Monsanto vergiftigt niet alleen de wereld, maar heeft zelfs de moordenaars bv Blackwater opgekocht……..

Posted on January 15, 2016 by Telmo Claro

Het volgende bericht kwam ik tegen op het blog van Stan van Houcke. In dit bericht (uit 2013), dat van Counter Current News (slecht werkende site) komt, wordt uitgelegd dat Monsanto, de grote gifmengers en gentech schoften, het agressief paramilitaire bedrijf Blackwater (later ‘Ex Services’ en nu ‘Academi’ genoemd) opkocht. Blackwater werkte o.a. voor multinationals als Monsanto, Chevron en banken als Barclays en Deutsche Bank. Blackwater heeft zich in het verleden o.a. schuldig gemaakt aan diverse oorlogsmisdaden en terrorisme in het algemeen. Daar Blackwater een privé onderneming is, die weliswaar veel voor het ministerie van defensie (lees: ministerie van oorlog) in de VS werkt, kan de regering van de VS daarmee alle claims over oorlogsmisdaden en terrorisme afwijzen en daarmee Blackwater zoveel mogelijk smerige zaken laten uitvoeren………

Het laat zich raden waarom Monsanto een bedrijf als Blackwater opkocht, immers het bedrijf heeft er belang bij, dat haar zaden overal worden verkocht en dat regeringen de boeren houden aan hun contracten met Monsanto. Zo heeft een groot aantal boeren in India zich het leven benomen, daar ze volkomen failliet gingen door hun contract met Monsanto. Dat zit zo: Monsanto verkoopt zaden aan boeren, waarbij die boeren ervoor tekenen, dat zij niet zelf de zaden vermeerderen (zoals ze al duizenden jaren hebben gedaan en doen). Monsanto belooft die boeren gouden bergen, als zij hun zaden afnemen, echter als het tegenzit, bijvoorbeeld door grote droogte, of slecht weer, houden de boeren geen geld over om zaden te kopen voor het volgende seizoen….. Uiteraard geeft Monsanto grote kortingen op de eerste levering, zoals een heroïne dealer dat doet met zijn klanten……

Het laat zich raden, dat er ontwikkelingslanden zijn, die hun boeren niet gaan lastigvallen met de claims van Monsanto, dan is het uiteraard erg handig, als je een goedgetrainde ploeg psychopaten achter de hand hebben, om hun claims ‘wat meer kracht’ bij te zetten………..

Naast dit alles heeft Monsanto nog te maken met milieugroepen, die (volkomen terecht) tegen gentech zijn en bovendien tegen het op grote schaal verspreiden van zwaar gif over de aarde, door dit klote bedrijf……… Altijd handig om een stel psychopaten achter de hand te hebben, om je belangen veilig te stellen, ja toch….???

Monsanto and Blackwater

Yes, Monsanto Actually DID Buy the BLACKWATER Mercenary Group!

February 2, 2013 2:39 pm·

Reports that the huge multinational corporation Monsanto bought the largest mercenary army in the world might have seemed ridiculous on the surface. But it turns out that’s exactly what happened.

A report authored by Jeremy Scahill for The Nation revealed that Blackwater, later called Xe Services and more recently “Academi”, had been sold to Monsanto.

The clandestine intelligence service was renamed in 2009 after it became notorious and synonymous with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians.

The group, originally founded in 1997 by former Navy SEAL officer Erik Prince, remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services.” It exists in its functional capacity, so that the state may engage in terrorism while giving the government the opportunity to deny it, because those carrying out the war crimes are not directly reporting to members of the U.S. military hierarchy.

A number of military and former CIA officers are said to work for the mercenary group formerly known as Blackwater. The purpose has always been to increase profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations.

Scahill indicates that the group does business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, but that this is done through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share the group.

One of those partners is Cofer Black, who was known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA.

He is alleged to have been the one who made contact with Monsanto back in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence. Black entered into the contract with the company in order to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant, according to sources close to Academi.

Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, when asked directly by Scahill about this. But he later confirmed to The Nation that the company had in fact hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009.

According to Monsanto, this was only to keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He asserted, however, that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater,” even though it is just one of the myriad of names and forms the massive mercenary group has adopted over the years.

Scahill himself, however, says that he has copies of emails from Cofer Black. They explain that after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.”

In all, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009. After these details began to leak out, they seem to have buried the paper trail, and perhaps utilized yet another front for Blackwater to provide the same services.

Activists have claimed to have confronted agents of Monsanto who roughly fit the description of mercenaries with the group. Whatever name they are utilizing at this point, it seems reasonable that if they have been used in the past – and if they have repeatedly changed their names and added sub-groups to their organization – that they have only done the same thing once again.

Monsanto has been criticized by an array of environmental, peace and even health activists for their production of toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), as well as their more common business in selling pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

So why were so many media outlets, editorialists and bloggers clamoring to say that the purchase was a “hoax”?

That’s a good question. The more cynical among us might suspect a financial incentive from Monsanto itself to such “journalists.” Monsanto indeed has hired a public relations team to seek out critical blogs and websites reporting on their crimes against both Nature and humankind. We have seen this first hand in comments on PoliticalBlindSpot.com articles on Monsanto. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that they have created blogs where seemingly legitimate authors write organic thoughts, observations and rebuttals. The public presumes these are real-world people, when in fact they are working PR for the company.

But the core argument of those who claim that the Monsanto purchase of Blackwater is not true lies in the fact that we can only officially document Blackwater being hired by Monsanto for years. Immediately following this extensive work that Blackwater did for Monsanto, they sold the company. Because of the nature of how the sale transpired, it is impossible to document who the sale was to. The obvious and logical conclusion to insiders (particularly in the private security industry), however, is that the sale was in fact to Monsanto who had been employing the group.

Xe (now Academi) has, indeed, been purchased, and while there’s no way of DOCUMENTING who the new owners really are, the logical conclusion would be that Monsanto, who had been employing them prior to the sale are the new owners. This, of course, would also make sense of the secrecy surrounding the deal and the identity of the new owners. The company was bought out by private investors via private equity companies that don’t have to divulge any of their dealings, with Bank of America providing much of the $200 million in financing for the deal.

New York-based USTC Holdings said it will acquire Xe and its core operating subsidiaries, but did not disclose the price or terms of the agreement in a statement.

USTC Holdings is an investor consortium led by private equity firms Forte Capital Advisors and Manhattan Partners.

Various researchers have been trying to document the buy via a paper trail, but so far without much luck. That, of course, is the point.

One thing that is known: Forte Capital Advisors is the baby of long-time Blackwater ally Jason De Yonker:

DeYonker has unique experience with the Company that dates back to its founding in the late 1990s. He advised the Company through development of its early business plan and expansion of the Moyock training facility as well as supporting negotiations of its first training contracts with U.S. government agencies. Between 1998 and 2002, Mr. DeYonker co-managed Xe founder, Erik Prince’s family office which included management of Mr. Prince’s portfolio companies.

What does that mean? The guy is a glorified accountant.

Prior to joining Forté, Jason co-managed a +$100 million family office. In addition to actively managing various platform companies, Jason was a part of the executive team responsible for family wealth management.

Jason has spent the last 18 years advising on various mergers, acquistions and divestitures with an aggregate transaction value greater than $1 billion. Jason’s experience include: transaction advisory, portfolio management, real estate development, venture capital and cross border dealings. Jason began his career with Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance Group, and was a Director in Deloitte & Touche’s Corporate Finance Group. He also was the Finance Director for the West Family Trust, a venture capital group focused on cross-border transactons.

Jason recieved a Bachelor of Business Administration, with a concentration in finance and accounting, from the Univeristy of Michigan.

The other investor? It looks like the very junior partner will be Manhattan Partners, a private equity company – a shop that gathers money from anonymous rich investors and uses the pool of cash to leverage buyouts of big companies they wouldn’t have been able to take over on their own.

Manhattan Partners invests in “compelling growth and special situation transactions,” but this will be their first known foray into defense industries – WarIsBusiness.com reports (via Spencer Ackerman):

Manhattan Growth Partners is led by Dean Bosacki and Patrick McBride. Bosacki serves on the board of “the world’s largest commencement photography business,” among other companies. Manhattan Growth Partners, which describes itself as “a progressive thinking private equity firm,” also holds a majority interest in Hugo Naturals, a line of organic, vegan-friendly soaps, lotions, scents and soy candles sold at Whole Foods and other greenwashed retailers.

So what does this all mean? Did Monsanto actually buy Blackwater? The answer is yes, but indirectly. The purchase was made through shell company and a pair of private equity firms. At the end of the day, it would seem the logical conclusion is that in spite of arguments to the contrary, Monsanto in fact did by the Blackwater mercenary group… or at least the renamed Blackwater Xe, and now Academi Services group. The big question, now is why?

(Article by M. David, Jackson Marciana and I.A. Jamal; image via #Op309 Media)

http://countercurrentnews.com/2013/02/monsanto-actually-did-buy-the-blackwater-group/#

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Blackwater’,

Assad, de 2006 plannen voor de omverwerping van zijn bewind………

Posted on January 13, 2016 by Telmo Claro

Al vaker hier aangekaart: de westerse aanzet tot de opstand in Syrië. In het volgende artikel van Information Clearing House (ICH), wordt zelfs het jaar 2006 genoemd, als het jaar waarin de eerste aanzet tot de omverwerping van het Assad regime werd voorbereid (voor een vertaling, die wel wat tijd in beslag neemt, kan u onder dit artikel op Dutch klikken):

Divide et Impera

The Imperialist Violence in Syria, Part 3 of 7 – Part 1

By Kim Petersen and B. J. Sabri

From The WikiLeaks Files:

A December 13, 2006 cable, “Influencing the SARG [Syrian government] in the End of 2006,” indicates that, as far back as 2006 – five years before “Arab Spring” protests in Syria – destabilizing the Syrian government was a central motivation of US policy. The author of the cable was William Roebuck, at the time chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus. The cable outlines strategies for destabilizing the Syrian government. In his summary of the cable, Roebuck wrote:

We believe Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.

This cable suggests that the US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any available means, and that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have. In public the US was in favor of economic reform, but in private the US saw conflict between economic reform and “entrenched, corrupt forces” as an “opportunity.” In public, the US was opposed to “Islamist extremists” everywhere; but in private it saw the “potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists” as an “opportunity” that the US should take action to try to increase.

Roebuck lists Syria’s relationship with Iran as a “vulnerability” that the US should try to “exploit.” His suggested means of doing so are instructive:

Possible action:

PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business….

Roebuck thus argued that the US should try to destabilize the Syrian government by coordinating more closely with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to fan sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia, including by the promotion of “exaggerated” fears of Shia proselytizing of Sunnis, and of concern about “the spread of Iranian influence” in Syria in the form of mosque construction and business activity.

By 2014, the sectarian Sunni-Shia character of the civil war in Syria was bemoaned in the United States as an unfortunate development. But in December 2006, the man heading the US embassy in Syria advocated in a cable to the secretary of state and the White House that the US government collaborate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian conflict in Syria between Sunni and Shia as a means of destabilizing the Syrian government. At that time, no one in the US government could credibly have claimed innocence of the possible implications of such a policy…

It was easy to predict then that, while a strategy of promoting sectarian conflict in Syria might indeed help undermine the Syrian government, it could also help destroy Syrian society. But this consideration does not appear in Roebuck’s memo at all, as he recommends that the US government cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to promote sectarian tensions.¹

From the US Congress

The US path to destroy Syria is long. On 12 April 2003, twenty-four days after the US invasion of Iraq, a Zionist representative from New York, Eliot T. Engle, sponsored the Syria Accountability Act (SAA). The charge was Syria’s involvement of terrorism, aiding Saddam Hussein (meaning Iraq) escaping sanctions, helping the insurgency against the US invasion of Iraq, supporting of Hezbollah, chemical weapons, and so on. (We have to go on record on an important issue. Saying “a Zionist representative” is not a vacuous namedropping—it is a political statement indicative of how Israel passes its policy aims in Syria and the Arab world through the American legislative system.) The Act was passed in December 2003. Invoking the omnipresent pretext of American national security and pretending “constitutional” presidential privileges on foreign policy, George Bush essentially turned the Israeli policy toward Syria into a policy of the United States. (For reading: Statement by the President on H.R. 1828)

In his article, “The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003: Two Years On,” David Schenker, from the Zionist-imperialist think tank, the Washington Institute, recalled his experience in testifying before the House of Representatives (7 June 2006). He wrote, “Syria has proven a tough nut to crack. The SAA has helped, although the Legislation itself is not sufficient to compel a change in Syrian behavior. The Bush Administration has adopted some steps, but the challenge is how to leverage the SAA in conjunction with other tools at the Administration’s disposal—multilateral efforts in particular—to ratchet up the pressure on Syria to force behavioral change.” “Ratchet up pressure” is the key phrase as to what US neocons/Zionists believe they must do in Syria, not only in connection to Lebanon, but also, obviously, in relation what Syria represents for Israel—a rejectionist state of Israel that must be destroyed.

The Assassination of Rafiq Hariri

The assassination of Rafiq Hariri (a billionaire, dual citizen of Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, and a former prime minister of Lebanon) on 14 February 2005 is the paramount example of how the United States, Western Europe, and Israel plan their subversion against the Arab states that do not obey US diktat, or resist US-backed Israeli colonialist-imperialism. The assassination offers a very interesting angle with regard how pretexts are developed and used. Let us see why Hariri was killed. On 2 September 2004, the UNSC issued resolution 1559 calling on Syria to withdraw its remaining forces from Lebanon. Syria complied but only partially and slowly.

The ruse to get Syria out of Lebanon—which was a part of Greater Syria in history until France, using its Sykes-Picot mandate over Syria, severed it and made it an independent state in 1943—had, therefore, to be achieved by other means. The assassination of Hariri was that specific means. With the accusation that Syria was behind the assassination, the stage was set to force Syria’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon under the threat of enforcing resolution 1559 by military means. Forty-five days after the assassination (5 April 2005), Syria began its withdrawal from Lebanon and completed it by the end of that month.

Who ordered the assassination of Hariri?

Since neither Syria nor Hezbollah had stakes in the assassination of Hariri, who benefited from it? Our logical answer is Israel and the United States. [2] Considering the long list of objectives of these two states in the situation of all Arab states, proving this assertion is a matter of deductive reasoning.

Having briefly described the path the United States took in the quest to destabilize Syria, it is important to see its current methods of war. If the US plans in Syria were insufficient to raise alarm, we have to deal with other features applied on the Syrian theater of death (and before that in Afghanistan and Iraq). We are talking about an imperialist instrument of war: vocabulary as a weapon of mass confusion. Many terms and phrases had been coined to make people conform to Washington’s indoctrination. But do terms such as “moderate,” “extremist,” “moderate Arab states—who are they?”, “Islamic,” Islamist,” “dictator,” “democracy,” “no role for Assad in the future of Syria,” “Sunni,” “Alawite,” “Shiite,” “ISIS,” “stop the Iranian occupation of Syria,” “IS,” “DAESH,” “U.S. hitting ISIS,” etc., have any tangible meaning outside the world of imperialist propaganda?

Let us examine some of these terms. Does the diction “a future for Syria without Assad” have any meaning? Would that be a re-made Syria with a bankrupt sectarian system similar to the one a criminal named George W. Bush and his Zionist neocons installed in Iraq? Would the US bring Noah Feldman or others to write a “constitution” for Syria? (Feldman is a Zionist lawyer from New York and a theoretician on “Islamic terrorism,” “Jihad,” and on so-called Islamic democracy. He authored the sectarian constitution for Iraq while this was under active US military occupation led by Paul Bremer. Bremer’s constitution, as the Iraqis call it, has become the cornerstone and foundation for the partition of Iraq on approximate confessional and ethnic lines.³

Or, would it be a so-called Islamic state swearing allegiance to US imperialism, to Al Saud, and to the British-installed al-Thani ruling family of Qatar? What is the implication of saying that Assad is the problem, yet names behind state policies such as Obama, Erdogan, Hollande, Merkel, Turki al-Faisal, or Bandar Bin Sultan go unmentioned in this context? What does the Syrian “moderate opposition” mean in the US imperialist lexicon, if not groups financed and supported by Washington? And for clarity’s sake, we ask, moderate in what?

Again, what is the US game in Syria?

Let us cite Condoleezza Rice. Rice is the quintessential dual-face American hypocrite when the issue is US interventions. Although the first quotation we cite below is about Iraq, its philosophy and intent applies to US policy in Syria.

Rice, describing in petty melodramatic terms (similar to those one can find in a cheap romance novel) how she confronted her master criminal boss on the sectarian violence that the United States designed and implemented in Iraq, wrote the following [Italics are ours]:

“So what’s your plan, Condi?” The president was suddenly edgy and annoyed. “We’ll just let them kill each other, and we’ll standby and try to pick the pieces?”

I was furious at the implication….”No, Mr. President,” I said, trying to stay calm. “We just can’t win by putting our forces in the middle of their blood feud. If they want to have a civil war we’re going to have to let them.”⁴

Comment: 1) Rice is shameful. She made her criminal boss look caring. 2) Rice, daughter of a Presbyterian minister who presumably taught her not to lie, lied big. First, calling sectarian infighting “civil war” is deception because these are two different entities. Sectarian strife within a nation pits a community against another with dissimilar beliefs or ethnic origins. Civil conflict is between political factions within a nation regardless of sectarian or confessional beliefs. The US uses both terms interchangeably to obfuscate the nature of its interference in the pursuit of specific policy objectives.

Besides, there never was any sectarian infighting between Arab Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq until the US invasion and occupation fomented it to preempt resistance to its occupation. 3) Rice and her neocon masters thrive when sectors of a nation they occupy engage in violent infighting—it provides them easier means of control. This happened in the Philippines, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and it is now happening in Libya and Syria through mercenaries and proxies. That is why we often hear US imperialists and Arab stooges talking about things like “Assad wants to make an Alawite state,” “ISIS is a fact,” “Kurds want their own state and so do the Assyrians and the Armenians,” and so on. Regardless of terminology or concepts, the US strategy is unexceptional—it is an ancient Roman imperial and military strategy: Divide et Impera.

With regard to how US duality works in the Syrian example, let us consider the exchange she had with Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Muollem:

“… I delivered my point about Syria’s interference in Lebanon, and its failure to stop terrorists in their country from crossing their borders into Iraq.”

“it’s hard to stop them,” he said, but I was having none of it.

“They’re coming through Damascus airport,” I countered.⁵

Comment: We know what US exceptionalism means: it is okay for the US to interfere in the affairs of every country in the world, but others are not permitted to do so except with US approval. It is not okay that volunteers cross Syria into Iraq to fight the US invasion force, but it is okay for America’s stooges to allow weapons and mercenaries to Syria through Turkish and Jordanian airports.

In recalling the documented history of US interference in the affairs of myriad countries including its staunchest ally Britain (read, “Harold Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War, 1964-68”), the present authors state the following:

The violence in Syria is not an accidental product of uncontrolled events, is not a result of a civil war, is not because the Syrian state is ruled by despotic elites—but it is a result of a combined American-Israeli geopolitical strategy to install a new Syrian regime at the order of Tel Aviv and Washington. Syria, therefore, is not but another link—after Iraq, Libya, and Yemen— in the US and Israeli quest to dismantle the Arab system of nation, and to end the Palestinian Question permanently.

Let us now examine what was cooking in the US pot against Syria 60 years ago. In his outstanding research on the CIA plotting and machinations against the Arab nations including Syria during the 1950s, California State University history professor, Hugh Wilford, wrote the following:

On August 21, 1956, Foster Dulles convened GAMMA, a top-secret task force with representatives from State, Defense, and the CIA … GAMMA’s main contribution was to agree to a proposal to send the eminent foreign service veteran Loy Henderson on a tour of the Middle East that seemed intended to incite military aggression against Syria by its Arab neighbors…. Henderson told a meeting in the White House that he had discovered a deep sense of anxiety about Syria in the region, yet little concerted will to act; only Turkey, a NATO ally, showed much appetite for intervention….”⁶

Let us fast forward to the US occupation of Iraq. On page 473 of his book, The Twilight War(Penguin Press, New York, 2012), David Crist (a historian from the US imperialist establishment) writes, “’Recock’ became the word of the day at CENTCOM. The United States would get out of Iraq and prepare for the next war in the global fight against terrorism, with rumors circulating that Syria was next. The U.S. military concurred.”

Why Syria “was next” on the US list of priorities? Has Syria ever harmed or threatened the national security of the United States? No. But because Israel strongly influences US foreign policy (read, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”) toward the Arab states, and because Syria is the last Arab state resisting Israeli imperialism there are two concrete answers.⁷

First, Israel wants to weaken Syria and dismember it, as it wanted done to Iraq by American neocon Zionists. Dismembering Syria should expose the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah that depends on Syria for support. The second is more complex. First, controlling Syria enters in the logic of American quest of global hegemony. Second, to carve out a Kurdish autonomous region to be joined with the areas controlled by Iraqi Kurds creating a Kurdish State potentially at the service of US imperialism and Israel.⁸^{, 9}Third, Syria’s eastern regions and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights have sizeable oil deposits. (Read, “World powers must recognize Israeli annexation of Golan Heights”; “Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights – Israeli media”). 4) From an imperialist perspective, the geopolitical re-design of the region would help expand plans for the strategic control of world resources and distribution.

Crist’s revelation impels us to reflect on the motives and ideologies that underlie all anti-Arab actions taken by the United States. What we have today in Syria (and Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Palestine) is an accurate reproduction of age-old tested policies by the West at the expense of nations targeted for reasons rooted in the politics of imperialism, colonialism, Zionism, and piracy of resources. In Syria, however, the situation is a little bit more intricate due to the presence of a long list of operators never seen before in a single regional war, not even in Afghanistan.

Kim Petersen is a former editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached atkimohp@inbox.com

B. J. Sabri is an observer of the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism, Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be reached at b.j.sabri@aol.com

Next: Part 4 of 7

NOTES

Robert Naiman, “WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath,” Truth-out, 9 October 2015

See Kim Petersen, “Syria in the Imperialist Crosshairs,” Dissident Voice, 26 October 2005.

Note: since the dawn of Islam in Iraq (early 7th century) until the US invasion (2003), and regardless what administrative geopolitical form distinguished it, there have never been confessional lines in all Arab regions of Iraq or ethnic lines separating the various communities. However, historically, and during the rule of the Ottoman Turks, Arab Shiite Muslims formed a relative majority in the South of Iraq and Sunnis in the rest. After WWII, the lines between Arab Shiite and Sunni Muslims became integrated due to internal migrations and economic development. The US deliberately created the lines when it imposed a No-Fly Zone on specific regions of Iraq in 1991 after the war for Kuwait. As for the Kurdish regions, with the exception of Sulaymaniya and Erbil with a Kurdish Majority, most of the north of Iraq was inhabited by a mixture of ethnic Groups including Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkoman, Kurds, and Yezidis. The US arbitrarily delineated Kurdish areas when it imposed the non-fly Zone on the north of Iraq in 1991.

Condoleezza Rice, No Higher Honor, Crown Publishers, New York, 2011, p. 544, 561

Rice, 561

Hugh Wilford, America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Basic Books, New York, 2013, p. 273

Note: Lebanon cannot be described as a resister state. Resistance to Israel in Lebanon follows confessional lines. 1) The Saudi-controlled faction led by Saad Hariri is in line with the policy of accommodation adapted by Al Saud vs. Israel. 2) Christians are divided in two camps: the Faranjia and Aoun camp that opposes Israel; and the Geagea and Jmail (supported by Saudi Arabia) that seeks accommodation and had very close relations with Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon). The Jumblatt Druze faction (supported by Al Saud) has been known for continuous zigzagging on the issue of the resistance to Israel. This leaves only Hezbollah as the real opponent of Israeli settler-imperialism. Outside the Arab world, Iran is the only other remaining state that opposes Israel.

The Kurdish Question in Iraq goes beyond the scope of this work. Succinctly, there is a US-Kurdish connection in the context of imperialism, dependency; Iraqi Kurdish politician Masoud Barzani has collaborated in turning a potential Kurdish state into a tool at the service of US imperialism and Israel.

In his article, “To defeat ISIS, Create a Sunni State,” John Bolton stated, “The Kurds still face enormous challenges, with dangerously uncertain borders, especially with Turkey. But an independent Kurdistan that has international recognition could work in America’s favor.” [Italics added]

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Zie ook: ‘Jan Jaap de Ruiter (Tilburg ‘University’): Assad is een groter gevaar dan IS…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

en: ‘Koenders: ‘Assad moet terecht staan in Den Haag………’ OEI!!!‘

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Hezbollah’.

UvA bevolkt door lobbyisten militair-industrieel complex………..

Posted on January 11, 2016April 8, 2026 by Telmo Claro

Hier een artikel dat ik overnam van het blog van Stan van Houcke (hij plaatste dit op 8 januari jl.). Dit artikel handelt over mw, van Leeuwen en Ruud van Dijk, beiden lobbyisten voor het militair-industrieel complex, die geheel afhankelijk les mogen geven aan de UvA (Universiteit van Amsterdam). Hoe is het in godsnaam mogelijk, dat dit soort figuren les mag geven en dan nog wel aan een universiteit???

Eerder schreef ik op deze plek al over CDA hufter de Hoop Scheffer, ook deze lobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex gaf les aan studenten (waarschijnlijk doet hij dat nog steeds, of dat zo is, kon ik zo snel niet vinden)……… Het is ronduit een schande dat dit soort totaal afhankelijke en bevooroordeelde figuren les mag geven aan een universiteit….. Dit zet overigens nog meer vragen bij het streven nog meer bedrijven invloed te geven op het onderzoek en lesgeven aan universiteiten. Zo is Wageningen Universiteit (klik op het label, onder dit bericht) intussen bijna geheel verknoopt met het bedrijfsleven, wat gezien bijvoorbeeld de intensieve martelveehouderij, niet meer in het belang is van de gemiddelde Nederlander. Niet zelden wordt door Wageningse hoogleraren, de schade die de volksgezondheid oploopt door deze doodsindustrie, in twijfel getrokken, ook al zijn de bewijzen ijzersterk. Om nog maar te zwijgen over het goedpraten van het groot- en doodmartelen van dieren, in deze gore industrie………

UVA en AIVD

MW. DR. M. VAN LEEUWEN

29 oktober 2009

Mw. dr. M. van Leeuwen is benoemd tot bijzonder hoogleraar Moderne Trans-Atlantische betrekkingen vanuit historisch, economisch en cultureel perspectief, met het accent op de betrekkingen tussen Europa en Noord-Amerika in de periode na 1945, aan de Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen.

Mw. dr. M. van Leeuwen (1951) is benoemd tot bijzonder hoogleraar Moderne Trans-Atlantische betrekkingen vanuit historisch, economisch en cultureel perspectief, met het accent op de betrekkingen tussen Europa en Noord-Amerika in de periode na 1945, aan de Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA). De leerstoel is ingesteld vanwege de Stichting Atlantische Commissie. Marianne van Leeuwen volgt Ronald Havenaar op die de leerstoel sinds 2005 bekleedde.

Van Leeuwen werkt sinds 2003 bij de Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD). Zij is daar betrokken bij de vervaardiging van fenomeen- en trendanalyses over dreigingen voor de nationale veiligheid, zoals radicalisering en onderscheiden vormen van terrorisme. Van Leeuwen neemt daarnaast onder andere deel aan de beoordelingscommissie uitbesteding wetenschappelijk onderzoek van de Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding. Vanaf 1980 was Marianne van Leeuwen als wetenschappelijk medewerker onderzoek verbonden aan het Nederlands Instituut voor Vredesvraagstukken. Sinds 1983 werkte zij bij het Nederlands Instituut voor Internationale Betrekkingen ‘Clingendael’. Daar werd zij in 1998 plaatsvervangend hoofd onderzoek. Van Leeuwen richtte zich op verscheidene onderwerpen van sterk beleidsmatig belang, achtereenvolgens nucleaire non-proliferatie, internationale betrekkingen rond het Israëlisch-Palestijns vraagstuk, binnenlandse beïnvloeding van Amerikaans buitenlands beleid en internationaal terrorisme. Zij publiceerde over deze thema’s monografieën en artikelen bij binnenlandse en buitenlandse uitgevers.

Van Leeuwen was van 1994 tot 2003 lid van de Adviesraad Vrede en Veiligheid (AVV) en van de Commissie Vrede en Veiligheid van de Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken, de opvolger van de AVV. Ze nam ook deel aan de klankbordgroep van (voormalig) minister van Defensie Henk Kamp.

Van Leeuwen zal in haar colleges aandacht besteden aan (de ontwikkeling van) Amerikaanse en Europese beeldvorming over elkaars maatschappelijke en politieke karakter en buitenlands beleid. Ook bekijkt ze de vraag welke uitwerking zulke beeldvorming had en nog heeft op trans-Atlantische relaties. Zij wil de ontwikkeling van deze betrekkingen plaatsen in de context van bredere geopolitieke verschuivingen en zal naast historische ook actuele ontwikkelingen aan de orde stellen.

Gepubliceerd door Universiteit van Amsterdam

nieuws/content/hoogleraarsbenoemingen/2009/10/mw-dr-m-van-leeuwen.html

Is het wetenschappelijk verantwoord dat een functionaris van een inlichtingsdienst, en van wie het professoraat wordt betaald door de Atlantische Commissie die dient als de propagandatak van de NAVO, studenten les geeft? De Atlantische Commissie wordt ook nog eens gesubsidieerd door de Nederlandse staat.

Mevrouw Van Leeuwen is verbonden aan de faculteit geschiedenis van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, waar ook dr. Ruud van Dijk, docent geschiedenis, propaganda maakt voor de Atlantische Zaak. Beiden zijn geen onafhankelijke wetenschappers, maar vertegenwoordigen het belang van het militair-industrieel complex.

http://www.uva.nl/disciplines/geschiedenis/medewerkers/medewerkers-geschiedenis.html

Ruud van Dijk.

De Nieuwe Universiteit – voor een democratische universiteit

Today at the Dies Natalis Sebastiaan Proos (HvA student running for chair of the CvB) together with the help of Humanities Rally and DNU bombarded the audience with flyers from up on the balcony. The protesters were raising awareness for the non-transparant, undemocratic and conservative way the UvA has been handling the selection procedure for the new members of the board.

Sebastiaan Proos also delivered a speech (in Dutch): text can be found on his facebook: https://www.fa… Meer weergeven

384e Diesviering UvA ontsierd door geschreeuw en pamfletten – FOLIA

De diesviering van de UvA is vanmiddag vlak voor het einde verstoord door een student die vanaf het balkon ‘Leve de democratie! Weg met het CvB!’ schreeuwde. Daarna dwarrelden honderden flyers van de campagne van Sebastiaan Proos naar beneden. Hij heeft als student gesolliciteerd naar de functie van…
FOLIA.NL

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dit geldt niet voor de labels M. van Leeuwen en R. van Dijk.

Jemenitische rebellen en Iran slachtoffer van internationale leugens, aanvankelijk zelfs uit VN burelen……..

Posted on January 8, 2016 by Telmo Claro

Mensen hier een vergeten concept, maar nog even actueel: de beschuldiging dat Iran de Houthi rebellen zou voorzien van wapens en munitie. Deze leugen is al eerder doorgeprikt maar gezien het feit dat men in de reguliere media deze leugen nog steeds propageert, kan het niet genoeg herhaald worden, vindt u ‘ook niet?’ Hier het artikel van Information Clearing House (u kunt onder dit artikel klikken voor een vertaling, dat kost wel wat tijd) :

How False Stories of Iran Arming the Houthis Were Used to Justify War in Yemen

By Gareth Porter

January 02, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Truth Out” – Peace talks between the Saudi-supported government of Yemen and the Houthi rebels ended in late December without any agreement to end the bombing campaign started by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies with US support last March. The rationale for the Saudi-led war on Houthis in Yemen has been that the Houthis are merely proxies of Iran, and the main alleged evidence for that conclusion is that Iran has been arming the Houthis for years.

The allegation of Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis – an allegation that has often been mentioned in press coverage of the conflict but never proven – was reinforced by a report released last June by a panel of experts created by the UN Security Council: The report concluded that Iran had been shipping arms to the Houthi rebels in Yemen by sea since at least 2009. But an investigation of the two main allegations of such arms shipments made by the Yemeni government and cited by the expert panel shows that they were both crudely constructed ruses.

Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that the story of the arms onboard the ship had been concocted by the government.

The government of the Republic of Yemen, then dominated by President Ali Abdullah Saleh, claimed that it had seized a vessel named Mahan 1 in Yemeni territorial waters on October 25, 2009, with a crew of five Iranians, and that it had found weapons onboard the ship. The UN expert panel report repeated the official story that authorities had confiscated the weapons and that the First Instance Court of Sana’a had convicted the crew of the Mahan 1 of smuggling arms from Iran to Yemen.

But diplomatic cables from the US Embassy in Yemen released by WikiLeaks in 2010 reveal that, although the ship and crew were indeed Iranian, the story of the arms onboard the ship had been concocted by the government. On October 27, 2009, the US Embassy sent a cable to the State Department noting that the Embassy of Yemen in Washington had issued a press statement announcing the seizure of a “foreign vessel carrying a quantity of arms and other goods….” But another cable dated November 11, 2009, reported that the government had “failed to substantiate its extravagant public claims that an Iranian ship seized off its coast on October 25 was carrying military trainers, weapons and explosives destined for the Houthis.”

Furthermore, the cable continued, “sensitive reporting” – an obvious reference to US intelligence reports on the issue – “suggests that the ship was carrying no weapons at all.”

A follow-up Embassy cable five days later reported that the government had already begun to revise its story in light of the US knowledge that no arms had been found on board. “The ship was apparently empty when it was seized,” according to the cable. “However, echoing a claim by Yemen Ambassador al-Hajj, FM [Foreign Minister] Qaairbi told Pol Chief [chief of the US Embassy’s political section] on 11/15 the fact that the ship was empty indicated the arms had already been delivered.”

President Saleh had hoped to use the Mahan 1 ruse to get the political support of the US for a war to defeat the Houthis.

President Saleh had hoped to use the Mahan 1 ruse to get the political support of the US for a war to defeat the Houthis, which he was calling “Operation Scorched Earth.” But as a December 2009 cable noted, it was well known among Yemeni political observers that the Houthis were awash in modern arms and could obtain all they needed from the huge local arms market or directly from the Yemeni military itself.

Unlike the government’s story of the Mahan 1 and its phantom weapons, the official claim that a ship called the Jihan 1, seized on January 23, 2013, had arms onboard was true. But the totality of the evidence shows that the story of an Iranian arms shipment to the Houthis was false.

The ship was stopped in Yemeni waters by a joint patrol of the Yemeni Coast Guard and the US Navy, and an inspection found a cache of weapons and ammunition. The cargo including man-portable surface-to-air missiles, 122-millimeter rockets, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, C-4 plastic explosive blocks and equipment for improvised explosive devices.

Some weeks later, the UN expert panel inspected the weaponry said to have been found on board the Jihan 1 and found labels stuck on ammunition boxes with the legend “Ministry of Sepah” – the former name of the Iranian military logistics ministry. The panel report said the panel had determined that “all available information placed the Islamic Republic of Iran at the centre of the Jihan operation.”

But except for those labels, which could have been affixed to the boxes after the government had taken possession of the arms, nothing about the ship or the weapons actually pointed to Iran. All of the crew and the businessmen said to have arranged the shipment were Yemenis, according to the report. And the expert panel cited no evidence that the ship was Iranian or that the weapons were manufactured in Iran.

The expert panel cited no evidence that the ship was Iranian or that the weapons were manufactured in Iran.

The case rested on the testimony of the Yemeni crew members of the Jihan 1 – then still in government custody – who said they had sailed from Yemen to the Iranian port of Chabahar, had been taken to another Iranian port and then ferried by small boat to the Jihan 1 sitting off the Iranian coast. But although the panel said it had access to “waypoint data retrieved from Global Positioning System (GPS) devices,” it did not cite any such data that supported the crew members’ story. In fact, the panel acknowledged that it had “no information regarding the location at which the Jihan was loaded with arms….”

A crucial fact about the cargo, moreover, points not to Iran but to Yemen itself as the origin of the ship: The weapons on the ship were hidden under diesel fuel tanks and could be accessed only after those tanks had been emptied. The expert panel referred to that fact but failed to discuss its significance. But the June 2013report of a UN Security Council Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea said that Jihan 1’s crew members had “divulged to a diplomatic source who interviewed them in Aden that the diesel was bound for Somalia.” An unnamed Yemeni official confirmed that fact, which the crew members had kept from the Security Council expert panel, according to the UN Monitoring Group report.

The fact that the Jihan 1 was headed for Somalia indicates that the ship was engaged in a commercial smuggling operation – not a politically motivated delivery. The lucrative business of smuggling diesel fuel from Yemen to Somalia had long been combined with arms smuggling to the same country across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen, as the Monitoring Group report made clear. The Monitoring Group report explained that the reason authorities in the Puntland region of Somalia had made it illegal to import petroleum products was that arms had so often been smuggled into ports on its coast hidden under diesel fuel.

The same UN Monitoring Group report also revealed that a series of arms shipments had been smuggled to Somalia in late 2012 – just before the Jihan 1 was seized – in which rocket-propelled grenade launchers were the primary component and IED components and electrical detonators were also prominent. Those were also major components of the Jihan 1 weapons shipment. The report said information received from the Puntland authorities and its own investigation had “established Yemen as a principal source of the these shipments.”

A key piece of evidence confirming that those arms had originated in Yemen was a communication from the Bulgarian government to the UN Monitoring Group indicating that all the rocket-propelled grenade rounds and propellant charges in one lot manufactured in Bulgaria and seized in Somalia had been delivered to the Yemeni armed forces in 2010.

The information in the Monitoring Group report thus points to Yemeni arms smugglers as the source of the cargo of weapons and diesel fuel aboard the Jihan 1. When the arms were seized by the joint US-Yemen patrol, the Yemeni government evidently decided to exploit it by creating a new story of an Iranian arms shipment to the Houthis, and later used the Yemeni crew to provide the details to the UN expert panel.

The Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group’s report created an obvious problem for the official story of the Jihan 1, and the Yemeni government’s anti-Iran, Western backers sought to give the story a new twist.Reuters quoted a “Western diplomat” as citing the Jihan 1 arms shipment as evidence that Iran had actually been involved in supplying arms to al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia. The anonymous source noted that the cargo had included C-4 explosives such as were used by al-Shabaab for terrorist bombings, whereas the Houthis were not known to carry out such operations. But that claim was hardly credible, because al-Shabaab had close ties to al-Qaeda and was therefore an enemy of Iran. It has not been repeated except in pro-Saudi and pro-Israeli media outlets.

The Jihan 1 story and the broader narrative of intercepted Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis, as recycled by the UN Security Council expert panel, have nevertheless become key pieces of the widely accepted history of the regional conflicts involving Iran.

Gareth Porter (@GarethPorter) is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published in February 2014.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt. Dat geldt niet voor het label ‘Ali Abdullah Saleh’.

Koenders wenste en wenst Saoedi-Arabië niet terecht te wijzen, wat betreft de vreselijke bloedbaden die dit land aanricht……….

Posted on January 4, 2016 by Telmo Claro

De zwaar disfunctionerend minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, PvdA bedrieger Koenders, tekende aanvankelijk geen protest aan tegen de massa-executie die Saoedi-Arabië afgelopen zaterdag ten uitvoer bracht……. Onder de 47 vermoorde personen bevond zich de sjiitische geestelijke Nimr al-Nimr, die via een schertsproces werd veroordeeld wegens het aanzetten tot geweld en wegens het oproepen tot buitenlandse inmenging, dit terwijl het leven van al-Nimr in het teken stond van geweldloos protest.

Koenders stelde eerst dat Nederland (NB als voorzitter van de EU) niet zelfstandig stappen kon ondernemen tegen Saoedi-Arabië. De ongelofelijke hufter kwam in een lastig parket, toen de EU daarna wel de executies scherp veroordeelde (zonder hufter Koenders daar in te kennen), waarbij de EU de doodstraf zelf en zeker de massa-executie van zaterdag veroordeelde. Vervolgens gaf de EU aan extra verontrust te zijn door de moord op al-Nimr……..

Tja, toen moest de belachelijk knikkende sierdrol Koenders uiteraard als de sodemieter laten zien, dat ook hij uiterst verontrust was, over het gebeuren………. Om zijn wanprestatie in de zaak te verdoezelen, kondigde hij snel aan dat Saoedi-Arabië begin dit jaar bezoek krijgt van de Nederlandse mensenrechtenambassadeur en dat Nederland als EU voorzitter achter de EU veroordeling staat…….. Begin dit jaar?? Die ambassadeur had al in Riyad moeten zijn!!!

Nederland was koud twee dagen EU voorzitter en nu heeft Koenders ons land internationaal al weer flink voor paal gezet!!! Hoe is ‘t godverdomme mogelijk!!

Ach, het is als met het onmenselijke, uiterst asociale, neoliberale beleid van PvdA en VVD in Rutte 2, het draait nog maar om één ding in dit land: geld en macht…… Al zal Nederland zelfs geen greintje waardering vinden in het buitenland, laat staan dat we ook maar enige invloed hebben en met figuren als Koenders zelfs invloed verliezen……. Zoals u weet, met macht kan je invloed uitoefenen……
Koenders is dan ook al blij als hij weer eens achter uit z’n keel de grootste nonsens kan oplepelen voor de camera’s, dat ziet hij dan ook als macht, precies als alle diners en recepties waar hij aan mag zitten met grofgraaiende neoliberale politici, die wel macht hebben……..

Onbegrijpelijk, dat Koenders wel z’n vuilbek open heeft over Assad, terwijl Saoedi-Arabië het ene bloedbad na het andere aanricht, zowel in eigen land, als in het buitenland, zoals in Jemen. Daar bombardeert het Saoedisch regime de bevolking met clusterbommen, iets waar je Koenders ook al niet over hoort…….. Dat zwijgen van Koenders kan je dan ook één op één als steun voor Saoedi-Arabië zien, zoals de VS deze Saoedische massamoorden ook goedkeurt…….. De groep die de Saoediërs niet wenst en waarom ze Jemen bombarderen bestaat uit Houthi’s, zij vormden een strijdgroep die IS en Al Qaida met succes bestreed…….

Om nog maar te zwijgen over de steun van het Saoedische regime voor IS en Al Qaida in Syrië en Irak, volgens Koenders zijn dat particuliere Saoediërs, terwijl er bewijzen liggen, dat die steun komt vanuit het Saoedische leger en dus de Saoedische (soennitische) dictatuur. Daarover gesproken: in 2014 werd Assad in Syrië, volgens internationale waarnemers, in eerlijke verkiezingen, dus democratisch gekozen (met meerderheid van stemmen)……. Kom daar maar eens voor in Saoedi-Arabië!!!

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt.

De VS, een duivels imperium, dat achter haar psychopathisch moordende troepen staat??

Posted on December 15, 2015 by Telmo Claro

Het volgende artikel van ICH handelt over de steun van de VS burgers voor het leger. Joachim Hagopian legt uit, waar de VS bevolking zich achter schaart: illegale oorlogen, terroristische aanslagen, massamoord enz. enz. Om de VS tegen je te krijgen als land, is m aar weinig nodig, zo betoogt Hagopian, die verder wijst op de inmenging in binnenlandse politiek door de VS, of de sancties en boycots, die de VS instelt, als een (democratisch gekozen) regime niet naar de pijpen van de VS danst (zie o.a. Chili, Oekraïne en Syrië)……

Intussen benemen zich dagelijks 22 VS veteranen het leven, dit vanwege de ‘geweldige zorg’ die zij ontvangen van een natie, die achter haar troepen staat………..

Beste mensen, het is een aardige lap tekst, met veel links, maar uitermate de moeite waard, als u denkt dat u alles wel weet, zal u net als ikzelf vreemd opkijken, al geef ik toe dat ik eigenlijk nergens meer van sta te ‘kijken’, om dat woord nog maar eens te gebruiken…. Onder het bericht kan u klikken voor een vertaling, al neemt dat enige tijd in beslag.

It’s Time to Stop “Supporting Our Troops”

By Joachim Hagopian

December 13, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – With the 115 year old tradition of the annual Army-Navy football classic on Saturday, the so called “America’s game” and “rivalry for the ages” is now once again upon us. This occasion never fails to pay reverent homage to America’s so called “cream of the crop” elitist military academies and always from the president to celebrities Americans give tribute to our armed forces. At this time we hear that familiar patriotic mantra “support our troops” mindlessly repeated. So it seems appropriate now to take a cold hard look to examine what it actually means to “support our troops.”

As both a West Point graduate and critic of the American Empire, to me the “support our troops” sentiment has long outworn its propagandized welcome. US Empire has been using that contrite expression to brainwash Americans and justify its wars and violence for far too long. It sprang up during this last decade’s protracted war losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never was it ever heard during the Vietnam War when our combat veterans returned home feeling defeated and suffering from untreated PTSD symptoms, shunned by a nation that had bitterly turned against them and their war, particularly by their own peer group. Fast forward to four decades and three war defeats later, and our government is still sending Americans off to fight and die inAfghanistan (9800 currently) and Iraq (3500 with another 100 on the way), and now in Syria (50 just proposed with more on the way while war-hawk Bobbsy twins McCain and Graham are calling for 20,000 more troops in Syria). But this century’s wars we keep hearing red, white and blue, flag waving Americans urging us to “support our troops.”

Over the long haul, supporting our troops has resulted in the United States being the most warring, aggressive nation on earth, bar none. As we’re about to enter 2016, our ultraviolent country will be killing other human beings somewhere on this planet for 223 out of the last 240 total years the US has been in existence. That’s 93% of our time as a nation-turned-Empire we’ve been destroying human life. That’s certainly nothing to be proud of. Yet it’s “our troops” who’ve been the murdering culprit. No compassionate, rational person could possibly place blindly obedient support behind such rampantly wanton disregard and contempt for fellow human life.

Another fact that Americans can’t be proud of is knowing that the most warring nation on earth just since World War II alone has murdered up to 30 million people around the globe with an estimated 90% of them being civilians. Having initiated 201 out of the total of 240 armed conflicts from the end of WWII to 2001, it then follows that between those years the US Empire of Chaos and Destruction has murdered 27 million innocent people whose lives have tragically been cut short through no fault of their own for simply living in the wrong place at the wrong time belonging to the wrong ethnic nationality targeted by America’s full spectrum dominance and global superpower hegemony. And that was before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And what does it take to be targeted as a US foreign enemy? Any country whose leaders choose to support their own citizens’ well-being, independence and quality of life over US Empire’s fascist transnational corporate interests is attacked economically through sanctions and embargos, politically through propaganda lies and threats, or militarily though unnatural disasters/weather warfare, occupied invasions involving long term bloody conflict or acts of terrorism, coups and assassinations. Just ask Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo North Korea, Donbas, Palestine or Russia just to name more than a dozen.

People around the world have been victimized for well over a century by American Empire’s willful rape and pillage of their lands in the name of stolen natural resources and inhumane forced slave labor, and those are the nations whose puppet dictators willingly succumbed and acquiesced to US demands and pressures. In fact in the tradition of the British Empire, North America’s entire domestic and foreign history has been made of genocidal killing, enslaving, stealing and subjugating other darker-skinned races into death and submission. Given this context with the bigger picture perspective, “supporting our troops” is really supporting mass murder around the world. So bearing that sobering, grim reality in mind, it’s time for Americans to cease and desist with their jingoistic rah-rah that only adds insult to injury to the rest of the victimized world.

In 2008 the US spent more money every 5 seconds to wage an immoral, unlawful war in Iraq than the average working American earned all year long. 80% of America’s taxes are earmarked towards funding the annual Pentagon budget to wage war around the world. When that kind of war investment misappropriating US citizenry’s hard-earned tax dollars places such lopsided priority over the well-being of its own people, with over a decade of wearing down an overextended military forced into fighting three, four and even five consecutive combat tours on two simultaneous warfronts, it also overburdened and decimated America’s middle class.

And now for the first time in nearly a half century, the US middle class is no longer a majority in the United States. A large chunk of it died when sinking into an expanding lower class of impoverished, poverty-stricken Americans barely making ends meet. Half the respondents in a recent survey say they either break even or make less than their cost of living

expenses. As anoligarchy the US federal government no longer acts in the best interests of its citizens.

But considering the costs of war to victim nations where since 2003 the US has killed over a million people in Iraq alone, this figure released from a study earlier this year is admittedly a conservative estimate. The study concludes that up to two million in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have been killed by America’s wars. These colossal crimes against humanity constitute supporting the US federal government as well as its military troops a moral crime. America’s complete and utter destruction of the world’s second and third largest oil producers in Iraq and Libya, turning them into failed states because their one time US allied leaders moved away from the US petrodollar is unconscionable, yet that’s the tragic outcome of blindly supporting our troops. More than any other single country, the US today is responsible for allowing ISIS tomake billions in profit from stolen oil from Iraq and Syria financing the biggest terrorist group on the planet. And US partners-in-crime Turkey and Israel are the two biggest buyers of terrorist oil. So in effect supporting our troops is also supporting both crimes against humanity as well as worldwide terrorism.

Supporting our troops has contributed to the world becoming far more armed and dangerous today than at any prior time in our recorded human history. Our nation is also responsible forspearheading the biggest arms race in history where it’s not just the US Empire spending so many billions on weapons of mass destruction but due to Empire aggression it has forced Russia and China to answer by also significantly increasing their military spending. A dozen years ago the US defense budget nearly equaled the rest of the world combined. But during this century’s two protracted US wars plus smaller secret ones around the world, America’s military expenditures have soared to $682 billion in 2012 from $417.4 in 2003. The exponential rise of American aggression likewise has pressured the unilaterally declared US enemies Russia and China to significantly increase their military spending as well. The US has gone from spending near half (46%) of the world’s military amount in 2003 to just 35% in 2014 due to Russia and China dramatically expanding their military budgets. In fact following America’s lead, both the world’s annual arms sales as well as its military budgets have exponentially skyrocketed amongst dozens of countries all seemingly gearing up for “the big one.” Not surprisingly, at 31% the US is also the biggest arms dealer on the planet followed by Russia’s 27% with China accounting for 5% during the period from 2010-2014 that totaled a 16% increase from arms sold from 2005-2009.

Events and developments have escalated tensions and confrontations between the US and Russia and China in recent weeks. With the US backing NATO member Turkey recklessly shootingdown a Russian fighter jet resulting in a Russian rescue helicopter also brought down last month, in addition to the probable ISIS bomb taking down the Russian airliner killing all 224 onboard a month and a half ago, the US Navy destroyer skirting inside the twelve nautical mile range of built up Chinese islands in the South China Sea, the United States and the West appear to be baiting Putin and the East into World War III. And with nuclear powers going directly head-to-head in Syria, Ukraine and Asia, self-annihilation of the human race becomes a very real and grave risk culminating after a quarter century of US Empire belligerently operating as the sole global superpower and “global village” bully.

Out of nearly 200 countries no other nation on earth has more than a few military bases outside its own country except the United States. In contrast to the rest of the world, the US sends 1.5 million military occupiers on active duty to over a thousand military installations on every continent throughout the globe. Just this week the Pentagon announced a worldwide expansion of military bases without specifying a total number under the auspices of secrecy. West Africa, East Africa and Afghanistan are slotted for full scale bases. Meanwhile US Special Forces that covertly operate by stealth surprise often at night in guerilla-type, fast strike operations are busily secretly committing acts of terror in over 135 nations globally, that’s about 75% of the all world’s nations.

Let’s look at the way our federal government supports our troops. After sending over 6800 US soldiers (along with 7000 civilian contractors) to their early graves fighting in America’s two longest running wars in the nation’s history, leaving one million wounded personnel filing VA claims ranging from life threatening physical injuries to emotionally crippling PTSD traumas and scars, the feds have betrayed our patriots serving our country by treasonously targeting all returning combat veterans as the biggest enemy threat on American soil. Indeed veterans, gun owners and dissidents are deemed to pose a greater danger than even the feds’ own created terrorist monster ISIS that Obama’s open border policy facilitates easy access to establishing terrorist cells inside America.

Those veterans seeking help are customarily snowed under by lethal Big Pharma poison, fast becoming addicted and even more unstable. Many are haplessly waiting and dying on lists for medical services that often don’t come soon enough. Exposing forty veterans who died awaiting services on invisible lists at the Phoenix VA hospital alone triggered a major scandal last year. For several years running on average twenty-two veterans have been killing themselves each and every day in the United States. The overloaded Veterans Administration has been caught grossly ill-prepared to adequately deal with the sheer enormity of the problem with so many severely damaged ex-soldiers in dire need of long term assistance and care. One study predicts that up to nearly a half million veterans will end up with criminal cases in the court system.

With nearly half (44%) of Congress millionaires and so few (19%) ever serving in uniform now, the DC warmongers are ever-at-the-ready to send young men and women from America’s lower class into harm’s way fighting Obama’s dirty little secret wars in multiple combat zones around the world that the public never even hears about. Yet you’ll see next to none of their own sons or daughters fighting in some far off war. The way our own government has used, abused and not supported our troops is despicable.

And then a sizeable percentage of those Americans who are so vocal in their claims of “supporting our troops,” are too frequently disingenuous. Often hypocrites merely mouth the same banal platitudes year after year from their ivory-towered, pretend world, living so far removed and disaffected from actual war conditions or even knowing anyone who wears a military uniform. Never fathoming the tragic insanity or bloody lifelong consequences that US wars ravage on millions worldwide, permanently damaging all involved, Americans who haven’t a clue will glibly pay lip service, “We owe so much to our soldiers who fight to keep us safe and free.” What bubble, planet or century are they living on or in?

Since the inside coup of 9/11 was perpetrated, US citizens have become the murderous neocons’ war on terror victims as well, terrorized by their own international crime cabal government and militarized police state that’s effectively stolen their freedom and civil liberties while the guilty treasonously continue violating sworn oaths to uphold and protect both the Constitution and American people. Yet too many brainwashed, dumbed down and clueless in America don’t seem to get it. Maybe it’s because they’re bombarded 24/7 by MSM lies and disinformation that never expose the ugliness of war as it really is. The ruling elite controls all aspects of mass media, engaging in widespread censorship of films, television and video games where violence and war are only glorified. Military, CIA and FBI liaisons control every aspect of what comes out of Hollywood these days.

But over four decades of a volunteer army comprised of less than half of one percent of the total US population also contributes greatly to the widening disconnect between the 99+% civilian population and the less than 1% Americans in uniform. The atrocities and horror that the imperialistic Empire’s killing machine has inflicted on Third World nations half a world away may as well be billions of miles away on another planet or galaxy. Out of sight, out of mind goes many civilians’ insulated, tunnel version reality.

Those currently in uniform need to be reminded that they have a sworn duty to protect America from domestic and foreign enemies. As citizens who no longer live in a democratic republic but now a totalitarian police state, they need to recognize that their federal government has adiabolical agenda to enslave and eliminate fellow Americans. Instead of criminalizing dissent, the real domestic enemy has become the federal government and all Americans need to accept this tragic development. Therefore, both those already in uniform as well as those ready to sign up and allow themselves to become their crime cabal’s latest cannon fodder in the elite’s wars need to stand up and be counted as patriots loyal to their nation and fellow citizens rather than adhere to blind obedience to their psychopathic masters. It’s no longer okay to support the troops when they’re misdirected into committing treason against their own citizenry. Military personnel need to take responsibility for their actions and do what’s right by both their Constitution as well as humanity.

2015 has been a tumultuous year when by globalist design terrorism has expanded to all corners of the earth, spreading death, war and destruction in its wake. Meanwhile, feeling its economic prowess slipping away in the face of the emerging power of Eastern rivals China and Russia, the United States government has already conceded losing its war to retain the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The DC crime syndicate knows its days in power are numbered. Since the psychopaths ruling the planet are unwilling to relinquish their ruthless power of absolute control, they realize that using their Manchurian puppet president and his overstretched US Empire to recklessly do their dirty planetary bidding to successfully destroy the world’s most powerful nation sending Empire into rapid freefall decline on the way to one world government can only be achieved by igniting World War III against the Eastern powers just as their Ponzi-rigged, house of cards, debt-based global economy implodes on itself. So this late in the power elite’s endgame when we’re still hearing “support the troops,” in actuality it’s time to fight for our lives in support of humanity’s struggle for survival and good ultimately triumphing over evil.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Zie ook:
‘VS steunt rechtse coalitie (MUD) in Venezuela………‘

‘John Kerry eist referendum in Venezuela, ofwel de volgende stap in VS terreur……‘

‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘

‘List of wars involving the United States‘

‘NAVO gaat VS helpen in Zuid-Amerika terreur uit te oefenen: Colombia lid van de NAVO………‘

‘VS commando’s vechten o.a. in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika, aldus het VS ministerie van oorlog………‘

‘De war on drugs is veel dodelijker dan over het algemeen gedacht‘

‘9/11: de VS heeft niets geleerd……‘

‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘

‘CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi’s beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz………‘

‘Terreuraanslag in Iran moet acties uitlokken die de VS tot een oorlog met Iran ‘dwingen’‘

Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande op één van de volgende labels, onder dit bericht: VS buitenlandbeleid, NAVO, illegale oorlog, staatsgreep, massamoord, terreur, drones (standrechtelijke executies middels dit vliegend tuig, waarbij 90% niet verdachten worden vermoord, niet genoemd in bovenstaand artikel….), Chili, Afghanistan, Irak, Syrië, PTSS, suïcide, propaganda, en/of CIA.

Mijn excuus voor de belabberde weergave.

VS bombardement MSF ziekenhuis in Kunduz: deze ‘vergissing’ kostte 42 mensen het leven…..

Posted on December 14, 2015 by Telmo Claro

Gistermorgen berichtte het Radio1 nieuws van 11.00 u., dat na onderzoek is gebleken dat het bombardement op een ziekenhuis van Artsen Zonder Grenzen (Int.: MSF) in Kunduz veel meer doden zijn gevallen dan men eerst aannam (niet 30 maar 42 doden Ap), 14 medewerkers van MSF, 24 patiënten en 4 familieleden……

Eerder stelde de verantwoordelijke militaire top na onderzoek*, dat het hier een vergissing betrof……. Dat onderzoek had de VS wel kunnen laten, daar de VS dit meer dan valse excuus keer op keer gebruikt, na dergelijke terroristische bloedbaden te hebben aangericht…….. De VS had gedetailleerde kaarten, waarop het ziekenhuis overduidelijk stond aangegeven. De staf van het ziekenhuis had dit kort voor het bombardement nog eens duidelijk gemaakt, aan het VS commandocentrum…….

Het ziekenhuis werd gedurende bijna een uur gebombardeerd, al vanaf het begin heeft de staf onmiddellijk contact opgenomen met het VS commandocentrum en gesmeekt te stoppen met het bombardement, zonder enig resultaat…….. Mensen die het ziekenhuis probeerden te ontvluchten werden vanuit een VS helikopter, vanaf relatief korte afstand, onder vuur genomen en neergeschoten, lees: vermoord……..
En dan durft de VS na onderzoek te zeggen dat het hier een vergissing betreft…….

De berichtgeving op Radio1 was weer eens van een ongelofelijk klote niveau, zo sprak men over een ‘vergissing’, geen van alle feiten, die zich echt voordeden, tijdens deze beestachtige oorlogsmisdaad, werden genoemd……. Alsof dit het enige nieuws was over dit gebeuren, terwijl de bewijzen van het tegendeel, dus geen ‘vergissing’, er niet om liegen….. Met andere woorden: de VS wordt willens en wetens door de reguliere pers uit de wind gehouden, de macht van de VS reikt zelfs tot ver voorbij het Binnenhof………

Als het onze regering ernst is, het bestrijden van ‘islam-terreur’, moet er eerst eens flink op de trommel worden geroffeld, als de VS de zoveelste oorlogsmisdaad begaat, of een land aanvalt, zonder zelfs maar een resolutie van de VN Veiligheidsraad…… Het op het matje roepen van de VS ambassadeur, is nog wel het minste wat onze regering kan doen, bij dit soort enorme misdaden……. U snapt het al: dat zal nooit gebeuren, met grote graagte wordt de aars van VS politici, het geteisem van het Pentagon, de CIA en de NSA gelikt door de opvolgende Nederlandse regeringen……..

Een grof schandaal en dan vindt men het gek, dat bepaalde jongeren de kont tegen de krib gooien en zich verweren, tegen de gigantische terreur van de VS (en een aantal andere westerse landen) in het Midden-Oosten…..

* De spreekwoordelijke slager, die hier het spreekwoord letterlijk nam en de door hen zelf gepleegde moorden (het vlees) heeft onderzocht en dan tot de conclusie kwam dat het een vergissing was…… Een vergissing: de moord op weerloze mensen en mensen die levens kunnen redden, hulpverleners die het lijden van mensen kunnen verzachten……. Moedwillig een ziekenhuis bombarderen en onder vuur worden nemen en onschuldigen afslachten, nogmaals: terreur van de allerhoogste plank!!!

Trouwens VS stelde eerder als verweer, dat men dacht dat zich één of meer terroristen in het ziekenhuis bevonden; is dat een reden om een ziekenhuis te bombarderen en te beschieten????

Zie ook: ‘VS bombardeert ziekenhuis Artsen zonder Grenzen in Kunduz, 9 medewerkers van deze organisatie kwamen om het leven……..‘

en: ‘VS bombardeerde het Artsen zonder Grenzen ziekenhuis in Kunduz niet per ongeluk………. Ofwel: VS terreur op grote schaal, over een lange periode!!‘

en: ‘Artsen zonder Grenzen ziekenhuis: tijdens bombardement werden vluchtenden vanaf relatief korte afstand beschoten……. Vergissing??‘

en: ‘MSF Afghanistan hospital airstrike death toll reaches 42‘

Voor meer berichten over/met Afghanistan, Kunduz, MSF (Artsen Zonder Grenzen), bombardement, VS buitenlands beleid, oorlogsmisdaden en/of terreur, klik op het desbetreffende label, onder dit bericht.

Abou Moussa veroordeeld voor opruiing……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on December 11, 2015 by Telmo Claro

Azzedine C., alias Abou Moussa werd gisteren door de rechter in de extra beveiligde rechtbank in Osdorp veroordeeld voor opruiing tot 6 jaar cel……… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Is het ook opruiing als je beelden laat zien, die duidelijk maken dat Israël en/of de VS zich schuldig maken aan barbaars staatsterrorisme??

Als het westen doorgaat met het terreur uitoefenen in landen waar ze niets te zoeken hebben, zal de aanwas van jihadstrijders blijven groeien. De beelden die ons in Nederland bereiken van dit terrorisme, zorgt er dan ook voor, dat jongeren de kont tegen de krib zullen blijven gooien en dat dit tot grote ongelukken kan leiden, is intussen meer dan duidelijk!!! In feite kan je stellen, dat het westen (de NAVO en haar feitelijke baas, de VS) jongeren opruien om actie te ondernemen, tegen de terreur die door datzelfde westen wordt uitgeoefend in landen als Irak, Afghanistan, Jemen, Irak en Syrië. De opstand in Syrië werd georganiseerd en geregisseerd door de VS, gesteund door Groot-Brittannië, Turkije, Saoedi-Arabië en de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE), de eerste aanzet daartoe dateert al van 2007………

Dan Israël: dat land wordt door dik en dun gesteund door het westen, terwijl je niet anders kan concluderen, dan dat dit land met al de bloedbaden, die het aanricht onder de Palestijnse bevolking (vooral in de Gazastrook), zich schuldig maakt aan barbaars staatsterrorisme…… Ook Israël maakt zich dus schuldig aan het opruien van jongeren, ook in ons land……

Overigens vind ik het onbegrijpelijk, dat het haat- en angstzaaien tegen minderheden, niet als opruiing wordt gezien. Terwijl de nazi’s in Duitsland ditzelfde wapen gebruikten tegen Joden, Roma, Sinti, homo’s en politieke tegenstanders…….. Wat daar uiteindelijk de gevolgen van waren, hebben we kunnen zien voor en tijdens WOII…….

Klik voor meer berichten, n.a.v. het voorgaande, op één van de volgende labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt: terreur, illegale oorlog, jihadstrijders, religieus radicalisme, haatzaaien, vreemdelingenhaat, terreurmaatregelen, VS buitenlands beleid, NAVO, Saoedi-Arabië (dat land kan terreur uitoefenen tot in het oneindige, het westen zwijgt..) Israël en/of Gazastrook.

NAVO behoeft nieuwe strategie…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Kortom: waar kan de NAVO oorlog voeren???

Posted on December 7, 2015April 7, 2026 by Telmo Claro

Mensen, hier een artikel dat ik heb overgenomen van het blog van Stan van Houcke (van, van, van..). Dit artikel is naar aanleiding van de instelling door NAVO opperhoofd met de koperen VS fluit, Rasmussen, van een commissie, die een nieuwe strategie voor de NAVO moet uitdenken. Deze opdracht gaat naar VS grofgraaier en oorlogsmisdadiger Albright en grofgraaier en voormalig wereld grootvervuiler bij Shell, van der Veer.

Waarom de NAVO een nieuwe strategie nodig heeft, weet ik niet, daar het uiterst agressieve bondgenootschap op meerdere plekken gewelddadig aan de wereldweg timmert (uiteindelijk altijd onder regie van de grootste terreurorganisatie ter wereld, de VS…). Waarschijnlijk is dat niet genoeg en heeft men deze twee psychopaten uitgenodigd eens te zien waar we nog meer de boel grondig naar de kloten kunnen helpen, waarna de grondstoffen zijn veilig gesteld voor het westen en westerse bedrijven de boel voor vele miljarden mogen herstellen…….

Het is even doorbijten, maar de haarscherpe analyse, aangevuld met feitenmateriaal, is meer dan de moeite waard. Lees en huiver…..:

In NRC Handelsblad van 10 februari 2010 schreef ‘onze’ Koude Oorlogsprofeet H.J.A. Hofland over de toenmalige NAVO-secretaris generaal:

Rasmussen denkt aan een nieuw ‘strategisch concept.’ Een commissie onder leiding van oud-minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Madeleine Albright en de vroegere president-directeur van Shell Jeroen van der Veer is al een paar maanden bezig daarvoor een ontwerp te maken.

Hofland stelde zich wijselijk niet de vraag hoe een nieuw ‘strategisch concept’ van het offensieve bondgenootschap dat nu overal ter wereld kan toeslaan, eruit kan zien wanneer een oud president-directeur van één van de grote oliemaatschappijen én een oud-minister van Buitenlandse Zaken die publiekelijk Amerikaanse oorlogsmisdaden rechtvaardigde deze militaire strategie mogen ontwerpen. En toch is die vraag van vitaal belang. Woensdag 12 december 2012 publiceerde de International Herald Tribune, The Global Edition of the New York Times op de voorpagina onder een 4 kolommen brede kop ‘Back in Kosovo, for business’ een foto van een brede winkelstraat in de Kosovaarse hoofdstad Pristina met alleen Amerikaanse vlaggen, en daar weer onder de volgende informatie:

Admired for roles in war, ex-U.S. officials return to seek lucrative contracts. The prime minister is in a bind. His country’s largest and most lucrative enterprise, the state telecom, is up for sale… One bid is from a fund founded by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. Lobbying for another was James W, Pardew, the U.S. special envoy to the Balkans in Bill Clinton’s presidency. Both are among the Americans who hold the status of heroes for their roles in the 1999 war that separated one of the world’s newest states… so many former U.S. officials have returned to Kosovo for business –- in coal and telecommunications, or for lobbying and other lucrative government contracts –- it is hard to keep them from colliding. The list reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of recent American diplomatic history in the region. It also includes Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe who ran the 78-day bombing campaign against the Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic… Kosovo is not the only nation where former officials have returned to conduct business – Iraq is another prominent example –- but it presents an extreme case, and perhaps a special ethical quandary (moeilijk parket. svh), given the outsize American influence here. Pristina, the capital, may be the only city in the world where a Bob Dole Street intersects Bill Clinton Boulevard. Experts in foreign policy say the practice of former officials returning for business is more common than acknowledged publicly. Privately, former officials concede the possibility for conflicts of interest and even the potential to influence American foreign policy, as diplomats who traditionally spent careers in public service are rotating more frequently to lucrative jobs in the private sector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/world/europe/americans-who-helped-free-kosovo-return-as-entrepreneurs.html?pagewanted=all

American flags streamed recently above the main street of Pristina, Kosovo’s capital. One of the world’s newest countries, Kosovo separated from Serbia, with the support of the United States.

Hier komen de belangrijkste elementen van het westers bestel bij elkaar, te weten de macht van het militair-industrieel complex, toonaangevende neoliberale politici en de anonieme bureaucratische elite die elkaar achter de schermen bevoordelen, terwijl de commerciële massamedia hier doorgaans over zwijgen. Als ze er al iets over vertellen dan toch alleen in voorzichtige bewoordingen als: ‘privé geven voormalige ambtenaren de mogelijkheid toe van belangenverstrengeling en zelfs de mogelijkheid om de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek te beïnvloeden.’ De ‘mogelijkheid’ dus, terwijl onder journalisten algemeen bekend is dat de politieke koers uitgestippeld wordt door een ongecontroleerde kongsi. Ook mijn collega’s zullen zich afvragen waarom nu juist de olieman Jeroen van der Veer en de politica Madeleine Albright, die beiden nietgespecialiseerd zijn in militaire strategie, door de elite zijn aangewezen om ‘een nieuw strategisch concept’ te ontwerpen voor de NAVO. Het antwoord is even simpel als voor de hand liggend, de NAVO-strategie wordt bepaald door de economische en daarmee geopolitieke belangen van de westerse financiële elite. De belangrijkste functie van het agressieve bondgenootschap is de grondstoffen en markten van het neoliberale kapitalisme veilig te stellen.

Laat ik als eerste generaal Wesley Clark nemen, de voormalige opperbevelhebber van de NAVO Strijdkrachten in Europa, die ten tijde van het NAVO-geweld in Kosovo bereid was een Derde Wereldoorlog te riskeren:

One of Clark’s most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation to attack Russian troops at Pristina International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. A joint NATO-Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo. Russia wanted their peacekeeping force to operate independent of NATO, but NATO refused. British forces were supposed to occupy Pristina International Airport, but a contingent of Russian troops arrived before they did and took control of the airport. Clark called then—Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told ‘you have transfer of authority’ in the area. General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and ‘overpower’ the armed Russian troops, but Captain Blount leading the British troops questioned this order, and was supported in this decision by the British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, who refused to sanction the attack, reportedly saying ‘I’m not going to start the Third World War for you.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Eenmaal uit het leger Clark

went on Meet the Press in June 2003 and said he was ‘seriously consider[ing]’ running for president,

om zich naderhand terug te trekken, omdat hij vreesde geen kans te maken. In 2011 liet hij opnieuw van zich horen toen hij verklaarde dat de regering van Bush junior onmiddellijk na de aanslagen in 2001 van plan was om de Amerikaanse strijdkrachten zeven landen te laten aanvallen.

Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.’ I said, ‘Well, you’re too busy.’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He says, ‘We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’ This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’ He said, ‘I don’t know.’ He said, ‘I guess they don’t know what else to do.’ So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’ He said, ‘No, no.’ He says, ‘There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.’ He said, ‘I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.’ And he said, ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.’

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’ He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office – ‘today.’ And he said, ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ I said, ‘Is it classified?’ He said, ‘Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.’ And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, ‘You remember that?’ He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Maar omdat de oorlog in Irak desastreus verliep, liet de Bush-regering de andere zes oorlogen vallen. Duidelijk is in elk geval dat Washington en Wall Street in het grootste geheim oorlogen voorbereidde, en het publiek dit pas vernam toen een generaal buiten dienst de plannen onthulde.

Nu het geval Madeleine Albright, een moeder en grootmoeder die de genocidale Amerikaanse politiek verdedigde met het argument dat de dood van ruim 500.000 Iraakse kinderen onder vijf jaar ‘de prijs waard’ was geweest om het Amerikaans militaire en politieke beleid uit te kunnen voeren. Mevrouw Albright begon, na de politiek te hebben verlaten, voor zichzelf en verrijkt zichzelf nu in landen, waarvan de infrastructuur mede door haar beleid is verwoest en weer moet worden opgebouwd. Leest u even mee hoe een Amerikaanse oorlogsmisdadigster gelauwerd wordt, en zich verrijkt:

In 2001, Albright was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The same year, she founded the Albright Group, an international strategy consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. It has Coca-Cola, Merck, Dubai Ports World, and Marsh & McLennan Companies among its clients, who benefit from the access that Albright has through her global contacts. Affiliated with the firm is Albright Capital Management, which was founded in 2005 to engage in private fund management related to emerging markets.

Albright currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors and on the International Advisory Committee of the Brookings Doha Center. She is also currently the Mortara Distinguished Professor of Diplomacy at the Georgetown University Walsh School of Foreign Service in Washington, D.C..

In 2003, she accepted a position on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange. In 2005, Albright declined to run for re-election to the board in the aftermath of the Richard Grasso compensation scandal, in which Grasso, the chairman of the NYSE Board of Directors, had been granted $187.5 million in compensation, with little governance by the board on which Albright sat. During the tenure of the interim chairman, John S. Reed, Albright served as chairwoman of the NYSE board’s nominating and governance committee. Shortly after the appointment of the NYSE board’s permanent chairman in 2005, Albright submitted her resignation.

On October 25, 2005, Albright guest starred on the television drama Gilmore Girls as herself.

On January 5, 2006, she participated in a meeting at the White House of former Secretaries of Defense and State to discuss U.S. foreign policy with George W. Bush administration officials. On May 5, 2006, she was again invited to the White House to meet with former Secretaries and Bush administration officials to discuss Iraq.

Albright currently serves as chairperson of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and as president of the Truman Scholarship Foundation. She is also the co-chair of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor and held the Chair of the Council of Women World Leaders Women’s Ministerial Initiative up until November 16, 2007, succeeded by Margot Wallström.

‘On June 17, The Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Brookings Institution welcomed former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for the inaugural Madeleine K. Albright Global Justice Lecture, held in The Hague… To successfully establish global order, policymakers must consider justice and security in concert with one another: Justice brings principles of fairness, equality, and inclusive governance to security making it more lasting, and bearing in mind security can make justice mechanisms more practical, forward leaning, and capable of forestalling or ending conflict.’

In an interview given to Newsweek International published July 24, 2006, Albright gave her opinion on current U.S. foreign policy. Albright said: ‘I hope I’m wrong, but I’m afraid that Iraq is going to turn out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy –- worse than Vietnam.’

In September 2006, she received the Menschen in Europa Award, with Václav Havel, for furthering the cause of international understanding.

Albright has mentioned her physical fitness and exercise regimen in several interviews. She has said she is capable of leg pressing 400 pounds.

At the National Press Club in Washington on November 13, 2007, Albright declared that she with William Cohenwould co-chair a new ‘Genocide Prevention Task Force’ created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States Institute for Peace. Their appointment was criticized by Harut Sassounian and the Armenian National Committee of America.

On May 13, 2007, two days before her 70th birthday, Albright received an honorary doctor of laws degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Albright endorsed and supported Hillary Clinton in her 2008 campaign for U.S. President. Albright has been a close friend of Clinton and serves as her top informal advisor on foreign policy matters. She is currently serving as a top advisor for U.S. President Barack Obama in a working group on national security. On December 1, 2008, then-President-elect Obama nominated then-Senator Clinton for Albright’s former post of Secretary of State.

In September 2009, Albright opened an exhibition of her personal jewelry collection at the Museum of Art and Design in New York City, which ran until January 2010. The collection highlighted the many pins she wore while serving at the United Nations and State Department, including the famous pin showing a snake and apple she wore after the Iraqi press called her ‘an unparalleled serpent,’ and several jeweled insect bugs she wore to meet the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov after it was discovered the Russian secret service had attempted to bug the State Department.

In August 2012, when speaking at a Obama campaign event in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, Albright was asked the question ‘How long will you blame that previous administration for all of your problems?’, to which she replied ‘Forever.’

World Justice Project

Madeleine Albright serves as an Honorary Chair for the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project works to lead a global, multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the Rule of Law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

Dit is het Westen, met al zijn door Geert Mak zo geprezen ‘Western values and Western ways of thinking,’ waarbij, volgens hem, de ‘kracht van onze westerse samenleving onze democratie [is], onze variatie in ideeën, onze tolerantie, onze openheid tegenover andere culturen.’ Deze absurditeiten mogen dan wel door Hoflands ‘politiek-literaire elite’ in de polder gedachteloos worden verspreid, maar de rest van de wereldbevolking, dat al vijf eeuwen gebukt gaat onder ‘onze variatie in ideeën, onze tolerantie, onze openheid,’ en uit ervaring wijs is geworden, bezit een volstrekt andere opvatting. Die kan zich niet de luxe van Mak’s mythen veroorloven. Voor de armen, de onderdrukten, voor degenen die worden uitgebuit, geldt dat ‘de kracht van onze westerse samenleving’ bestaat uit grootschalige terreur. Zij beseffen maar al te goed hoe treffend Samuel Huntington’s woorden zijn dat ‘The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.’ Maar omdat Mak en zijn publiek de geschiedenis niet kennen en ook niet willen kennen, kan hier de kolder van ‘de chroniqueur van Europa’ onweersproken worden herhaald. In tegenstelling tot de polder-intelligentsia doet een vooraanstaande intellectueel als John Gray, emeritus hoogleraar European Thought aan de London School of Economics, wiens werk in vele talen verschijnt, datgene wat van intellectuelen verwacht mag worden, namelijk het beschrijven van de werkelijkheid. In zijn, ook in het Nederlands vertaalde, boek Al Qaeda and what it means to be modern (2003) wees hij op wat de Hoflanden en Makken angstvallig verzwijgen:

Een mondiaal conflict komt voort uit de interactie tussen nieuwe technologieën en religieuze en etnische scheidslijnen, een mengsel waarvan de brandbaarheid wordt vergroot door de toegenomen wedijver om natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Het is een combinatie die explosiever wordt door de toename van uiteenvallende staten. Preventieve oorlogen tegen ‘schurkenstaten’ kunnen negen terroristische netwerken uitschakelen die hun toevlucht hebben genomen tot gebieden waar geen staten meer functioneren. Waar er geen regering is die de zaak onder controle heeft, is een afgedwongen ‘regime-verandering’ vrij zinloos. Preventieve oorlogen zonder goedkeuring van instituties als de Verenigde Naties zullen andere landen van de Verenigde Staten vervreemden…

Amerika’s plannen voor regime-veranderingen zorgen in veel landen voor argwaan en vijandigheid. Een jaar na de aanslagen van Al-Qaida werd Amerika in meer landen gehaat dan ooit tevoren.

Volgens Gray vormt dit feit één van de obstakels voor de Pax Americana dat de Amerikaanse financiële en politieke elite vergeefs in stand proberen te houden middels NAVO-interventies, waarbij Europa op sleeptouw wordt genomen. De behoudende Financial Times kwalificeerde professor Gray’s boek ‘vlijmscherp’ omdat het ‘de waarheid dichter benadert dan veel andere boeken.’ In dit verband getuigt het van ironie dat juist een NRC-recensent niet aan de indruk kon ontkomen dat ‘Gray je echt aan het denken [zet] — een verademing.’ Inderdaad, de werkelijkheid vernemen, wordt in Nederland als ‘een verademing’ ervaren. Vooral wanneer de krantenlezer in de polder opgescheept zit met opiniemakers als Henk Hofland voor wie het ware probleem is dat het Westen

[s]inds 9/11 bewezen [heeft] dat het zijn politici en generaals ontbreekt aan het krijgskundig inzicht dat nodig is om in de regio een oorlog overtuigend te winnen. Na veertien jaar en een lange reeks militaire experimenten weten we nog niet hoe de oorlog in de regio moet worden gevoerd.

http://www.groene.nl/artikel/nieuwe-oorlog-in-wording

Dat het realisme van intellectuelen uit grote cultuurlanden de Nederlandse propagandisten niet ‘echt aan het denken’ zet, blijkt opnieuw wanneer Gray het volgende opmerkt:

De mondialisering luidt allesbehalve een nieuw tijdperk van mondiaal bestuur in, maar leidt daarentegen tot de wedergeboorte van het imperialisme.

Wat Gray imperialisme noemt, betitelt Hofland ‘het vredestichtende Westen,’ terwijl Mak het Amerikaans geweld aanprijst als ordebewaking. Hoewel beide opiniemakers met schaamteloze pedanterie suggereren over een aanzienlijk historisch inzicht te beschikken, wees al in 1962 de historicus van wereldnaam, Arnold Toynbee, erop dat

America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defense of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consequently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome’s policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number.

Om de politiek van ‘ongelijkheid,’ ‘onrechtvaardigheid,’ en ‘het minst mogelijke geluk voor’ zo veel mogelijk mensen mogelijk te maken is sinds de val van de Sovjet Unie de NAVO niet ontbonden, maar juist in ledental bijna verdubbeld en is het militair bondgenootschap almaar verder oostwaarts opgerukt, waardoor de Russische Federatie nu geheel omsingeld is met ‘onze’ militaire-bases. Gisteren, donderdag 3 december 2015, berichtte de International New York Times op de voorpagina, onder de aanhef ‘NATO bids for new ally, fueling fury in Moscow. Offer to tiny Montenegro threatens to complicate cooperation against ISIS,’ dat Dimitri A. Peskov, woordvoerder van het Kremlin, het volgende heeft verklaard:

The continuing expansion of NATO and NATO’s military infrastructure to the east, of course, cannot but lead to response actions from the east, namelijk the Russian side.

De enige partij die van deze gevaarlijke ontwikkeling profiteert is de gevestigde orde en haar militair-industrieel complex, een macht waarvoor president Eisenhower in zijn afscheidsrede in 1961 vergeefs waarschuwde. Hij benadrukte dat ‘This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry’ almaar bleef groeien, waardoor de ‘total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government,’ en ‘we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.’ Bijna een halve eeuw later, in augustus 2009 schreef John Gray in het voorwoord van zijn boek False Dawn. The Delusions of Global Capitalism:

In the era of the free market, now fast slipping from memory, the past hardly existed. Only the present had any reality, and it was being constantly refashioned and made new. New industries, new careers, new lives were continuously created, then discarded, according to market imperatives. Grandiose doctrines sprang up to support the belief that the free-market capitalism that had been adopted in a handful of countries would prevail over every other economic system.

Nog geen twintig jaar nadat de Amerikaanse neoconservatieve ideoloog Francis Fukuyama had verkondigd dat de val van de Sovjet Unie ‘The end of history’ had ingeluid, doordat het kapitalisme de eindoverwinning had behaald, stortten ‘the fundamentalist dogmas of free-market ideology’ zelf ineen, en wilde tot groot ongenoegen van het westerse establishment Rusland ‘to start history once more,’ om de woorden van Geert Mak te citeren. En dit kon natuurlijk niet, in het bewustzijn van ‘onze’ ideologische opiniemakers bewijst juist het ruim vijf eeuwen durende kapitalistische expansionisme dat alleen ‘wij’ het recht bezitten om ‘geschiedenis’ te maken. Daarentegen zijn intellectuelen sceptischer. Zo stelt Gray dat

The collapse was not simply a result of unchecked greed — more fundamentally, it is a consequence of hubris. As Nassim Taleb showed in The Black Swan (boek van Libanees-Amerikaanse auteur en voormalige derivatenspeculant. svh), it was far from being an inherently unpredictable event. Writing in 2006 he identified how the crisis would begin: ‘the government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at their risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup.’

Wanneer een journalist als Geert Mak beweert dat ‘we’ absoluut niet de ‘deur’ naar de neoliberale ‘markt’ moeten ‘dichtgooien,’ omdat er dan ‘Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel’ meer mogelijk is, dan demonstreert hij, als vooruitgangsgelovige, bitter weinig te begrijpen van de neoliberale economie. Gray:

If one sign of the utopian nature of the global free market was its unrealistic assumptions about human knowledge, another was its ignoring power and conflict. Markets are not perpetual-motion machines, which once constructed run on for ever. They are institutions that display all the flaws and frictions of their makers. Not only are they liable to cycles of boom and bust; they reflect the conflicting goals and values of the people who use them. Above all, market systems are no more enduring than the power that upholds them.

Wanneer onverzadigbare begeerte de belangrijkste drijfveer van een cultuur wordt, dan is het einde al in zicht, want niets in het universum is oneindig, behalve tijd en ruimte, en dat blijven voor de mens raadselachtige fenomenen. De uit de Verlichting voortgekomen veronderstelling dat de geschiedenis een recht opgaande lijn is, staat lijnrecht tegenover het vroegere besef dat alles een cirkelbeweging doormaakt, en leidt al langer tijd tot de verdere desastreuze infantilisering van ‘onze’ samenleving. Mak’s stelligheid is keer op keer leugenachtig. Dat blijkt wederom wanneer hij in zijn Reizen zonder John. Op zoek naar Amerika (2012)het mainstream-publiek wil overtuigen dat het de

Amerikaanse presidenten, Wilson en Roosevelt, [waren] die de aanzet gaven tot een hele reeks internationale instituten die, ondanks alle problemen, een begin van orde brachten in de mondiale politiek en economie,

zonder erbij te vermelden dat die ‘orde’ in de praktijk twee dingen betekenden, geïnstitutionaliseerd racisme, en imperialistische oorlogen. De Amerikaanse historicus James W. Loewen schreef in zijn ‘National Bestseller,’ getiteld Lies My Teacher Told Me. Everything Your American High School History Book Got Wrong (1995) dat Wilson’s politiek was gebaseerd op

racial segregation of the federal government and… military interventions in foreign countries. Under Wilson, the United States intervened in Latin America more often than at any other time in our history… In the summer of 1918 he authorized a naval blockade of the Soviet Union and sent expeditionary forces to Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok to help overthrow the Russian Revolution.

Eerder al had Wilson zelf zijn drijfveren als volgt duidelijk gemaakt:

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down … Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.

Loewen:

‘With hindsight we know that Wilson’s interventions in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua set the stage for the dictators Batista, Trujillo, the Duvaliers, and Somozas, whose legacies still reverberate.’

Bovendien zond de president, die ‘een begin van orde’ bracht, troepen naar Mexico om daar Amerikaanse investeringen veilig te stellen. Piero Gleijesus, hoogleraar aan de prestigieuze Johns Hopkins University en expert op het gebied van US intervention in Latin America, wees erop dat

It is not that Wilson failed in his earnest efforts to bring democracy to these little countries. He never tried. He intervened to impose hegemony, not democracy.

Loewen:

The United States also attacked Haiti’s proud tradition of individual ownership of small tracts of land, which dated back to the Haitian Revolution, in favor of the establishment of large plantations. American troops forced peasants in shackles to work on road construction crews.’ In 1919 Haitian citizens rose up and resisted U.S. occupation troops in a guerrilla war that cost more than 3,000 lives, most of them Haitian […] George Barnett, a U.S. marine general, complained to his commander in Haiti: ‘practically indiscriminate killing of natives has gone on for some time.’

De realiteit voert de historicus Loewen tot de conclusie dat Wilson’s beleid in de praktijk gebaseerd was op drie pilaren: ‘colonialism, racism, and anticommunism.’ En het was de door Mak geprezen Woodrow Wilson die

personally vetoed a clause on racial equality in the Covenant of the League of Nations… Wilson’s legacy was extensive: he effectively closed the Democratic Party to African Americans for another two decades, and parts of the federal government remained segregated into the 1950s and beyond… Wilson was an outspoken white supremacist who believed that black people were inferior. During his campaign for the presidency, Wilson promised to press for civil rights. But once in office he forgot his promises. Instead, Wilson ordered that white and black workers in federal government jobs be segregated from one another… When black federal employees in Southern cities protested the order, Wilson had the protesters fired.

Dit alles verzwijgt Mak. Wat hij wel meldt is dat Woodrow Wilson een van degenen was die ‘aan de wieg’ stond ‘van het Permanente Hof van Arbitrage — de voorloper van het Internationale Gerechtshof — en van de Volkenbond.’ Daarom maar weer de nuchtere James W. Loewen, om door Mak’s uiterlijke schijn heen te prikken:

Wilson displayed little regard for the rights of anyone whose opinions differed from his own… In fact Wilson tried to strengthen the Espionage Act with a provision giving broad censorship powers directly to the president. Moreover, with Wilson’s approval, his postmaster general used his new censorship powers to suppress all mail that was socialist, anti-British, pro-Irish, or that in any other way might, in his view, have threatened the war effort. Robert Goldstein served three years in prison for producing The Spirit of ’76, a film about the Revolutionary War that depicted the British, who were now our allies, unfavorably. Textbook authors suggest that wartime pressures excuse Wilson’s suppression of civil liberties, but in 1920, when World War I was long over, Wilson vetoed a bill that would have abolished the Espionage and Sedition acts. Textbook authors blame the anticommunist and anti-labor union witch hunts of Wilsons’s second term on his illness and on an attorney-general run amok. No evidence supports this view. Indeed, Attorney General Palmer asked Wilson in his last days as president to pardon Eugene V. Debs (presidentskandidaat voor de Socialistische Partij. svh), who was serving time for a speech attributing World War I to economic interests and denouncing the Espionage Act as undemocratic. The president replied ‘Never!’ and Debs languished in prison until Warren Harding pardoned him.’

Kortom, Geert Mak’s voorstelling van zaken is en leugen. Hetzelfde geldt voor de wijze waarop hij Franklin Roosevelt portretteert als een overtuigde internationalist. De vooraanstaande Amerikaanse historicus Richard Hofstadter liet aan de hand van de feiten een veel genuanceerder beeld zien:

That Roosevelt ever had deep faith in the United Nations as an agency of world peace is doubtful. His original and spontaneous reaction was to seek for peace and stability not through a general concert of all the nations but rather through a four-power establishment of the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and China, which was to police the world… Rather than an overall world organization he favored regional organizations, which were to leave all questions of peace and security to the four great powers. Once when Secretary Hull and some internationalist visitors who wanted a world organization asked him: ‘aren’t you at least in favor of a world secretariat?’ he laughingly replied: ‘I’ll give you the Pentagon of the Empire State Building. You can put the world secretariat there.’ […] his philosophy of international relations, however democratic as to ends, was far from democratic to means.

Ik ben wat langer blijven stilstaan bij Mak’s ‘orde,’ omdat die racistische ‘orde’ nog steeds door de NAVO, onder aanvoering van Washington en Wall Street, met ‘Shock and Awe’ wordt verdedigd. Geweld om de geglobaliseerde belangen van de elite te consolideren, is de enige raison d’être van het bondgenootschap. Daarom is de NAVO nu in ledental bijna verdubbeld, terwijl een opiniemaker als Mak publiekelijk blijft oproepen dat er nog meer geld moet worden gespendeerd aan bewapening. Op die manier hoopt hij zijn slogan ‘Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel’ substantiële inhoud te kunnen geven. De verhulde misdadigheid van ‘onze’propagandisten in de mainstream-media is even grenzenloos. Daarentegen merkt de gezaghebbende geleerde John Gray op dat

Before it was anything else, the global free market was an American project. Using institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as its instruments, the US imposed the ‘Washington consensus’ on countries across much of the world. The consensus prescribed sound money and balanced budgets as touchstones of economic virtue — not of course for America, which has rarely submitted itself to any economic orthodoxy, running up massive federal deficits year after year — but for everyone else and especially for poor countries. The consensus also dictated free traqde, another injunction that applied mainly to the developing world. Inconsistencies of this kind are normal in great powers, and so long as the US retained its primacy they continued unchallenged.

IMF en Wereldbank, vormen naast de NAVO het fundament waarop de macht van het Westen rust. Deze instituten zorgen voor wat de westerse massamedia ‘orde’ noemen. Maar zelfs een Geert Mak beseft wel degelijk dat die ‘orde’ in werkelijkheid de grote wanorde betekent van het arme deel van de mensheid. De rijkdom hier kan slechts door de armoede elders worden gehandhaafd. Die realiteit geldt nu in toenemende mate ook voor de situatie in het Westen zelf, waar een groeiend aantal burgers overtollig zijn geworden en een hindernis vormen voor de verdere parasitaire ontplooiing van de kapitalistische ideologie. Al vanaf het moment dat Columbus in een brief aan zijn geldschieters, de Spaanse vorst Ferdinand II and zijn echtgenote Isabella I, liet weten dat de Indianen ‘zo inschikkelijk, zo vreedzaam,’ waren, ‘dat ik uwe Hoogheden kan verzekeren dat er geen beter volk in de wereld bestaat,’ en ‘hoewel het waar is dat zij naakt rondlopen, toch zijn hun manieren fatsoenlijk en prijzenswaardig,’ was duidelijk dat deze inheemsen al snel misbruikt zouden worden. Vooral ook omdat Columbus eraan toevoegde dat de Indianen ‘willingly traded everything they owned,’ en belangrijker nog:

do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. They would make fine servants,

waardoor,

With fifty men we would subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

En dus maakte Columbus hen onmiddellijk tot slaven, van wie, als ze het door hem verordonneerde quotum goud niet haalden, de handen werden afgehakt. Het resultaat van dit Europees terreurbewind was volkerenmoord. De Amerikaanse historicus Howard Zinn schreef in zijn baanbrekende werk A People’s History of the United States: 1492-Present (1980) dat:

from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines… Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas.

Op zijn beurt concludeerde de Amerikaanse historicus, schout-bij-nacht, Samuel Eliot Morison, die een Pulitzer Prijs kreeg voor zijn biografie van Columbus:

The cruel policy initiated by Columbus and pursued by his successors resulted in complete genocide.

De Zuid-Amerikaanse auteur Eduardo Galeano beschrijft in zijn fameuze trilogie Kroniek van het Vuur. Vijf eeuwen economische exploitatie van Latijns-Amerika de contuïteit van de gewelddadige blanke cultuur die de blanke elites in Latijns-Amerika gebruikt

als louter instrumenten van het internationale kapitalisme, welvarende onderdelen van het wereldwijde raderwerk dat het bloed van de koloniën en semi-koloniën uitzoog.

Wat dreef deze blanke christenen uit Europa? Howard Zinn citeert Columbus zelf daarover:

As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts?

En de informatie die Columbus het meest zocht was:

‘Where is the gold?’

Met de ‘ontdekking van Amerika,’ aldus Hans Koning, een Amerikaanse auteur van Nederlandse afkomst,

an era of genocide, cruelty, and slavery on a larger scale opened than had ever been seen before. We must finally learn to look at that past with open eyes. We must dare abandon our comfortable but false myths, for the sake of our children and their children.

In Columbus: His Enterprise. Exploding the Myth (1992) toont Koning gedetailleerd aan dat slaven en goud generatieslang de voornaamste drijfveren waren. En wel omdat, in de woorden van Columbus zelf:

gold is the most excellent, gold is treasure, and who has it can do whatever he likes in this world.

En dus schreef hij aan het Spaanse vorstenhuis dat ‘their Highnesses may see that I shall give them as much gold as they need’ en natuurlijk ‘slaves as many as they shall order to be shipped.’

Arawak indians who failed to produce a predetermined amount of gold had their hands chopped off by Columbus’ men. They often bled to death.

Het materiële gewin mag dan wel de reden zijn van al deze terreur, maar wat waren en zijn de oorzaken van deze stoornis? Die vraag is gerechtvaardigd omdat de christenen zelf claimden dat hun God alle mensen op aarde had gecreëerd naar zijn evenbeeld. Ook door mijn decennialange ervaringen met de zelfbenoemde christen Geert Mak kan ik niet aan de indruk ontkomen dat in het hart van het christendom een grote leegte huist gepaard aan een agressieve heerszucht, Der Wille zur Macht, een blinde drift. De genadeloze conquistador Hernan Cortez zei in dit verband dat ‘We Spaniards know a sickness of the heart that only gold can cure.’ Die ‘ziekte van het hart’ is ruim vijf eeuwen later nog steeds niet uitgewoed. Integendeel zelfs, door reclame en propaganda wordt de onverzadigbare lust naar meer materie almaar aangewakkerd, het is zelfs de spil waarom heen ‘onze’ consumptiecultuur draait. ‘Wij’ zijn in dit opzicht even ziek als de zogeheten ‘ontdekkingsreizigers’ van eind vijftiende eeuw. De Pakistaanse historicus Mubarak Ali beschreef in het essay Past present: Conquest of paradise, gepubliceerd op 17 augustus 2014, hoe schizofreen en genocidaal de blanke christenen uit Europa reageerden op de zogenaamde ‘ontdekking van de nieuwe wereld’:

The Spaniards found the new land beautiful and its native people simple and peaceful. They did however, wonder, if they were, in fact, human or subhuman. If they were indeed subhuman they could then be exterminated and their land occupied. But if they were human then they would have to be converted to Christianity. This was the logic of the Spaniards. The natives were lucky that the Pope in the 16th century declared them human and missionaries arrived to change their religion. Therefore religion and gold were two motives of the Spaniards in the newly discovered world.

When they first arrived, they found that the Caribbean Islands were covered in lush green thick forests. After settling down, they cut the trees to use the land for sugar cane cultivation; thus destroying the original environment.

The native population was either killed by the settlers or they died of some disease that was brought to the islands by the Europeans. Columbus could not get as much gold as he had hoped he would and died in poverty. Those who followed him to the new lands were successful in extracting gold from the conquered countries.

Cortez who invaded Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City) in 1519 forced the Aztec king to surrender and give him gold. He collected all the gold idols, melted them into gold bricks and in this way, destroyed the antiquities of the Aztec civilization. In 1532, Pizarro invaded and plundered the Inca Empire.

As more settlers arrived in the new world, they established great plantations and forced the native people to work as slaves. The Spanish government after discovering silver in Peru and Mexico used the local population to work as miners. As the local population was not enough in numbers to work in the plantations and the silver mines, it was decided that slaves should be imported from Africa. North America was hence colonized by European powers who reduced its native population to a non-entity; slavery being a significant factor in Europe’s growing prosperity and richness.

The year 1492 is significant in the history of Europe. According to J.M. Blaut, who in his book 1492: The Debate on Colonialism, Eurocentrism and History argues that ‘before 1492, cultural evolution in the eastern Hemisphere was proceeding evenly across the landscape; in Africa, Asia and Europe a multitude of centres were evolving out of (broadly) feudalism and toward (broadly) capitalism. Many of these regions in all the three continents were at the same level of development and were progressing at about the same rate and (as to their modes of production) in the same direction. They were in fact evolving collectively, as nodes in a hemisphere-wide network or process of evolving capitalism. Europe was not in any way ahead of Africa and Asia in development or even in the preconditions for development.’

He further explains that ‘after 1492, Europeans came to dominate the world, and they did so because 1492 inaugurated a set of world-historical processes which gave to European proto-capitalists enough capital and power to dissolve feudalism in their own region and begin the destruction of competing proto-capitalist communities everywhere else. By the end of the 17th century, 200 years after 1492, capitalism (or capitalists) had risen to take political and social control of a few Western European countries, and colonial expansion had decisively begun in Africa and Asia.’

http://www.dawn.com/news/1125706

De Uruguayaanse auteur, wijlen Eduardo Galeano, beschrijft in zijn boek De aderlating van een continent. Vijf eeuwen economische exploitatie van Latijns-Amerika (1971) het onlosmakelijke verband tussen de plundering van de gekoloniseerde wereld en de ontwikkeling van Europa en naderhand de VS, en dat dus ‘Dankzij het offer van de slaven in het Caribisch gebied James Watts stoommachine en George Washingtons kanonnen op de wereld kwamen.’ Immers, de

suiker uit de Latijns-Amerikaanse tropen vormde een grote stimulans voor de accumulatie van het kapitaal ten behoeve van de industriële ontwikkeling van Engeland, Frankrijk, Nederland en ook de Verenigde Staten, terwijl tegelijkertijd de economie van Noordoost-Brazilië en de Caribische eilanden erdoor verminkt en de historische ruïnering van Afrika erdoor bezegeld werden. De steunpilaar voor de driehoek-handel tussen Europa, Afrika en Amerika was de slavenhandel met als bestemming de suikerplantages. […]

Adam Smith zei dat de ontdekking van Amerika ‘het mercantilistische systeem tot een stadium van schittering en glorie had verheven dat het anders nooit bereikt zou hebben.’ Volgens Sergio Bagú (Argentijnse historicus svh) was de Zuidamerikaanse slavernij de krachtigste motor voor de accumulatie van handelskapitaal in Europa; dit kapitaal was op zijn beurt weer ‘de basis waarop het reusachtige industrie-kapitaal van tegenwoordig gegrondvest is.’ […]

Dankzij het geaccumuleerde kapitaal uit de driehoek-handel — manufactuur, slaven, suiker — was de uitvinding van de stoommachine mogelijk: James Watt werd financieel gesteund door kooplieden die zo fortuin gemaakt hadden. […]

Weliswaar kwam een groot deel van het kapitaal, waardoor de industriële revolutie in de Verenigde Staten van Amerika vergemakkelijkt werd, uit de slavenhandel in New England. Halverwege de 18de eeuw brachten de slavenschepen uit het noorden tonnen vol rum uit Boston , Newport of Providence naar Afrika: in Afrika werden ze ingeruild voor slaven; ze verkochten de slaven in het Caribisch gebied en vandaar namen ze stroop mee naar Massachusetts waar het gedestilleerd werden en om de cirkel rond te maken, in rum veranderde. De beste rum van de Antillen, de West Indian Rum, werd niet op de Antillen gemaakt. Met behulp van kapitaal verkregen door deze slavenhandel installeerden de gebroeders Brown uit Providence de ijzergieterij die generaal George Washington van kanonnen voorzag voor de Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog. […]

Zo werd het bloed overgetapt door al deze processen. De landen die in onze tijd ontwikkeld zijn, ontwikkelden zich; de onderontwikkelden onderontwikkelden zich.

Nu al vijf eeuwen lang leeft een groot deel van de wereld onder de meedogenloze hegemonie van het Westen en ‘we’ naderen nu het onvermijdelijke einde van het tijdperk van de blanke man, wiens ‘sickness of the heart that only gold can cure’ zijn enige drijfveer is om met maximaal geweld overal ter wereld zijn belangen af te dwingen. De rest van de wereld accepteert het niet meer, en is nu in staat terug te slaan. Als de arme en onderdrukte niets meer te verliezen heeft, met de rug tegen de muur staat, is er maar één uitweg voor hem: tegengeweld toepassen, contra-terreur plegen. En daar zijn ‘wij’ nu getuige van. Meer daarover de volgende keer.

Zie ook: ‘Turkije valt Noord-Irak binnen, kortom een oorlogsverklaring aan het adres van Irak, gesteund door de NAVO en haar meester de VS………‘

Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. dit bericht, op één van de volgende labels, die u onder dit bericht aantreft: NAVO, Jeroen van der Veer, militair-industrieel complex, terreur (op dat gebied is, zoals gezegd, de VS de absolute kampioen!), Shell (en alle andere grote oliemaatschappijen uiteraard!) Rasmussen, VS buitenlands beleid, indianen, genocide, Kosovo, AL Qaida, oorlogsmisdaden, IMF en/of Wereldbank.

Excuus voor de opmaak.

Michiel Servaes (PvdA) wil meer steun voor terreur van ‘gematigde oppositie……….’

Posted on December 4, 2015 by Telmo Claro

PvdA drollenpoetser Servaes was vanmorgen op Radio1 te horen (rond 8.37 u.), hier kwam de kwast uitleggen, dat de Syrische oppositie meer steun moet krijgen……. Uiteraard noemt Servaes dit ‘heel leep’ de gematigde oppositie en om dat gematigde aan te tonen, vergelijkt hij die zogenaamde gematigde oppositie met de Koerden, die met succes IS bevechten. Over die Koerden gesproken, die heeft hij bezocht en daarmee denkt hij over alle kennis te beschikken, rond dit conflict. Echter in tegenstelling tot de Koerden, richt de Syrische ‘oppositie’, via diverse terreurgroepen, bloedbaden aan onder de burgerbevolking, die niet in het bewuste ‘gematigde straatje’ passen……..

‘Natuurlijk weet Servaes niet’, dat de VS, Groot-Brittannië, Turkije, Saoedi-Arabië en de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE), al in 2009 besloten, dat Assad moest opstappen. De VS en de soennitische geallieerden wilden (en willen nog steeds) een soennitische marionet van de VS op diens plaats….. Daartoe heeft men een opstand op poten gezet in Syrië, die moest uitmonden in het afzetten van Assad. De opstand lukte, maar niet het afzetten van Assad (in Oekraïne lukte deze strategie van de VS wel en moest de democratische regering opstappen…)…… Nu werkt dus ook Servaes mee aan de wil van de VS, de regering Assad omver te werpen…….

Daarover gesproken: ook Servaes wil dat Assad opkrast, alweer: Servaes ‘weet niet’ dat Assad in 2014 democratisch werd gekozen……..

De oppositie moet zich verenigen, aldus Servaes….. Ja en ophouden met het aanrichten van bloedbaden onder de diverse bevolkingsgroepen, dus ‘iets’ gematigder optreden……. Manke jezus op een houtvlot!!!

Servaes zou het lef moeten hebben, bijvoorbeeld Turkije aan de paal te nagelen, vanwege steun aan IS en andere terreurgroepen!!! Dat zal hij niet doen, zeker niet nu zijn partijcollega, PvdA grootzwetser Timmermans een verdrag heeft gesloten met de kalief van Ankara, Erdogan……… Zie: ‘Turkije levert wapens en munitie aan IS en andere terreurgroepen……….‘

Zie ook: ‘Erdogan vroeg aan de Russen om bewijs voor Turkse olie afname van IS en dat kreeg hij!‘

en: ‘Timmermans is trots op zijn ‘vluchtelingen onderhandelingen’ met de Turken…….. AUW!!!‘

Klik voor meer berichten, n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de volgende labels, die u onder dit bericht terugvindt: Syrië, Assad, Koerden, Turkije, Erdogan, Saoedi-Arabië, VS buitenlands beleid, ISIS (= IS), Al Qaida, al-Nusra, terreur, religieus radicalisme en/of Michiel Servaes.