen van de VS, liet Colbert ten overvloede in zijn gesprek met Gabbard blijken dat hij die volledig steunt, ondanks het enorme aantal doden en landen die in puin achterblijven als de VS klaar is met haar grootschalige terreur tegen in feite de bevolking van de landen die het illegaal aanvalt…..
Ook de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen het bewind van Assad kwam ter sprake, waar Gabbard Colbert fijntjes liet weten dat de CIA in 2011 de ‘opstand’ tegen Assad heeft georganiseerd en geregisseerd en dat de oorlog van de VS in dat land niet gericht was tegen IS, maar tegen het bewind van Assad, waar ze ook de wapenleveringen aan terreurgroepen als IS en militaire training door de VS aan die terreurgroepen noemde…..
Jammer dat ze Assad wel een dictator noemt, terwijl hij met grote meerderheid democratisch tot president werd verkozen in 2014, een verkiezing die door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed werd beoordeeld……
Vergeet voorts niet dat onder Assad alle geloven hand in hand naast elkaar leefden, een zaak die door handelingen van de VS bijna de nek werd omgedraaid…. Gelukkig leven de teruggekeerde vluchtelingen, in de gebieden die door het reguliere Syrische leger worden gecontroleerd, weer vreedzaam naast elkaar, ongeacht het geloof dat men aanhangt……
Helaas voor Colbert, maar hij is geen partij voor Gabbard die hem flink bij de lurven had >> lezen en zien mensen!!
Hawaii Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard recently appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where instead of the light, jokey banter about politics and who she is as a person that Democratic presidential candidates normally encounter on late night comedy programs, the show’s host solemnly ran down a list of textbook beltway smears against Gabbard and made her defend them in front of his audience.
Normally when a Democratic Party-aligned politician appears on such a show, you can expect jokes about how stupid Trump is and how badly they’re going to beat the Republicans, how they’re going to help ordinary Americans, and maybe some friendly back-and-forth about where they grew up or something. Colbert had no time to waste on such things, however, because this was not an interview with a normal Democratic Party-aligned politician: this was a politician who has been loudly and consistently criticizing US foreign policy.
After briefly asking his guest who she is and why she’s running for president, Colbert jumped right into it by immediately bringing up Syria and Assad, the primary line of attack employed against Gabbard by establishment propagandists in American mainstream media.
Colbert: Do you think the Iraq war was worth it?
Gabbard: No.
Colbert: Do you think that our involvement in Syria has been worth it?
Gabbard: No.
Colbert: Do you think that ISIS could have been defeated without our involvement and without our support of the local troops there?
Gabbard: There are two things we need to address in Syria. One is a regime change war that was first launched by the United States in 2011, covertly, led by the CIA. That is a regime change war that has continued over the years, that has increased the suffering of the Syrian people, and strengthened groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, because the CIA was using American taxpayer dollars to provide arms and training and equipment to these terrorist groups to get them to overthrow the government. So that is a regime change war that we should not have been engaging.
Colbert: So, but if it is someone like Bashar al-Assad, who gasses his own people, or who engages in war crimes against his own people, should the United States not be involved?
Gabbard: The United States should not be intervening to overthrow these dictators and these regimes that we don’t like, like Assad, like Saddam Hussein, like Gaddafi, and like Kim Jong Un. There are bad people in the world, but history has shown us that every time the United States goes in and topples these dictators we don’t like, trying to end up like the world’s police, we end up increasing the suffering of the people in these countries. We end up increasing the loss of life, but American lives and the lives of people in these countries. We end up undermining our own security, what to speak of the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that’s spent on these wars that we need to be using right here at home.
Like I said, this is not a normal presidential candidate. How often do you see a guest appear on a network late night talk show and talk about the CIA arming terrorists in Syria and the fact that US military interventionism is completely disastrous? It just doesn’t happen. You can understand, then, why empire propagandist Stephen Colbert spent the rest of the interview informing his TV audience that Tulsi Gabbard is dangerous and poisonous.
This was unwatchable. Colbert just went down the list of scripted Gabbard smears (Assad, David Duke) then sermonized about how US military intervention is a force for good in this world. All without telling a single joke. Late night “comedy” shows are propaganda for livestock.
Caitlin Johnstone ⏳added,
Suzann@cmputrwiz
Colbert twice interjected the State Dept.’s line about the alleged Assad chemical attack on his own people; Tulsi then corrected him saying several of the groups, including al Qaeda & ISIS, had been trained by the US and had been reported as being a part of those alleged chemical https://twitter.com/DraftTulsi/status/1105323025489121280…
3:33 PM – 12 Mar 2019
Colbert: You got some heat for meeting with Bashar al-Assad. Do you not consider him a war criminal? Why did you meet with that man?
Gabbard: In the pursuit of peace and security. If we are not willing to meet with adversaries, potential adversaries, in the pursuit of peace and security, the only alternative is more war. That’s why I took that meeting with Assad. In pursuit of peace and security.
Colbert: Do you believe he is a war criminal? Do you believe he gassed his own people or committed atrocities against his own people?
Gabbard: Yes. Reports have shown that that’s a fact.
Colbert: So you believe the intelligence agencies on that. Because I head that you did not necessarily believe those reports.
The reason I call Colbert a propagandist and not simply a liberal empire loyalist who happens to have been elevated by billionaire media is because these are carefully constructed narratives that he is reciting, and they weren’t constructed by him.
Trying to make it look to the audience as though Gabbard is in some way loyal to Assad has been a high-priority agenda of the mainstream media ever since she announced her presidential candidacy.
We saw it in her recent appearance on The View, where John McCain’s sociopathic daughter called her an “Assad apologist” and demanded that Gabbard call Assad an enemy of the United States. We saw it in her recent CNN town hall, where a consultant who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign was presented as an ordinary audience member to help CNN’s Dana Bash paint Gabbard’s skepticism of intelligence reports about an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government as something that is weird and suspicious, instead of the only sane position in a post-Iraq invasion world. We saw it in her appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe last month, where the entire panel piled on her in outrage that she wouldn’t call Assad an enemy of the United States. It’s such a common propaganda talking point that the New York Times‘ Bari Weiss famously made a laughingstock of herself by repeating it as self-evident truth on The Joe Rogan Experience without having the faintest clue what specific facts it was meant to refer to, just because she’d heard establishment pundits saying it so much.
This is an organized smear by the mass media attempting to marry Gabbard in the eyes of the public to a Middle Eastern leader whom the propagandists have already sold as a child-murdering monster, and Colbert is participating in it here just as much as the serious news media talking heads are. It’s been frustrating to watch Gabbard fold to this smear campaign by acting like it’s an established fact that Assad “gases his own people” and not the hotly contested empire-serving narrative she knows it is.
Gabbard is being targeted by this smear because she challenges US political orthodoxy on military violence (the glue which holds the empire together), so no amount of capitulation will keep them from trying to prevent the public from trusting her words.
(de video in het volgende Twitterbericht kan ik niet overnemen, zie hiervoor het origineel)
The journalist interrogating Tulsi seems to believe that US forces in Syria are fighting Assad. Tulsi corrects her, says those troops were deployed there to fight ISIS. These people don’t even know what’s happening in the places they want the US to occupy
“I don’t know whether America should be the policemen of the world,” Colbert said after Gabard defended her position.
“It is my opinion that we should not be,” Gabbard replied, causing Colbert to launch into a stuffy, embarrassing sermon on the virtues of interventionism and US hegemony that would make Bill Kristol blush.
“If we are not, though, nature abhors a vacuum, and if we are not involved in international conflicts, or trying to quell international conflicts, certainly the Russians and the Chinese will fill that vacuum. And we will step away from the world stage in a significant way that might destabilize the world, because the United States, however flawed, is a force for good in the world in my opinion. Would you agree with that?”
Again, this is a comedy show.
Gabbard explained that in order to be a force for good in the world the United States has to actually do good, which means not raining fire upon every nation it dislikes all the time. Colbert responded by reading off his blue index card to repeat yet another tired anti-Gabbard smear.
“You’ve gotten some fans in the Trump supporter world: David Duke, Steve Bannon, and, uh, Matt, uh, Gaetz, is that his name? Matt Gaetz? What do you make of how much they like you?”
This one is particularly vile, partly because Gabbard has repeatedly and unequivocally denounced David Duke, who has a long-established and well-known history of injecting himself into the drama of high-profile conversations in order to maintain the illusion of relevance, and partly because it’s a completely irrelevant point that is brought up solely for the purpose of marrying Tulsi Gabbard’s name to a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Colbert only brought this up (and made Newsweek totally squee) because he wanted to assist in that marrying. The fact that there are distasteful ideologies which also happen to oppose US interventionism for their own reasons does not change the undeniable fact that US military interventionism is consistently disastrous and never helpful and robs the US public of resources that are rightfully theirs.
This interview was easily Colbert’s most blatant establishment rim job I’ve ever seen, surpassing even the time he corrected his own audience when they cheered at James Comey’s firing to explain to them that Comey is a good guy now and they’re meant to like him. Colbert’s show is blatant propaganda for human livestock, and the fact that this is what American “comedy” shows look like now is nauseating.
When Tulsi Gabbard first announced her candidacy I predicted that she’d have the narrative control engineers scrambling all over themselves to kill her message, and it’s been even more spectacular than I imagined. I don’t agree with everything she says and does, but by damn this woman is shaking up the establishment narrative matrix more than anybody else right now. She’s certainly keeping it interesting.
__________________________
Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me onFacebook, following my antics onTwitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.
Het aantal niet-verdachten dat wordt vermoord middels VS drone aanvallen is groot, zo groot dat al een paar jaar bekend is dat deze boven de 90% ligt, ofwel de VS vermoordt verdachten met drones, terwijl het aantal niet verdachte personen dat omkomt bij deze aanvallen meer dan 90% van het totale aantal slachtoffers uitmaakt….. Niet verwonderlijk dat vooral veel vrouwen en kinderen tot die slachtoffers behoren……
In de loop van de eeuwen hebben we een rechtssysteem opgebouwd, waarbij verdachten rechten hebben en niet veroordeeld kunnen worden alleen daar ze verdacht zijn, er dient een fatsoenlijk proces gevoerd te worden, waarbij een verdachte alleen met directe bewijzen veroordeeld kan worden. (al ontbreekt het daar meer en meer aan, ook in Nederland…) Als je dit in ogenschouw neemt zie je meteen waar het aan scheelt als je spreekt over de standrechtelijke executies die de VS op grote schaal uitvoert met drones over een aantal landen…..
Sinds een paar jaar heeft de VS de plicht om te melden hoeveel personen het met drones heeft vermoord, die niet eens verdacht waren, zo weten we dat meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens verdacht was……. Blijkbaar is het aantal niet verdachte slachtoffers nog verder gegroeid, want Trump weigert dit cijfer vrij te geven, sterker nog hij heeft de regel geschrapt die tot deze rapportage verplichtte……
De VS kan al lang niet meer als rechtsstaat worden gezien en dat is bepaald niet in de laatste plaats te danken aan de massamoord die de VS middels drones pleegt…….. Deze moorden werden onder Obama, Nobelprijswinnaar voor de ‘Vrede’, al fiks uitgebreid, waar Trump hem intussen heeft overtroffen wat betreft het aantal terreuraanslagen, want daar gaat het hier om, ordinaire barbaarse terreur……..
Hoe lang duurt het nog voor het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag een zaak begint tegen deze barbaarse standrechtelijke executies……. Ongelofelijk dat er nog mensen zijn die geloven in dit meer dan lamme strafhof, dat een suffe tv-serie met Donald Sutherland nodig heeft om het belang van dit hof aan te tonen, waar de aangedragen zaken vooral met gewone misdaad te maken hebben……
Lees het volgende artikel, geschreven door Jake Johnson, eerder gepubliceerd op Common Dreams en door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media. Zegt het voort mensen, het is de hoogste tijd dat iedereen de werkelijkheid ziet van de enorme terreur die de VS uitoefent waar het haar maar uitkomt:
Trump Cancels Report on Civilians Killed by US Drone Strikes
(CD) — In his latest attack on transparency, President Donald Trump on Wednesday rescinded a rule requiring U.S. intelligence officials to publicly disclose the number of civilians killed by drone strikes.
“Shameful, indefensible, dangerous,” tweeted Elizabeth Beavers, associate policy director with progressive advocacy group Indivisible. “Time for Congress to step in.”
Trump used an executive order to scrap the three-year-old rule, which instructed the Director of National Intelligence to produce an annual report on all civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes outside of official war zones.
As Common Dreamsreported at the time, the White House ignored last May’s deadline for disclosing civilian deaths from drone strikes and suggested it could rescind the transparency requirement.
Now that the rule has been canceled, critics feared that the Trump administration will be able to continue expanding the use of drone strikes overseas with even less oversight.
“This is a shameful decision that will shroud this administration’s actions in even more secrecy with little accountability for its victims,” Daphne Eviatar, director of security with human rights at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement. “The public deserves to know how many civilians are killed by U.S. actions. This is an unconscionable decision and in complete disregard of fundamental human rights.”
Not only have USG investigations of civilian casualties been minimal, but now they’re not going to bother to even try to report the #’s of civilians the US is killing anymore. Another way of hiding consequences of US’s illegal & endless global war. @DRovera@WritesRights
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, said that while the drone transparency requirement that Trump scrapped was “imperfect,” it still provided an “important official record of deaths caused by the military and, critically, the CIA.”
“This decision will hide from the public the government’s own tally of the total number of deaths it causes every year in its lethal force program,” Shamsi said in a statement. “Now, the government is also no longer committed to providing reasons why its total death count is different from independent credible reports by media and rights groups.”
The executive order comes as reports show that Trump has escalated the drone wars he inherited from his predecessor Barack Obama, who was widely criticized for expanding the use of drone strikes.
“Since Donald Trump took office, the U.S. military has approximately tripled the number of strikes that it conducts each year in Somalia, according to figures confirmed by the Pentagon,” Amanda Sperber, a freelance journalist based in East Africa, reportedin The Nation last month.
Trump has similarly ramped up the use of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.
“In 2009 and 2010, Obama launched 186 drone strikes on Yemen, Somalia, and especially Pakistan. Donald Trump’s drone strikes during his own first two years on the three pivotal undeclared battlefields, however, eclipse Obama’s,” according to a Daily Beast analysis published last November. “In 2017 and 2018 to date, Trump has launched 238 drone strikes there.”
=================================== Voor meer berichten over VS drone aanvallen, klik op de labels drones en/of standrechtelijke executies. Let wel: na een aantal berichten volgt het laatst getoonde telkens weer, dan even opnieuw op het gekozen label klikken onder het laatst gelezen bericht, enz. enz.
In een vergadering over de politiek ten aanzien van Venezuela heeft Democratisch congreslid* Ilhan Omar het oorlogsmonster Abrams het vel over de oren getrokken. Abrams is de oorlogsmisdadiger die is aangesteld door de Trump administratie om de VS acties tegen de democratisch gekozen president van Venezuela te coördineren als speciaal gezant voor de VS…… Abrams is bekend van zijn bloedig acties tegen voormalige regeringen in Latijns-Amerika en het in stand houden van dictaturen die de VS welgevallig waren, zo is de schoft mede verantwoordelijk voor een genocide in Guatemala en voorts in diverse Latijns-Amerikaanse landen: moord, verkrachtingen, martelingen en ontvoeringen………
Lees en zie (video) hoe Omar Abrams op een geweldige manier te kakken zet en zie de smerige reacties van schoften die achter Abrams staan. Abrams zou nu een mensenrechtenactivist zijn, althans als je het geteisem moet geloven, dat dit gelul van een dronken aardbei is, blijkt wel uit het feit dat de Trump administratie deze smerige schoft heeft aangesteld om de coup in Venezuela in de juiste VS banen te leiden…….. Moet je nagaan, het voorgaande nadat de VS de laatste 10 jaar het volk van Venezuela steeds dieper in de ellende heeft gestort met een smerige economische oorlog……..
Overigens was Omar onlangs al in opspraak over haar uitlatingen t.a.v. AIPAC**
(CJ Opinion) — Days after being smashed with a vicious establishment smear campaign to paint her as an antisemite for accurately criticizing AIPAC, Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is already back on the horse aggressively disrupting the establishment narrative matrix that our rulers have worked so hard to construct for us.
Elliott Abrams is a monster. The atrocities that he has facilitated, covered up and whitewashed in Panama, El Salvador, Gaza, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Iraq are utterly unforgivable, and the fact that he has been appointed as special envoy to Venezuela by the Trump administration completely invalidates the US government’s Venezuela narrative all by itself. Even without the blatant lies, the known oil agendas, the CIA ops, the mounting evidence of US arms smuggling to right-wing militias, and America’s extensive history of utterly disastrous regime change interventionism, the fact that this administration would appoint such a ghoulish individual to spearhead its Venezuela interventionism alone is enough to show you that the US government has nothing but malevolent intentions for that nation.
So it was nice to see someone in that government calling him what he is right to his face in front of everybody.
At a House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) hearing on US Venezuela policy, Abrams was presented with the only line of questioning that is appropriate for such a beast by the very congresswoman the Democrats threw to the wolves just two days ago. Someone had to do it, and they left it to Ilhan Omar.
“In 1991, you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush,” Omar accurately stated. “I fail to understand why members of this committee, or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.”
“If I could respond to that-” Abrams began.
“That wasn’t a question,” Omar responded, cutting him off.
“It was an attack! It was an attack!” Abrams exclaimed, visibly upset.
“I reserve the right to my time,” said Omar.
“It is not right that members of this Committee can attack a witness who is not permitted to reply,” Abrams said, talking over Omar.
“That was not a question; thank you for your participation,” Omar continued. “On February 8th, 1982, you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about US foreign policy in El Salvador. In that hearing, you dismissed as communist propaganda a report about the massacre of El Mozote of which more than 800 civilians, including children as young as two years old, were brutally murdered by U.S.-trained troops. During that massacre, some of those troops bragged about raping 12 year-old girls before they killed them. You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a ‘fabulous achievement.’ Yes or no, do you still think so?”
“From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election, to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy,” Abrams said angrily. “That’s a fabulous achievement.”
“Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?” Omar asked.
“That is a ridiculous question and I will not respond to it,” Abrams replied. “I’m sorry Mr. Chairman, I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack which is not a question.”
“I will take that as a yes,” Omar said. “Yes or no, would you support an armed faction within Venezuela that engages in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide if you believe they were serving US interests as you did in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua?”
“I’m not going to respond to that question,” Abrams again answered. “I’m sorry, I don’t think this entire line of questioning is meant to be real questions, and so I will not reply.”
“Whether under your watch a genocide will take place, and you will look the other way because American interests were being upheld is a fair question,” Omar said. “Because the American people want to know that any time we engage a country that we think about what our actions could be and how we believe our values are being furthered. That is my question: Will you make sure that human rights are not violated and that we uphold international and human rights?”
“I suppose there is a question in there, and the answer is that the entire thrust of American policy in Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people’s effort to restore democracy to their country,” Abrams responded. “That’s our policy.”
“I don’t think anybody disputes that,” Omar said. “The question I had for you is that does the interests of the United States include protecting human rights and include protecting people against genocide?”
“That is always the position of the United States,” Abrams lied.
“Thank you,” concluded Omar. “I yield back the rest of my time.”
There is no legitimate reason for Elliott Abrams to ever find himself before a group of people who are ostensibly concerned with accountability and responsibility without being asked such questions. But that didn’t stop all the world’s worst people from crawling out of the woodwork to his defense.
“Disgraceful ad hominem attacks by @IlhanMN on my @CFR_org colleague Elliott Abrams,” tweeted Iraq-raping neocon Max Boot. “She doesn’t seem to realize he is a leading advocate of human rights and democracy — not a promoter of genocide! More evidence of the loony left I caution Democrats about.”
I worked for Elliott Abrams as a civil servant,” tweeted Kelly Magsamen, Vice President of National Security for the plutocrat-backed liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP). “He is a fierce advocate for human rights and democracy. Yes, he made serious professional mistakes and was held accountable. I’m a liberal but I’m also fair. We all have a lot of work to do together in Venezuela. We share goals.”
“I am not greatly sympathetic to Rep. Omar (surprise surprise),” tweetedNational Review senior editor and former George W Bush speech writer Jay Nordlinger. “But really, someone ought to have given her a clue who Elliott Abrams is. The guy has been championing freedom and human rights his entire life (and taking unholy sh** for it from the illiberal Left and Right).”
Conservative pundit Michael Knowles tossed his two cents into the campaign to purge the concept of antisemitism of any meaning by tweeting, “One wonders why @IlhanMN seems to harbor such particular contempt for Elliott¹ Abrams² (¹ from the Hebrew ‘Elijah,’ meaning ‘My God is Yahweh’ ² the father of the Jewish people).”
This is the bipartisan establishment orthodoxy that is guiding your foreign policy, America. One which claims Elliott Abrams is a saint, which claims criticism of US warmongering is antisemitic, and which throws a bold Somali-American woman under the bus for speaking the truth after years of paying lip service to the need to get more women of color elected to the leadership of the Democratic Party. This whole Abrams incident happened, by the way, at the same time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deleted a tweet in which he accidentally acknowledged the agenda to start a war with Iran, but you probably won’t see Omar commenting on this because she knows she’ll be smeared as an antisemite for it.
US warmongering is the most aggressively protected part of the establishment narrative matrix, because US warmongering is the glue that holds the unipolar empire together. Without it, our rulers cannot rule, so you’ll see imperial lackeys fiercely attacking anyone who draws attention to America’s bloodbaths around the world, even if they are good servants of the empire in other areas.
The difficulty for our rulers, though, is that warmongering is a very difficult thing to paint a pretty picture of, especially with our newfound ability to quickly share ideas and information around the globe. I mean, look at Elliott Abrams. Seriously, just watch him talk. That demonic grimace is the prettiest face they could find to put on their Venezuela agenda. I find that very encouraging.
The reason they work so hard to manufacture our consent for warmongering agendas is because they need that consent. They wouldn’t propagandize us so aggressively if they didn’t need us all trusting them and believing their stories, so the best way to fight establishment warmongering is to circulate disbelief in their stories. Whenever you see someone like Ilhan Omar drawing attention to the gaping plot holes in agendas like regime change interventionism in Venezuela, go ahead and help draw attention to it.
Things are only shitty because a few extremely powerful people do very shitty things. The only reason powerful people get away with doing very shitty things is because the majority allows them to. The majority only allows them to because they’ve been propagandized to. The weakest link in this chain is the propaganda. Attack there.
(de opgeblazen oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo beweert dat Hezbollah werkzaam is in Venezuela en daar een leger heeft dat gezien zijn woorden amper onder doet voor de gezamenlijke NAVO troepen… ha! ha! ha! Ook hier is totaal geen bewijs voor deze belachelijke beschuldiging…)
De westerse reguliere media gingen in een nog hogere hysterie versnelling toen vorige week werd gemeld dat Maduro humanitaire hulp uit de VS zou hebben geblokkeerd voor invoer in het land. Maduro zou dit hebben gedaan om aan het bewind te kunnen blijven en deze ‘paranoïde tiran’ zou liever z’n bevolking uithongeren dan voedsel uit de VS het land binnen te laten…..
Uiteraard ziet de werkelijkheid er zoals gewoonlijk totaal anders uit, zo hebben de VN en het Rode Kruis laten weten dat het hier om een PR stunt van de VS gaat……. Zo is de veel getoonde geblokkeerde brug, een foto deel uitmakend van het opgeklopte verhaal van de Trump administratie, de brug waar de hulpgoederen zouden worden tegengehouden, is een brug van weinig betekenis in deze, sterker nog: deze brug is al jaren gesloten……. Nog sterker, volgens een opiniestuk in de La Opinion is deze in 2015 afgebouwde brug nooit in gebruik genomen……
Bovendien, de persoon die verantwoordelijk is voor dergelijke transporten uit de VS, is in het verleden meermaals door de mand gevallen als wapenhandelaar, dus onder het mom van het brengen van humanitaire noodhulp werden er met deze transporten vooral wapens geleverd……
Echter het belangrijkst is wel het feit dat het Rode Kruis en de VN beiden de VS hebben gewaarschuwd niet door te gaan met deze (belachelijke) PR stunt. Niet voor niets, daar de VN en het Rode Kruis veelal zendingen van humanitaire goederen verzorgen en op deze manier politiek bedrijven zal het werk van deze hulporganisaties in de toekomst alleen maar verder bemoeilijken… Bovendien hebben (internationale) hulporganisaties niet gevraagd om aanvullende hulp van de VS….
Om de werkelijkheid nog verder te benadrukken: de Venezolaanse autoriteiten helpen hulporganisaties met de verspreiding van hulpgoederen, goederen waarvoor het Rode Kruis het hulpbudget onlangs verdubbelde en tevreden is over de medewerking van het Maduro regime…….
Hoe is het mogelijk dat de reguliere media zover meegaan in het verdraaien van feiten? Is men er zo van overtuigd de meerderheid van de bevolking te kunnen overtuigen van leugens en halve waarheden, dat men de smerige buitenlandpolitiek van de VS helpt uitdragen…??? Een cliché op deze plek intussen, maar de vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden: inderdaad!! Je liegt, verzwijgt zaken en draait met je collega’s de waarheid op zo’n manier dat het volk de leugens en andere desinformatie gelooft…….. Elke kritiek op die valse berichtgeving, ook al wordt dit gedaan middels feitenmateriaal, wordt door die media (gesteund door politici) afgedaan als ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws) en desinformatie…….
Lees het volgende artikel van Adam Johnson, eerder gepubliceerd op FAIR.org, door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media en geeft het door, schudt de wereld wakker voordat een volgend land volkomen naar god wordt geholpen door de VS (met de steun van NAVO troepen [dus ook met misbruik van ons belastinggeld] in Colombia, waar deze terreurorganisatie 2 militaire bases heeft):
Western Media Fall in Lockstep for Cheap Trump/Rubio Venezuela Aid PR Stunt
(FAIR) — The Trump administration’s now completely overt effort to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had a very successful public relations effort this week, as major Western media outlets uniformly echoed its simplistic, pre-packaged claim that the Venezuelan government was heartlessly withholding foreign aid:
All of the above articles—and scores more like it—repeated the same script: Maduro was blocking aid from the US “out of refusal to relinquish power,” preferring to starve “his own people” rather than feed them. It’s a simple case of good and evil—of a tyrannical, paranoid dictator not letting in aid to feed a starving population.
Except three pieces of key context are missing. Context that, when presented to a neutral observer, would severely undermine the cartoonish narrative being advanced by US media.
Both the Red Cross and UN warned the US not to engage in this aid PR stunt.
The bridge in question is a visual metaphor contrived by the Trump administration of little practical relevance.
The person in charge of US operations in Venezuela has a history of using aid as a cover to deliver weapons to right-wing mercenaries.
(1) Not only has the international aid community not asked for the “aid,” earlier this week, both the International Red Cross and United Nations warned the US to explicitly not engage in these types of PR stunts. As Washington Post contributor Vincent Bevins pointed out, the transparent cynicism of these efforts was preemptively warned about by the groups actually charged with keeping starving people fed:
The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned the United States about the risks of delivering humanitarian aid to Venezuela without the approval of security forces loyal to President Nicolas Maduro.
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations warned on Wednesday against using aid as a pawn in Venezuela after the United States sent food and medicine to the country’s border and accused President Nicolas Maduro of blocking its delivery with trucks and shipping containers.
Indeed, as Bevins also noted, the Red Cross has long been working with local authorities inside Venezuela to deliver relief, and just last week doubled its budget to do so. We have ample evidence the Maduro government is more than willing to work with international aid when it’s offered in good faith, not when it’s a thinly veiled mechanism to spur civil war and contrive PR victories for those seeking to overthrow the government. It’s not just Maduro—as the Western media are presenting it—who opposes the US aid convoy; it’s the UN and Red Cross. Why do none of the above reports note this rather key piece of information, instead giving the reader the impression it’s only the stance of a sadistic, power-hungry madman?
(2) Despite dozens of media outlets giving the impression (and sometimes explicitly saying) that the Venezuelan government shut down an otherwise functioning pathway into the country, the bridge in question hasn’t been open for years.
It’s true the Venezuelan government appears to have placed an oil tanker and cargo containers on the bridge to prevent incursion from the Colombian side, but the other barriers, as writer and software developer Jason Emery noted, have been in place since at least 2016. According to La Opinion (2/5/16), after its initial construction in 2015, the bridge has never been open to traffic. How can Maduro, as the BBCsuggested, “reopen” a bridge that was never open?
The reality is BBC and other Western media were just going along with the narrative pushed by Sen. Marco Rubio and Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, not bothering to check if their primary visual narrative was based on a bad faith, context-free PR stunt.
This point is a relatively superficial one, but in a long term PR battle to win over Western liberals for further military escalation, the superficial matters a lot. Rubio and the Trump administration cooked up a gimmicky visual metaphor, and almost every outlet uncritically passed it along, often making factually inaccurate assumptions along the way—assumptions the Trump State Department and CIA coordinating the effort knew very well they would make.
(3) The Venezuelan government has an entirely rational reason to suspect the US would use humanitarian aid as a cover to smuggle in weapons to foment armed conflict: The person running quarterback for Trump on the current Venezuela operation, Elliot Abrams, literally did just that 30 years ago.
From the first two paragraphs (emphasis added) of a 1987 AP/New York Times article on Elliott Abrams, “Abrams Denies Wrongdoing in Shipping Arms to Contras” (8/17/87—h/t Kevin Gosztola):
Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams has defended his role in authorizing the shipment of weapons on a humanitarian aid flight to Nicaraguan rebels, saying the operation was ”strictly by the book.”
Mr. Abrams spoke at a news conference Saturday in response to statements by Robert Duemling, former head of the State Department’s Nicaraguan humanitarian assistance office, who said he had twice ordered planes to shuttle weapons for the Contras on aid planes at Mr. Abrams’ direction in early 1986.
It’s literally the same person. It’s not that Maduro is vaguely paranoid the US, in general, would dust off its 1980s’ Contra-backing Cold War playbook, or some unspecified assumption about a higher-up or two at State. It’s literally the exact same person in charge of the operation who we know—with 100 percent certainty, because he admitted to it—has a history of using aid convoys as a cover to smuggle in arms to right-wing militias.
It’s all playing out right now, in real time. The same actors, the same tricks, the same patently disingenuous concern for the starving poor. And the US media is stripping it of all this essential context, presenting these radical regime-change operators as bleeding heart humanitarians.
The same US media outlets that have expressly fundraised and run ad campaigns on their image as anti-Trump truth-tellers have mysteriously taken at face value everything the Trump White House and its neoconservative allies have said in their campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuela. The self-aggrandizing “factchecking” brigade that emerged to confront the Trump administration is suddenly nonexistent as it rolls out a transparent, cynical PR strategy to delegitimize a Latin American government it’s trying to overthrow.
(de opgeblazen oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo beweert dat Hezbollah werkzaam is in Venezuela en daar een leger heeft dat gezien zijn woorden amper onder doet voor de gezamenlijke NAVO troepen… ha! ha! ha! Ook hier is totaal geen bewijs voor deze belachelijke beschuldiging…)
‘Ga terug naar school’ schreef (of beter gezegd: schreeuwde) Trump op Twitter, een ‘advies’ van Trump aan de top van de belangrijkste geheime diensten in de VS, die ‘oh gruwel’ durfden te stellen dat Iran geen bedreiging is en niet bezig is met de ontwikkeling van een atoombom…….
Trump heeft zich door de zwaar corrupte oorlogsmisdadiger Netanyahu in laten fluisteren (op een niveau van 80 decibel) dat Iran de boel in het Midden-Oosten destabiliseert en dat niet de VS maar Iran verantwoordelijk is voor de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak en Syrië….. Trump durft het nog niet aan, maar ‘de bewering van Netanyahu’ dat Iran ook verantwoordelijk is voor 9/11, klonk als muziek in z’n oren, zeker weet Trump ‘t niet meer, echter niet valt uit te sluiten dat Trump e.e.a. heeft gedroomd……
Moet eerlijk toegeven dat het me meevalt dat de westerse partners van de VS nog steeds achter de nucleaire deal met Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, ofwel: JCPOA) blijven staan, terwijl de VS zich daaruit terugtrok. Hoe vreemd dan dat deze partners zich wel achter de VS scharen als het om Venezuela gaat…… Neem bijvoorbeeld de genocide in Jemen, waar dagelijks grote aantallen slachtoffers vallen, daaronder bevinden zich veel kinderen: het westen blijft achter de drogredenen staan die de VS aanvoert voor haar deelname aan die genocide, terwijl elke imbeciel kan zien dat de Saoedische terreurcoalitie verantwoordelijk is voor deze genocide…… De VS blijft zich achter die terreurcoalitie stellen en helpt zelfs militair mee aan de genocide, waar de VS o.a. de bombardementen op Jemenitische burgerdoelen regisseert middels haar AWACS vliegtuigen…….
Zie het verschil met Venezuela, daar wordt allesbehalve een genocide uitgevoerd, maar in het westen maakt men zich wel hysterisch druk over de toestand in Venezuela…… Terwijl er in Venezuela niet dagelijks grote aantallen doden zijn te bergen en wordt er daar niet systematisch gemarteld in de gevangenissen, zoals de Saoedische terreurcoalitie dit wel doet in Jemen……
Iedereen die het nieuws over Venezuela de laatste jaren heeft gevolgd, niet in de reguliere media maar op de sociale media, waar nog wel artikelen van echt onafhankelijke journalisten zijn te vinden, kan weten dat de VS al onder Obama een economische oorlog voerde tegen dat land….. Maar nee, niet de westerse politiek en reguliere media, nee men huilt mee in het koor van de VS wolven en stelt dat Maduro op moet stappen en dat hij verantwoordelijk is voor de desastreuze economische toestand in Venezuela…….
Hoe is het in godsnaam mogelijk dat het westen (buiten de VS) zich niet druk maakt over de genocide in Jemen, sterker nog: men noemt dit nog steeds geen genocide, terwijl alle tekenen daarvoor ruim voorhanden zijn…… Nee, de coup tegen Maduro is duizend keer meer belangrijker (zoals eerder de moord op Khashoggi) en dat is bepaald niet in de laatste plaats aan dezelfde hersenkronkels van superpsychopaat Trump te danken, die men in het westen dan (gelukkig) niet volgt in zijn strijd tegen Iran…….
Wat een ongelofelijke hypocrisie, gadver!!
Hier een artikel van Middle East Eye door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media:
“Go Back to School!”: Trump Slams US Intelligence Chiefs as “Passive and Naive” on Iran
(MEE) — US President Donald Trump has called US intelligence chiefs “extremely passive and naive” regarding Iran, a day after they contradicted his views during congressional testimony.
During a hearing on global threats on Tuesday, the leaders of several US intelligence agencies told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran is not taking steps towards making a nuclear bomb, a conclusion that contrasts starkly with Trump’s assessment.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, as well as the directors of the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies, spoke before the committee.
On Wednesday, Trump responded on Twitter, saying “the Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong!”
“Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!” he added.
Former CIA Director John Brennan retweeted the president’s remarks, calling Trump’s refusal to accept the intelligence assessments a sign of “intellectual bankruptcy”.
Your refusal to accept the unanimous assessment of U.S. Intelligence on Iran, No. Korea, ISIS, Russia, & so much more shows the extent of your intellectual bankruptcy. All Americans, especially members of Congress, need to understand the danger you pose to our national security.
In his arguments posted to Twitter, Trump accused Tehran of actively seeking nuclear weapons, reiterating the justification he gave for withdrawing last year from a multilateral treaty on Iran.
Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
The US intelligence officials told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons in violation of the agreement.
The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but….
During Tuesday’s hearing, the country’s top spies also took issue with Trump’s assertion that the Islamic State (IS) group has been defeated.
Trump defended his decision to withdraw about 2,000 US troops from Syria on grounds that IS no longer poses a threat, saying “we’ve beaten them”.
“Caliphate will soon be destroyed, unthinkable two years ago,” Trump said on Twitter at the time.
Trump has given the Pentagon about four months to withdraw US troops from Syria, backtracking from his abrupt December order for a pullout within 30 days.
The US intelligence chiefs said IS would continue to pursue attacks from Syria and Iraq against regional and Western adversaries, including the US.
“The President has a dangerous habit of undermining the intelligence community to fit his alternate reality,” Senator Mark Warner, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, wrote on Twitter. “People risk their lives for the intelligence he just tosses aside on Twitter.”
Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher, who served as a Marine Corps intelligence officer while deployed in Iraq, also defended the intelligence agencies, saying: “They are doing a very difficult job and they are actually trying to advance the president’s priorities”.
The CIA and the director of national intelligence office did not comment on Trump’s remarks.
Dan nog wat links naar berichten over de werkelijke agressor in onze wereld >> de VS: Alleen vanaf 1945 tot het jaar 2000 heeft de VS al 20 miljoen mensen vermoord (deze eeuw al meer dan 2 miljoen, hoewel deskundigen al spreken over een aantal van 2,5 miljoen…), zie: ‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘
Grote opschudding in de VS over de beslissing van Netflix een aflevering van het satirische programma ‘Patriot Act’ in Saoedi-Arabië op haar site te blokkeren voor kijkers in die reli-fascistische terreurstaat……
In de bewuste aflevering levert Hasan Minhaj grote kritiek op Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), de uiterst moorddadige psychopathische kroonprins van Saoedi-Arabië. Met name de oorlog die Saoedi-Arabië in Jemen voert is onderwerp van de kritiek, een illegale oorlog tegen de sjiitische bevolking van dat land, die is uitgedraaid op een genocide…..
Ook de barbaarse moord op ‘journalist’ Khashoggi is uiteraard onderwerp van kritiek. Gelukkig heeft het programma Patriot Act wel oog voor de oorlog in Jemen, dit in tegenstelling tot de meeste westerse politici en het overgrote deel van de reguliere massamedi, die vooral ontstemd waren over de dood van Khashoggi, een ‘journalist’ die het Saoedische bewind en haar ongebreidelde terreur in het verleden heeft gesteund…….
Jammer dat in het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Middle East Eye (MEE), toch vooral de aandacht op de dood van Khashoggi wordt gelegd……
Veel inwoners van Saoedi-Arabië waren blij dat de Midden-Oosten tak van Netflix, Netflix MENA (MENA: Middle East and North Africa) een humoristisch programma maakt, daar zo de censuur kan worden omzeild. Des te groter de teleurstelling na de beslissing van Netflix de bewuste aflevering te censureren voor S-A….. Netflix laat duidelijk de oren hangen naar de inhumane, bloedige Saoedische dictatuur……. (en die koninklijke dictatuur is goede vrienden met het Nederlandse koningshuis……)
Outrage After Netflix Blocks Comedy Show Critical of Saudi Crown Prince
(MEE) — Netflix has removed an episode of comedy show Patriot Actwith Hasan Minhaj for viewers in Saudi Arabia after the country complained about the host’s criticism of its war in Yemen and the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.
According to the FT, the streaming site confirmed it had removed the episode, which is described on the website as: “Hasan exposes grim truths about Saudi Arabia and the charismatic crown prince known as ‘MBS [Mohammed bin Salman].’”
The decision followed a complaint made by Saudi Arabia’s Communications and Information Technology Commission on the grounds that the episode violated the anti-cyber crime law against “material impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy”.
Under Article 6 of Saudi Arabia’s anti-cyber crime law, “production, preparation, transmission, or storage” of such material “through the information network or computers” is punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a 3m Saudi riyal ($800,000) fine.
In the episode, the comedian takes aim at the kingdom in the aftermath of Khashoggi’s assassination inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.
Both the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which he calls “the biggest tragedy of the MBS era”, and the crown prince himself come in for criticism. Minhaj calls for American ties to the oil-rich kingdom to be placed under the spotlight.
“Now would be a good time to reassess our relationship with Saudi Arabia. And I mean that as a Muslim, and as an American,” he says in the episode.
Netflix defended the decision in a statement, saying: “We strongly support artistic freedom worldwide and only removed this episode in Saudi Arabia after we had received a valid legal request – and to comply with local law.”
Online outcry
The report has provoked a response from many prominent figures on social media.
“Wow. When Netflix censors material on behalf of Mohammad bin Salman,” tweeted Iyad el-Baghdadi, a Norway-based human rights activist. “Many of us Arabs were very excited when Netflix launched its MENA division, because we thought this is a way in which we can bypass censorship. I guess there’s the end of that.”
“Money always comes ahead of principles. Corporatism is a pillar of the structure of power that keeps us pinned down,” he added.
Others on social media shared Baghdadi’s concern, wondering how much influence Mohammed bin Salman had over Netflix.
Among those criticising the move was Karen Attiah, the Washington Post’s global opinion editor, who became a fierce critic of the Saudi leadership when her paper’s columnist Khashoggi was murdered by Saudi operatives. The CIA has concluded that Mohammed bin Salman was almost certainly responsible for the operation.
.@hasanminhaj of @patriotact has been a strong, honest and (funny) voice challenging Saudi Arabia + Mohammed bin Salman in the wake of #khashoggi’s murder. He brought awareness about Yemen.
Quite outrageous that @netflix has pulled one of his episodes critical of Saudi Arabia.
The assassination has also placed Riyadh’s role in the disastrous war in Yemen, which has pushed 14 million people to the brink of famine, under closer scrutiny. US Congress members are pushing to halt all Washington’s support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in the conflict.
Tijdens de begrafenis van zijn vader, massamoordenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger George H.W. Bush, gaf de nog grotere massamoordenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger G.W. Bush, Michelle Obama een snoepje. Deze handeling leidde tot een meer dan belachelijke en hysterische reactie in de reguliere (massa-) media, waar men Bush als een geweldige en gevoelige man afschilderde.
Deze kontlikkerij van de reguliere media is niet alleen in het belang van Bush, maar uiteraard ook van die media zelf, immers zij hebben zonder enig onderzoek, laat staan kritiek de illegale oorlogen van die deze schoft begon van meet af aan gesteund (en zelfs nog daarvoor)……. Oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, al zijn de laatste 2 van die oorlogen aangegaan door de Obama administratie, zometeen meer daarover. Oh nee, dom van mij, de oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak zijn in feite nog steeds gaande en hebben intussen aan meer dan 2 miljoen mensen uit die 2 landen het leven gekost (alleen in Irak al meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden…..)….
Diezelfde massamedia hebben ‘uiteraard’ ook de illegale oorlogen van de Obama administratie uitentreuren gesteund. Het gaat dan om de illegale oorlogen tegen Libië en Syrië, naast een groot aantal geheime militaire operaties in andere delen van Afrika, plus de opstand in Oekraïne, die door Hillary Clinton, destijds minister van BuZa, werd georganiseerd (i.s.m. de CIA) en waar de VS 4 miljard dollar aan spendeerde……..
Gevolg van de gelukte opzet van die opstand in Oekraïne, een staatsgreep tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, heeft ervoor gezorgd dat de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko een oorlog begon tegen de Oekraïners in het oosten van het land, daar deze mensen niet wensten te leven onder de neonazi-junta van Porosjenko en terecht goed pissig waren over de coup tegen een o.a. door hen gekozen regering en president……..
Alle leugens gefabriceerd door de VS over Oekraïne werden en worden zonder enig commentaar overgenomen door de reguliere media, op aangeven van de geheime diensten van de VS en die van haar westerse partners….. Ga maar eens na wat diezelfde media te vertellen zouden hebben als er bijvoorbeeld eenzelfde staatsgreep zou hebben plaatsgevonden in een land als België…… De rapen zouden gaar zijn geweest en diezelfde media zouden moord en brand hebben geschreeuwd…… (hoewel, zouden ze dat ook doen als de VS ook in België de antidemocratische agressor zou zijn geweest?)
Voorts zijn er nog de moorden die de VS pleegt op verdachten, dit middels drones….. Dit terreurprogramma werd door Bush opgezet en in veel groter aantal door de Obama administratie overgenomen, intussen heeft Trump deze terreuraanslagen nog verder uitgebreid…… Hoe is het mogelijk dat zogenaamd onafhankelijke mediaorganen niet met hevige kritiek op deze standrechtelijke executies zijn gekomen, zeker nadat een paar jaar geleden al bekend werd gemaakt dat meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers van die VS terreuraanslagen, niet eens werden verdacht, dus vooral vrouwen en kinderen…???
Het volgende artikel is van Caitlin Johnstone, vandaag gepubliceerd:
The fact that George W Bush has given Michelle Obama two pieces of candy is once again making headlines in mainstream outlets like Time, The Hill, and Newsweek. He has not given her any new pieces of candy since the last time he did so at his father’s funeral. He also has not ceased to be the man who facilitated the murder of a million Iraqis and inflicted a whole new level of military expansionism and Orwellian surveillance upon our world. As near as I can tell, the only reason this story is once again making headlines is because Michelle Obama and the mainstream media have decided to bring it up again.
“He has the presence of mind and the sense of humor to bring me a mint, and he made it a point to give me that mint right then and there and that’s the beauty of George Bush,” Obama said of the war criminal in conversation at the SAP Center over the weekend, which we apparently need to know about because the news is telling us about it.
“We’re all Americans. We all care about our family and our kids, and we’re trying to get ahead,” Obama continued. “And that’s how I feel about [Bush]. You know? He’s a beautiful, funny, kind, sweet man.”
I have always respected Michelle Obama. But continuing to glorify a mass murderer responsible for the death of over a million defenseless innocent civilians, reflects more on her own character than on that of that despicable war criminal.
If you’re starting to feel like attempts to rehabilitate George W Bush’s image are being aggressively shoved down your throat by the mass media at every opportunity, it’s because that is exactly what is happening. Every few weeks there’s a new deluge of headlines explaining to consumers of mainstream media why they should love the 43rd president because he’s such a cutesy wootsey cuddle pie, and completely forget about the piles upon piles of human corpses he is responsible for creating for no legitimate reason at all. The last Bush appreciation blitz was less than two weeks ago.
And there is a reason for this. Make no mistake, this relentless, aggressive campaign to rehabilitate George W Bush whether you like it or not is actually a campaign to rehabilitate what he did and the mass media’s unforgivable complicity in it.
The mass media failed spectacularly to practice due diligence and hold power to account in the lead-up to the illegal and unconscionable Iraq invasion, not just the ghouls at Fox News but respected centrist outlets like CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post as well. Bogus government reports were passed on uncritically and unquestioned, antiwar demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of protesters were ignored and downplayed, and the words “Saddam Hussein” and “9/11” were deliberately mentioned in the same breath so frequently that seven out of ten Americans still believed Saddam was responsible for the September 11 attacks months after the Iraq invasion had occurred.
In an environment where the New York Times is instructing its readers how to “help fight the information wars” against Russia, the BBC is coaching its audience to scream the word “whataboutism” whenever a skeptic of establishment Russia narratives brings up Iraq, and the US Secretary of Defense is claiming that Putin is trying to “undermine America’s moral authority,” the massive credibility hit that imperial media and institutions took by deceiving the world into the destruction of Iraq matters. Propaganda is a lot more important in cold war than in hot war since avoiding direct military confrontation limits the options of the participants, and Iraq is a giant bullet hole in the narrative of US moral authority which Moscow is rightly all too happy to point out.
Exactly this. This is a war on both morality & objective reality. People are rebranded “good” or “bad” not based on their actions, but whether or not they subscribe to a state mandated list of opinions.
Without the claim of moral authority, none of America’s manipulations against Russia make any sense. It’s absurd for America to spend years shrieking about Russian election meddling after it openly rigged Russia’s elections in the nineties, unless America claims that it rigged Russia’s elections for moral reasons while Russia rigged America’s elections for immoral reasons. It makes no sense to have mainstream western media outlets uncritically manufacturing support for wars and coaching their audiences on how to help government agencies fight “information wars” against Russia while also criticizing RT as “state media”, unless you can say that western media functions as an arm of the US government for moral reasons while RT does so for immoral reasons. It makes no sense for the US to criticize Russian military interventionism when the US is vastly more guilty of vastly more egregious forms of military interventionism, unless the US can claim its interventionism is moral while Russia’s is immoral.
For this reason it’s been necessary to rehabilitate the image of the Iraq invasion, and since there is no aspect of the Iraq invasion itself that isn’t soaked in blood and gore, they are rehabilitating its most recognizable face instead. Mainstream media outlets are doing this both to restore their own credibility and the credibility of the US world order they serve, in order to help secure crucial narrative control as we slide ever closer to a direct military confrontation with Russia and/or China.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, and Iraq is a major weak point in the US-centralized empire’s narrative control. When you see a political insider like Michelle Obama constantly facilitating the mass media’s fixation on how cuddly wuddly George W Bush has become, you are not witnessing a heartwarming moment, you are not witnessing redemption, and you are most certainly not witnessing the news. You are witnessing war propaganda, plain and simple.
Caitlin Johnstone heeft zich over de berichtgeving van de massamedia gebogen en zet een aantal feiten wat betreft de reguliere (massa-) media op een rij, waarbij ze tot verrassende inzichten komt.
Als eerste buigt Johnstone zich over de vraag waarom journalisten van de reguliere media in ‘vrije democratieën’ (‘een beetje dubbelop’) zich gedragen als hun collega’s van staatsmedia propagandisten. Waarom gedragen ze zich als betrouwbare vertegenwoordigers van de gevestigde orde en waarom wordt elk idee gemarginaliseerd dat niet past in wat op een bepaald moment als een correcte gedachte wordt gezien? (en dat kan op zeer grove manier gebeuren, zie de smerige en uiterst valse berichtgeving over de Britse Labour leider Jeremy Corbyn door de reguliere media waar ook de BBC deel van uitmaakt, al kan je die ‘onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde’ als staatsomroep onder een dictatuur zien)
Waarom worden mensen die de gevestigde orde bekritiseren altijd door de media veroordeeld? Waarom worden ‘fouten’ in een land dat buiten de invloedssfeer en de macht van de gecentraliseerde VS-alliantie valt, zo kritisch becommentarieerd door de reguliere (westerse) media, terwijl fouten binnen die alliantie worden vergeven, of veelal zelfs niet worden genoemd?
Volgens Johnstone zijn er maar twee verklaringen voor die unanieme instemming van de reguliere media op die onderwerpen:
Die instemming bestaat omdat die media altijd de waarheid zouden vertellen, of die instemming bestaat omdat er een systeem is ontstaan, waarin de journalisten van de reguliere media ons voorliegen en een vals beeld schetsen van wat er gebeurt in de wereld.
Volgens Johnstone zijn dit de enige mogelijkheden, waarbij ze de eerste uiteraard afwijst, immers als deze media altijd de waarheid vertellen, zouden deze media niet de leugens herhalen over bijvoorbeeld de oorlogen in Vietnam en Irak, ofwel dan zou het afslachten van miljoenen op grond van leugens niet zijn verdedigd in die media………
Eén en ander betekent overigens niet dat de grote reguliere media alleen maar liegen, immers dan zou men de klanten snel verliezen, nee men brengt natuurlijk ook echt nieuws, naast halve waarheden, verdraaide feiten en de al genoemde leugens.
Lees het artikel van Johnstone, zij legt deze zaak duidelijk uit, waarna de conclusie wordt getrokken dat de media inderdaad aan de leiband lopen van plutocraten of fondsen van aandeelhouders (oké dat was al bekend, maar Johnstone geeft het geheel handen en voeten). Voorts meldt Johnstone ten overvloede nog eens dat de CIA al sinds de 50er jaren van de vorige eeuw bemoeienis heeft met de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS…….
How Plutocratic Media Keeps Staff Aligned With Establishment Agendas
Why do mainstream media reporters within ostensibly free democracies act just like state media propagandists? Why are they so reliably pro-establishment, all throughout every mainstream outlet? Why do they so consistently marginalize any idea that doesn’t fit within the extremely narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion? Why does anyone who inconveniences western establishment power always find themselves on the losing end of a trial by media? Why are they so dependably adversarial toward anything that could be perceived as a flaw in any nation outside the US-centralized power alliance, and so dependably forgiving of the flaws of the nations within it?
The way I see it there are only two possible explanations for the unanimous consensus in mass media on these issues:
Explanation 1: The consensus exists because the mass media reporters are all telling the truth all the time.
OR
Explanation 2: The consensus exists because there is some kind of system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.
Those are the only two possibilities, and only one can be true, since any mixture of the two would result in the loss of consensus.
Most mainstream westerners harbor an unquestioned assumption that Explanation 1 is the only possibility. The things they see on CNN, the BBC and the ABC are all accurate descriptions of what’s really going on in the world, and the consensus in their descriptions exists because they’re all describing the same objective reality.
But what would that mean exactly? Well, for starters if the mainstream media reporters are telling us the truth all the time it would mean that the same power institutions which slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Iraq for no good reason are actually virtuous and honest. It would mean the positive, uncritical picture that is consistently painted of those same institutions which wage nonstop campaigns of bloodshed and oppression to ensure the profit of economic manipulators and war profiteers is due to those institutions possessing merits which are overall so positive that no criticism of them is needed. It would mean that the status quo of climate destruction, steadily growing wealth inequality, an increasingly Orwellian surveillance system, an increasingly militarized police force, increasing internet censorship, and crushing neoliberal austerity measures are all things people voted for using the excellent democratic political system the mainstream media defends, based on the accurate information the mainstream media gave them about what’s in their best interests.
Explanation 1 sounds improbable in that light. We know that the system is spectacularly screwed up, and we know that the political establishment which these mainstream outlets always defend does unforgivably evil things, so we should expect to see a lot more critical reporting and a lot less protecting of the status quo. But we don’t. We see war crimes ignored, oppression justified, the two-headed one-party system normalized, dissident narratives smeared as fake news conspiracy theories, and unproven assertions by government agencies with a known history of lying reported as unquestionable fact.
But that leaves only Explanation 2. How could that be right?
This partof a 1996 interviewbetween Noam Chomsky and the BBC’s Andrew Marr describes a foundational element of Explanation 2: that there is a system in place which ensures that all the reporters in positions of influence are there not to report factually on the news of the day, but to sell a particular narrative that is friendly to the state and the status quo. Chomsky describes a “filtering system” which ensures that only those loyal to power rise to the top within the plutocrat-owned media, to which Marr objects and insists that his peers are brave truth-tellers who hold power to account. Subsequently, the following exchange takes place:
”Chomsky: Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority – I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.
Marr: How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..
Chomsky: I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting”.
“If you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”
It is an obvious fact that mainstream media outlets are owned by the extremely wealthy, as has been the case for a very long time. Owning media is in and of itself a profitable investment, “like having a license to print your own money” as Canadian television magnate Roy Thomson once put it. So when it comes to the news media outlets which form people’s perceptions of the world, what incentive would a powerful plutocrat have to platform anti-establishment voices on those outlets and help sow ideas which upset the status quo upon which said plutocrat has built his empire? It certainly wouldn’t make him any more money, and if anti-establishment ideas like socialism, anarchism, non-interventionism or skepticism of government agencies gained popular footing in public consciousness, it could upset the foundation of the plutocrat’s dynasty and cause him to lose everything.
Plutocrats have put a lot of energy into influencing government policy in order to create legislation which ensures the continued growth of their wealth and power. A whole lot of maneuvering has had to happen over the course of many years to create a political system wherein government bribery is legal in the form of campaign finance and corporate lobbying, wherein deregulation of corporations is the norm, wherein tax loopholes are abundant and tax burdens are shifted to the middle class, wherein money hemorrhages upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy while ordinary people grow poorer and poorer. What incentive would these powerful oligarchs have to risk upsetting that delicate balancing act by helping to circulate ideas which challenge the very governmental system they’ve worked so hard to manipulate to their extreme advantage? And how many incentives would they have to keep everyone supporting the status quo?
How hard would it be to simply decline to give anti-establishment voices a platform, and platform establishment loyalists instead? How easy would it be for a wealthy media owner or influential investor to ensure that only establishment loyalists are given the job of hiring and promoting editors and reporters in a mainstream media outlet?
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.
If you’ve ever wondered what motivates all those blue-checkmarked corporate media journalists to spend so much time on Twitter defending the powerful and attacking the disempowered, this is your answer. They spend their own free time smearing Jill Stein, calling Jeremy Corbyn an antisemite, attacking Julian Assange, supporting longtime neoconservative war agendas against Russia, Syria and Iran and uncritically reporting intelligence agency assertions as fact not because there’s a CIA officer hovering over their shoulder at all times telling them exactly what to tweet, but because they’re auditioning for a job. They’re creating a public record of their establishment loyalism which current and future employers will look at when weighing hiring and promotion decisions, which is why both journalism schools and journalism employers now encourage journalists to cultivate a social media presence to “build their brand”, i.e. their public resume.
So it’s very easy to fill mass media jobs with minds which are not predisposed toward rocking the boat. A pro-establishment consensus is artificially built, and now you’ve got an environment where someone who stands up and says “Uh, hey, so we still haven’t seen any actual hard evidence that Russia interfered in the US election in any meaningful way” or whatever is instantly greeted by a wall of shunning and shaming (observe Aaron Maté‘s interactions with other journalists on social media for a good example of this), which can be psychologically difficult to deal with.
Every blue-checkmark MSM journo on Twitter is auditioning for a job. All they’re actually tweeting is “Look at me, current or future employer! I will smear Julian Assange! I will help sell the Russia narrative! I’ll say Corbyn is an antisemite!” And the MSM bosses pay attention.
Anyone who’s ever gone to high school can understand how powerful the social pressures to seek peer approval and fit in can be, and anyone who’s ever worked a normal job anywhere can understand the natural incentives that are in place to behave in a way that is pleasing to one’s bosses. In any job with any kind of hierarchy, you quickly learn the written rules, and you pay close attention to social cues to learn the unwritten ones as well. You do this in order to learn how to avoid getting in trouble and how to win the approval of your superiors, to learn which sorts of behaviors can lead to raises and promotions, and which behaviors will lead to a career dead-end. You learn what will earn you a pat on the back from a leader, which can be extremely egoically gratifying and incentivizing in and of itself.
It works exactly the same way in news media. Reporters might not always be consciously aware of all the pro-establishment guidelines they’re expected to follow in order to advance their careers, but they know how the reporters who’ve ascended to the top of the media ladder conduct themselves, and they see how the journalists who win the accolades behave. With the help of editors and peers you quickly learn where all the third rails and sacred cows are, and when to shut your mouth about the elephant in the room. And for those rare times that all these filtration devices fail to adequately filter out dissident ideas, you see the example that gets made of those few who slip between the cracks, like CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for his defense of Palestinian human rights or Phil Donahue for his opposition to the Iraq invasion.
Last week, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill delivered a speech at the United Nations in support of Palestinian self-determination and equal rights. Less than 24 hours later, CNN was done with him. http://bit.ly/2RTa4La
The six words that got Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN
Hill’s dismissal highlights how pro-Israel lobbying groups control the US discourse on Palestine and Israel
mg.co.za
So plutocrats own the mass media and platform status quo-friendly voices, which creates an environment full of peer pressure to conform and workplace pressure to advance establishment-friendly narratives. Add to this the phenomenon of access journalism, wherein journalists are incentivized to cozy up to power and pitch softball questions to officials in order to gain access to them, and things get even more slanted. It’s easy to understand how all this can create an environment of consensus which has nothing to do with facts or reality, but rather with what narratives favor the US-centralized empire and the plutocrats who control it. But all those dynamics aren’t the only factors going into making sure a consensus worldview is maintained. Remember that hypothetical CIA officer I mentioned earlier who isn’t actively leaning over every journalist’s shoulder and dictating what they tweet? Well, just because he’s not dictating every word produced by the mass media machine doesn’t mean he’s not involved.
Secretive and unaccountable government agencies have an extensive and well-documented record of involving themselves with news media outlets. It is a known and undisputed fact that the Central Intelligence Agency has been intimately involved in America’s news media since the 1950s, and it remains so to this day. In 2014 it was a scandal when reporter Ken Dilanian was caught collaborating with the CIA in his publications, but now veterans of the US intelligence community like John Brennan and James Clapper openly fill out the line-up of talking heads on MSNBC and CNN. Just recently the Guardian published a lie-filled smear piece on Julian Assange which was almost certainly the resultof the outlet’s collaboration with one or more intelligence and/or defense agencies, and when that article caused an outcry it was defended as the likely result of Russian disinformation in an evidence-free article by a CIA veteran who was permitted to publish anonymously in Politico. The Washington Post is solely owned by Jeff Bezos, who is a CIA contractor, and who we may be certain did not purchase the Post under the illusion that newspapers were about to make a lucrative comeback. Secretive government agencies are deeply involved in the workings of western news media, in many ways we know about, and in far more ways we don’t know about.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and revisiting Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 from the beginning of this article, it should be obvious to you that the most logical explanation for the uniform consensus of support for pro-establishment narratives in the mass media exists because there is indeed a system in place which keeps all mass media reporters lying to us and painting a false picture about what’s going on in the world.
This doesn’t mean that these news media outlets lie about everything all the time, it means they mostly provide half-truths, distortions and lies by omission whenever it benefits the agendas of the powerful, which is functionally the same as lying all the time. I sometimes get people telling me “Caitlin! The MSM lies all the time, and they say global warming is real! That means it’s false!” But it doesn’t work that way; if the TV tells you a celebrity has died then it’s probably true, and if they say it’s about to rain you should probably roll up your car windows. If they lied about everything all the time they would instantly lose all credibility, and their ability to propagandize effectively would be lost. Instead, they advance evidence-free narratives asserted by opaque government agencies, they avoid highlighting inconvenient truths, they ignore third parties and dissident ideas except to dismiss them, they harshly criticize the misdeeds of governments which oppose the US-centralized empire while sweeping the misdeeds of imperial members under the rug, and when there’s an opportunity to sabotage peace or support war, they seize it. They distort only when they have to, and only as much as they need to.
In this way the powerful have succeeded in controlling the people’s narratives about what’s happening in their country and their world. This is the system of narrative manipulation we are up against when we try to sow dissident ideas into public consciousness, and as the old adage goes, it is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
And yet we are gaining ground. The manipulators have been losing control of the narrative, which is why the mass media have been acting so weird and desperate since 2016. The unelected power establishment failed to manufacture support for its would-be Syria invasion, it failed to get the publicto buy into the Russia hysteria, trust in the mass media is at an all-time low, and it’s continuing to plummet. More and more people are waking up to the fact that they are being lied to, which is good, because the only thing keeping them from pushing for real change is the fact that there are all these screens in everyone’s lives telling them that real change isn’t needed.
The liars are against the ropes, and they’re starting to look winded. A populist information revolutionis looking more winnable than ever.
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for mywebsite, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me onFacebook, following my antics onTwitter, throwing some money into my hat on PatreonorPaypal, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Afgelopen vrijdag overleed George H.W. Bush, VS president van 20 november 1989 tot 20 november 1993.
Alsof een groot staatsman was overleden, zo berichtten de landelijke (‘onafhankelijke’) radiozenders van Nederland, Duitsland, België en Groot-Brittannië over de dood van deze ‘zware’ oorlogsmisdadiger, die o.a. verantwoordelijk was voor de in feite illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 1991.
Voorts was deze Bush als president verantwoordelijk voor de oorlog tegen Panama, terwijl de leider van dat land Manuel Noriega*, een dictator was die door de VS aan de macht werd geholpen, waar Panama o.a. werd gebruikt door de VS voor terreuraanvallen op Nicaragua, waar Noriega destijds samenwerkte met de CIA……
Onder Bush als vicepresident en president werd de ‘war on drugs’ pas echt uitgerold, ook daarbij vielen enorm veel slachtoffers en werden hele gebieden onbewoonbaar gemaakt, door gif wat men vanuit vliegtuigen over landbouwgrond in o.a. Colombia verspreidde, zodat daar geen cocaplanten konden worden geteeld….. Terwijl de DEA en CIA met enige regelmaat gemeen spel speelden met de misdaadkartels en niet zelden zelf beter werden van de drugsverkoop in de VS…….. (waarmee men dan weer andere smerige spelletjes mee betaalde……)
Uiteraard werd Bush op de aangehaalde radiozenders alleen maar geprezen, niets over de zaken die hiervoor werden aangehaald………
Als vicepresident onder de mislukte cojboj Reagan, was Bush mede verantwoordelijk voor door de VS gepleegde massamoorden, staatsgrepen, illegale oorlogen en oorlogsmisdaden in het algemeen…….. De VS werd door de VN zelfs veroordeeld voor terreur gepleegd in Nicaragua, tijdens het vicepresidentschap van Bush….
Overigens is Bush ook nog even directeur van de CIA geweest, waar hij dan ook al is aan te merken als een groot crimineel en moordenaar voor de illegale acties van die geheime dienst………
Kortom: Bush had in Scheveningen moeten overlijden, tijdens een levenslange gevangenisstraf opgelegd door het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)!!! Maar nee, de reguliere media ruimden soms zelfs hun hele nieuwsbericht in voor de dood van deze massamoordenaar, de BBC wist zelfs een uur vol te lullen over ‘de geweldige prestaties’ van Bush……
* Noriega werd later tot een 40 jarige gevangenisstraf veroordeeld in de VS, deze werd later omgezet in 30 jaar, in 2010 werd hij uitgeleverd aan Frankrijk, die hem tot 7 jaar gevangenisstraf veroordeelde, in 2017 werd hij vervroegd vrijgelaten voor een hersenoperatie in Panama, aan de gevolgen waarvan hij overleed.
PS: ik sprak hier niet over de reacties van westerse politici, echter zoals je begrijpt bestaan die uit dezelfde valse bewoordingen als die de pers gebruikte.
Tom Elliott
