Deze week wordt de intocht van de NAVO in Kosovo herdacht. De intocht na de illegale bombardementen van de VS met de NAVO aan de hand op zelfs burgerdoelen in het Servië van Milosevic, wat zoals je begrijpt ernstige oorlogsmisdaden zijn……. (zelfs de Chinese ambassade werd gebombardeerd, zogenaamd per ongeluk…)
Oorlogsmisdadigers Clinton, Albright en oud-VS-generaal Clark (destijds opperbevelhebber van de NAVO) worden geëerd voor het begaan van die misdaden en dat op grond van de enorme leugen dat Servië bezig was met etnische zuiveringen in Kosovo en daar slachtingen aanrichtte, slachtingen die na onderzoek werden toegewezen aan etnisch Albanese terreurgroepen als het UÇK…….
Het ingrijpen van de NAVO (zoals gezegd o.l.v. de VS) was de opmaat naar een wel echte etnische zuivering van de Serven in Kosovo, e.e.a. resulteerde zelfs in een pogrom tegen deze Serven in maart 2004…… Er wonen nu nog amper Serven in Kosovo, terwijl zij vele honderden jaren in deze Servische provincie woonden en de Albanezen die in de loop van de tijd op de vlucht gingen (zoals voor de ‘communistische’ dictatuur) ruimhartig toelieten tot hun grondgebied……
De Serven die nog in Kosovo wonen hebben regelmatig met geweld en pesterijen van etnische Albanezen te maken, een zaak waar het westen zich niet druk over maakt……… Sterker nog: gevluchte Serven uit Kosovo worden niet toegelaten tot de EU…….
De Servische president Milosevic werd onterecht veroordeeld door het Joegoslavië Tribinaal (nu genaamd: Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), hij stierf in de Scheveningse gevangenis, later werd hij o.a. door hetzelfde tribunaal vrijgesproken van zogenaamde oorlogsmisdaden……… En zoals je kon lezen, i.p.v. vast te zitten in Scheveningen na een veroordeling door dit waardeloze tribunaal, worden in Kosovo de zware oorlogsmisdadigers Clinton, Albright en Clark geëerd voor hun vreselijke daden…..
Wat een wereld mensen, gadver!!
Voor meer berichten over Joegoslavië, Milosevic en Kosovo, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.
Het gore
lef wat sommigen hebben is niet zelden ten hemel schreiend, zoals de
perschef van president Bush (deze oorlogsmisdadiger en top-idioot mag zich president blijven noemen). Ari Fleischer (de perschef) nam het besluit e.e.a. via Twitter de wereld in
te helpen, waarschijnlijk als reactie op de dreigementen van de VS
tegen het Internationaal Strafhof dat men actie zal nemen tegen de
functionarissen, die zich bezig houden met onderzoek naar VS
oorlogsmisdaden…….
Ongelofelijk wat ploert Fleischer durft te zeggen, terwijl de hele wereld weet (of kan weten) dat de
VS heeft gelogen, leugens die meer dan 2 miljoen Irakezen het leven
heeft gekost, ofwel die mensen zijn in feite vermoord door de
VS……
Fleischer
doet net of de geheime diensten van de VS, Israël en nog een paar
landen zeker wisten dat er massavernietigingswapens lagen in Irak,
weliswaar klopte dit niet, maar dat is iets anders dan liegen, aldus de hufter….. ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Alsof
die geheime diensten ook maar de neiging hebben om de waarheid te vertellen,
jezus!!
De
wapeninspecteurs van de VN, o.l.v. Blix, hebben uit en te na gewezen op
het feit dat Irak (onder Saddam Hoessein) geen
massavernietigingswapens had en deze zelfs niet voor hen verborgen kon
hebben…..
Overigens liet de Hoop Scheffer, oorlogsmisdadiger van het CDA, vorig jaar weten nog steeds achter de illegale oorlog tegen Irak te staan, ondanks het enorme aantal slachtoffers, een land dat voor een groot deel in puin ligt en waar de oorlog nog lang niet is afgelopen…… Irak, een land waarnaar Nederland vluchtelingen deporteert, rechtstreeks de oorlog in, dit op basis van ambtsberichten van Buitenlandse Zaken, terwijl hetzelfde ministerie nog steeds een negatief reisadvies voor Irak afgeeft….
Caitlin
Johnstone schreef op haar site een uiterst scherp artikel over
deze zaak en laat van Fleischer en anderen geen spaan heel, lezen
mensen, het gaat hier om geschiedvervalsing van de eerste orde, ook
de reguliere (massa-) media doen net of hun neus bloedt als het om de
illegale Irak oorlog gaat, terwijl zij deze oorlog op valse feiten
van A tot Z hebben gepropageerd, waar de kennis over het tegendeel voor het oprapen lag…….. (over het brengen van fake news gesproken….)
On
the Anniversary Of The Iraq Invasion, Bush Press Secretary Claims
Bush Didn’t Lie
On
the sixteenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, as the US
government threatens
punitive action against International
Criminal Court investigators for attempting to look into US war
crimes, former George W Bush administration Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer has decided to publish
a Twitter thread claiming
that Bush did not lie to the world about Iraq.
Here
is a transcript of the full thread by Fleischer:
The
Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow. There is a myth about the
war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no WMDs
were found, the left claimed “Bush lied. People died.” This
accusation itself is a lie. It’s time to put it to rest.
The
fact is that President Bush (and I as press secretary) faithfully and
accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community
concluded. The CIA, along with the intelligence services of
Egypt, France, Israel and others concluded that Saddam had WMD. We
all turned out to be wrong. That is very different from lying.
After
the war, a bipartisan group was created to determine what went wrong,
particularly why the intelligence community’s conclusions about Iraq
were so different from what was found on the ground after the
war. The group of experts was named the Robb-Silberman
commission. It’s report was issued in March 2005. It
can be found in full here.
Its key finding was that that a “major intelligence failure”
took place. It also stated that no intelligence service was pressured
by the Bush Administration to conclude that Saddam had WMDs.
Here
are the key quotes from their report:
“Overall
Commission Finding: The Intelligence Community’s performance in
assessing Iraq’s pre-war weapons of mass destruction programs was a
major intelligence failure.
Nuclear
Weapons Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community seriously
misjudged the status of Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program in the
2002 NIE* and other pre-Iraq war intelligence products. This
misjudgment stemmed chiefly from the Community’s failure to analyze
correctly Iraq’s reasons for attempting to procure high-strength
aluminum tubes.
Biological
Warfare Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community seriously
misjudged the status of Iraq’s biological weapons program in the 2002
NIE and other pre-war intelligence products. The primary reason
for this misjudgment was the Intelligence Community’s heavy reliance
on a human source–codenamed ‘Curveball’–whose information later
proved to be unreliable.
Chemical
Warfare Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community erred in its 2002
NIE assessment of Iraq’s alleged chemical warfare program. The
Community’s substantial overestimation of Iraq’s chemical warfare
program was due chiefly to flaws in analysis and the paucity of
quality information collected. In the case of Iraq, collectors of
intelligence absorbed the prevailing analytic consensus and tended to
reject or ignore contrary information. The result was ‘tunnel vision’
focusing on the Intelligence Community’s existing assumptions. The
Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments
in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion,
but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD
affected the analytic process. The CIA took too long to admit
error in Iraq, and its Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and
Arms Control Center actively discouraged analysts from investigating
errors.
Finally,
we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were
pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts
who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no
instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of
their analytical judgments.”
That
is what the investigators reported, after been given full access to
people throughout the intelligence community. Which leads me to
conclude that there was a liar and his name was Saddam Hussein. He
created an elaborate system of lies to fool western intelligence
services and he succeeded. He wanted us to believe he had WMDs.
The
allegaton that “Bush lied. People died” is a liberal myth
created to politically target President Bush. I understand the anger
that was felt after no WMDs were found. But that doesn’t justify
calling the President a liar. I can only hope that serious historians
and other experts do their homework and resist falling for this myth.
The Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow. There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no WMDs were found, the left claimed “Bush lied. People died.” This accusation itself is a lie. It’s time to put it to rest.
Ari
Fleischer is lying. It is an absolute proven fact that George W Bush
and his administration lied
extensively about
the degree of certainty in intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein
possessing weapons of mass destruction, having ties to Al Qaeda, and
seeking nuclear weapons, all of which (along with Vice President
Cheney’s claim that the US invaders would be “greeted
as liberators“)
proved false. The Bush administration did not know the things they
claimed to know with any degree of certainty, but they claimed that
they were certain in order to manufacture support for war. Claiming
to know something you do not know is lying, especially when it’s to
advance an ulterior motive.
“Evidence
from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by
people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda,” Bush claimed
in January 2003.
“Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his
hiddenweapons
to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”
“Simply
stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction,” Cheney claimed
in August 2002.
“There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
friends, against our allies, and against us.”
“The
United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said
in December 2002.
“Any country on the face of the earth with an active
intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction.”
“We
are absolutely sure they have continued to develop weapons of mass
destruction, and we are sure they have in their possession weapons of
mass destruction,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said
in December 2002.
“My
colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
solid sources,” Powell told the United Nations Security Council
in his infamous Iraq
presentation in
February 2003. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving
you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”
“People
will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my
mind,” Powell said in the same presentation. “These illicit
procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on
putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons
program, the ability to produce fissile material.”
Powell was
not nearly as certain as
he claimed to be. None of them were. Facts revealed after the
invasion prove that for all their public claims of complete and total
certainty that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was aiding and
abetting Al Qaida, and was developing nuclear weapons, behind the
veil of government secrecy there was nothing like certainty at all.
For
starters, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who was cited in Powell’s
presentation and who Fleischer refers to by the code name “Curveball”
in the above thread, was
known to have been lying about
bioweapons long before the invasion. Despite the confident assertions
made by the Bush administration about Janabi’s claims to the public,
no American personnel were present when he made those claims, and
he told
the Guardianin
2011 that
the BND (the German intelligence agency who interrogated him) had
known he was lying all along.
“The
BND [German intelligence] knew in 2000 that I was lying after they
talked to my former boss, Dr Bassil Latif, who told them there were
no mobile bioweapons factories,” Janabi said. “For 18
months after that they left me alone because they knew I was telling
lies even though I never admitted it.
Believe
me, back then, I thought the whole thing was over for me. Then all of
a sudden [in the run up to the 2003 invasion] they came back to me
and started asking for more details about what I had told them. I
still don’t know why the BND then passed on my information to the CIA
and it ended up in Powell’s speech.”
Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson was Powell’s chief of staff and helped him prepare
his UN presentation on Iraq. When asked on MSNBC if he believed he
was lied to about Janabi following the 2011 revelation,
Wilkerson told
Cenk Uygur that
“I cannot come to any other conclusion, especially when I have
discovered that no US personnel were present when Curveball was
interrogated by the BND, the German intelligence service. That we
accepted that, that we even had a head of the European division for
the CIA, Tyler Drumheller, who at the last minute during Powell’s
preparation, during my preparation of the secretary, had told both
Tenet and McLaughlin that Curveball might not be reliable. That
information was never relayed to the Secretary of State, or to me. I
have some serious doubts about it now. I think there was some
manipulation of this material, and there was some outright lying.”
When asked
by Uygur who
he thought lied to him, Wilkerson said one of WINPAC’s two WMD
experts at the time may have been answering directly to Dick Cheney’s
office.
A declassified
report from 2002 titled Iraq:
Status of WMD Programs reveals
that while the Bush administration was making its claims of absolute
certainty regarding the dangers posed by the Iraqi government, behind
the scenes it was damn near the opposite. Some choice excerpts:
“Our
assessments rely heavily on analytic assumptions and judgment rather
than hard evidence.
The evidentiary base is particularly sparse for
Iraqi nuclear programs.”
“We
range from 0% to about 75% knowledge on various aspects of their
program.”
“Our
knowledge of the Iraqi (nuclear) weapons program is based
largely—perhaps 90%—on analysis of imprecise intelligence.”
“We
cannot confirm the identity of any Iraqi facilities that produce,
test, fill, or store biological weapons.”
“Our
knowledge of what biological weapons the Iraqis are able to
produce is nearly complete. Our knowledge of how and where they
are produced is nearly 90% incomplete.”
“We
do not know the status of enrichment capabilities. We do not know
with confidence the location of any nuclear-weapon-related
facilities.”
“Please
take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It
is big.” (That one was from Rumsfeld.)
“We
don’t know with any precision how much we don’t know.”
This
is not the language of certainty. Yet certainty was presented to the
public to manufacture support for a war which murdered a million
Iraqis.
The
2002 Downing
Street memo,
made public in 2005, reveals a secret meeting between senior
officials of the British government, intelligence and defense
agencies discussing what they knew about America’s plans for war.
The text
of the document contains
an assertion by the head of MI6 that Bush had already determined that
the invasion of Iraq would take place, and it was only a matter of
fixing bits of intelligence around a narrative to make the case.
“Military
action was now seen as inevitable,” the document reads. “Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi
regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the
aftermath after military action.”
“It
seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action,
even if the timing was not yet decided,” the document quotes
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying. “But the case was thin.”
In
a 2008
hearing before the House Judiciary Committee,
attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi pointed out that the fact
that Bush lied about Iraq could be proven by the difference between
the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and its
declassified white paper which was made available to the public.The
classified version contained dissents from the consensus and language
which made it clear that the reader was reading assessments and
opinions by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, whereas the
unclassified version saw these things deleted, presenting the
assessments as absolute fact.
“The
evidence that he lied about weapons of mass destruction, by the way,
which is not the basis for this book, are right in front of
me,” Bugliosi
said.
“I have it right here. Here is the evidence. This document here
is the National Intelligence Estimate. I didn’t name it before. I
talked about a classified report. This is it right here. October 1st,
2002, classified NIE report. It is called Iraq’s ContinuingPrograms
of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In this document right here, the CIA
and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies use words like this, ‘we
assess that’ or ‘we judge that’ Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction. This document here is the white paper that was given to
you folks here in Congress and the American people. And the words ‘we
assess that’ or ‘we judge that’ were removed, meaning that you folks
here heard a fact, and in fact, it was only an opinion.
“Number
two, on nuclear weapons, this document right here, the classified
report has several important dissents. This document right here, the
white paper that you folks were given and the American people, all of
those dissents were deleted.”
Over
and over and over again we saw the same thing: uncertainty presented
as certainty. Guesses presented as fact. Opinions presented as proof.
That’s a lie. Bush lied. We know this with as much certainty as his
administration was pretending to have in the lead-up to the Iraq
invasion. There was a pre-existing agenda to invade Iraq, and
justifications were advanced to provide an excuse for that invasion
with such extreme aggression that now-National Security Advisor John
Bolton literally threatened
to murder an international official’s children for
making diplomacy work with Saddam.
In
October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive
stockpile” of
biological weapons. But as CIA Director
George Tenet noted
in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no
specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or
stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile”
was just literally made up.
In
December 2002, Bush declared, “We
do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.” That
was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would
later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon
and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.”
Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied
and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.
On
CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes
purchased by Iraq were “only really suited for nuclear weapons
programs.” This was precisely
the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department were
saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were
for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too.
Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were
exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the
claim that they’re “only really suited” for nuclear weapons is
just false.
In
August 2002, Dick
Cheney declared,
“Simply stated, there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has
weapons of mass destruction.” But as Corn
notes,
at that time there was “no confirmed intelligence at this point
establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation.” Gen.
Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended
Cheney’s speech, would later
say in a documentary,
“It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was
saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD,
through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece
of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.”
In
2007 General Wesley Clark told Democracy
Now that
he’d actually been informed of the decision to invade Iraq
immediately after 9/11, while the crosshairs were turning on
Afghanistan and well before the public narrative was being amped up
in demand of an invasion of Iraq. His comments read as follows:
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!”
Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. If you’ve been
following the behaviors of the US war machine, Iraq won’t be the only
painfully familiar name on that list.
It remains important to learn what we’ve attacked and where. How widespread?
In addition to military targets, I hope we targeted Assad’s palace in Damascus. Leave him alive but destroy his prestige. Leave him without a home, as Assad has left millions of Syrians w/o theirs.
Iran’s Official Figures Indicate Alarming Unemployment Rate Later This Year
The official unemployment rate has reached 27 percent among young Iranians and over 40 percent among university graduates, says Omid Ali Parsai, chairman of the Iranian Statistical Center.
en.radiofarda.com
Ari
Fleischer is a liar. He was
in the thick of
the Bush administration’s campaign to sell the Iraq war to the
American public, and to this day he continues trying to
sell them
on new
acts of depraved
US interventionism.
He’s just as much a warmongering neocon inside as he was when he was
behind a podium defending Bush’s wars in the press room, so it’s no
wonder he wants to preserve the image of his insatiable death cult.
Fleischer wants to preserve his legacy, yes, but he also wants to
preserve support for the war machine whose feet he worships at, hence
his ham-fisted attempt at narrative manipulation regarding the
unforgivable Iraq invasion.
The
responses to Fleischer’s Twitter thread have been overwhelmingly
negative, though, so it doesn’t look like anyone’s buying it. In our
new political landscape, where the image of George W Bush is
being continually
rehabilitated,
that gives me a bit of hope.
These
monsters lied to start a war which snuffed out a million human lives
and destabilized an entire region, and they did it right in front of
our faces. The fact that they’re now trying to lie about the thing we
all watched them do is as insulting as it is infuriating. Never let
them pull the wool over your eyes, and never forget what they did.
Forgiveness is highly
overrated.
Thanks
for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you
enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
onFacebook,
following my antics onTwitter, throwing
some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, purchasing
some of my sweet
merchandise, buying
my new book Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone,
or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for
my website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.
Voor meer berichten over de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, klik op het labels Irak, direct onder dit bericht. Let
wel: na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens
herhaald, dan onder het laatst gelezen bericht even opnieuw op het
gekozen label klikken, enz. enz.
Caitlin
Johnstone heeft een artikel geschreven over de uiterst doorzichtige
propaganda gebracht door de reguliere (massa-) media. Hiervoor haalt
ze het voorbeeld aan van het 7 jarige meisje Bana Alabed dat werd ‘geïnterviewd’ door CNN ‘journalist’ Alisyn Camerota. Uit dit interview
blijkt duidelijk dat het meisje zaken noemde die te ingewikkeld zijn
voor een kind van haar leeftijd, bovendien was duidelijk te zien dat
Bana zaken voorlas van een ‘tele prompter’, niet alleen door de
beweging van haar ogen, maar ook door woorden in delen op te lezen,
waar duidelijk uit blijkt dat ze niet begreep waar ze het over
had…….
Zoals
altijd met propaganda is deze bedoeld om het volk achter een oorlog
of een aanval te krijgen, vandaar ook dat men keer op keer als er
over Assad wordt gesproken in die reguliere media, de superlatieven niet
van de lucht zijn, zo is hij o.a. al omschreven als duivels, een bloedige
dictator en vergasser van kinderen en de rest van zijn
bevolking…… Niet dat voor dat laatste, dus de vergassing van burgers, bewijzen zijn, echter door
het te blijven herhalen (terwijl al lang is bewezen dat Assad niet
achter die aanvallen met gifgas zat) wordt het volk dusdanig
gehersenspoeld dat ze de leugens gaan geloven en zelfs militair
ingrijpen eisen……… Zoals je begrijpt geldt dat al helemaal voor de andere gebruikte superlatieven.
Het
meest lullig is wel dat ook president Trump die leugens gelooft en
minstens twee keer actie heeft ondernomen tegen Syrië, op basis van (valse) anti-Assad propaganda op Fox…….
Lees
het uitgebreid op basis van feiten (via links) geschreven artikel van
Johnstone en geeft het ajb door! Het is tijd dat het volk, ook in
Nederland, eindelijk inziet dat het bijna dagelijks wordt voorgelogen
en niet zelden over meerdere onderwerpen…… Neem alleen al de steun voor financiering van ‘gematigde rebellen’, die terreurgroepen bleken te zijn*, of zie de berichtgeving voorafgaand aan en tijdens de oorlog tegen Irak in 2003……
That
Time CNN Staged a Fake Interview With a Syrian Child for War
Propaganda
(CJ Opinion) — Imagine
if you and some friends wandered into a completely dark room together
for some reason. You’ve never been in this room before, and you
can’t see a thing.
Now
imagine one of your friends says he can see everything in the room
perfectly, and starts describing the different things that he sees in
a confident, assertive tone of voice. You know for a fact that
there’s no light in the room, so you are doubtful that your friend
is able to see any better than you are, but one by one your other
friends start talking about the objects in the room as though what he
is saying is true. After a while your group starts telling you you’re
crazy and evil because you remain skeptical of your first friend’s
ability to see the room in pitch darkness, despite his assertive tone
of voice and despite the fact that everyone else believes it.
Western
public discourse about Syria is very much the same. All the time I
get people coming up yelling at me about what a butcher Bashar
al-Assad is, how he loves gassing children because he’s an evil
monster, how he’s killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in his
own country out of sheer sadism, and all I can say to them is, you
don’t know that. You don’t know any of those things, you’re
just pretending you do because that’s what everyone else is doing.
I know you don’t know any of those things because you’re looking
at the same information landscape as I am, and it’s chock full of
war propaganda. The media
matrix is
too full of obvious psyops meant to manufacture public consent for
military interventionism in Syria for any westerner to have a clear
idea of what’s actually happening in that country.
And
we know this for a fact, as sure as you know when you’re in a dark
room. Take the time CNN knowingly staged a fake, scripted interview
with a seven year-old Syrian girl last year and passed it off to its
audience as a real interview.
I
point this out to my readers every few months, and I expect I will
continue to do so for as long as western war propaganda is a problem.
In April of last year, following a hotlydisputed accusation
of chemical weapons use in Idlib province, a little girl named Bana
Alabed was paraded before the audience of CNN’s New
Day in an
interview with Alisyn Camerota.
Bana was seven years old at the time, yet was seen in the interview
providing complex ideas and geopolitical analysis that she could not
possibly have understood. Her eyes moved back and forth as though
reading from a teleprompter, and she sounded out the words in English
(a language she doesn’t
appear to have understood at the time)
syllable-by-syllable in a way you’ve never heard any child speak in
your life.
It
was a fake interview passed off as a real one, scripted and passed
off as spontaneous. It’s as clear as day for anyone to see. And
Alisyn Camerota necessarily had the other half of that script, since
she needed to know what questions to feed the child. It was a
coordinated deception of CNN’s audience, meant to sell the
unpopular idea of yet another military intervention in yet another
Middle Eastern country, aired on America’s most trusted and
well-known nationwide news network. It was as brazen a deception as
you could possibly imagine, on as mainstream a platform as you could
possibly get, advancing a narrative clearly intended to manufacture
support for an agenda which could potentially devastate an entire
region. That happened. They did that. If they’ll do that, there’s
nothing they won’t do.
And
now, as things are heating up in Idlib, we’ve got America’s
UN ambassador saying
that any sign of chemical weapons use will be immediately blamed on
the Assad government and retaliated against despite the known
presence of Al-Qaeda affiliates who’d have every
incentive to stage such an attack,
and despite the complete absence of motive for Assad. We’ve got
State
They
are lying to us about what is happening in Syria. We know that for a
fact, just like we now for a fact when we are in a dark room. And we
know for a fact that the US and its allies have been scheming to
effect regime change in that very nation, the nation immediately
adjacent to their previous regime change target Iraq, for many years.
We know that they have been planning to orchestrate a violent
uprising in Syria since
long before violence erupted in 2011,
and we know that it erupted as they had planned. I posted the
evidence for this in a recent article, but here it is again just to
make sure more people see it:
Here
is a 2006 WikiLeaks cable in
which the US government is seen exploring possible factions which
could be incentivized to rise up against Assad, and ways in which
psyops could be used to ensure widespread violence.
Here
is a declassified CIA memo from
1986 in which the Central Intelligence Agency is seen exploring ways
in which sectarian tensions can be inflamed to provoke a violent
uprising in Syria. Here
is a useful articlefeaturing
excerpts from the memo showing some jarring parallels between what
was being planned and what happened a quarter century later.
Here
is a video clip of
General Wesley Clark naming Syria among the countries scheduled by
the Pentagon for regime change in the wake of 9/11.
Here
is a video clip of
the former Foreign Minister of France stating in plain language that
he was informed by British government insiders in 2009 that a
violent Syrian uprising was being planned, two years before the
violence erupted.
Here
is an article featuring
a video of the former Qatari Prime Minister stating that the US and
its allies were involved in the violence from the very beginning.
Here
is an article from
May of 2011 reporting on some of the extremely suspicious
provocations that led to the outbreak of widespread violence. Here’s
another from
March 2011. Here’s
another from
December 2011.
So
don’t be fooled. Remember, the reason they work so hard to
manufacture our consent for these agendas is because
they need that consent in order to operate.
If they try to operate without our consent, they will lose control of
the narrative, and thus lose their ability to propagandize us
effectively. So don’t give them your consent. Fight their lies on
all fronts, using truth, skepticism and critical thinking as your
weapon. Stand tall, shine bright, refuse to be ignored, don’t wait
for your turn to speak, use
unmitigated speech,
say what needs to be said and say it like you’re right, because you
are.
Let
a giant “NO” to this manipulation roar through us all. Let the
Syrian people be free from imperialist agendas once and for all. Let
us all be free from imperialist agendas once and for all. End the
madness and begin moving into sanity.
Het
is al tijden duidelijk dat Iran het volgende land na Syrië is, waar
de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, ofwel de VS zal toeslaan om een
verandering van regime door te voeren. Anders gezegd: de VS zal Iran voor een groot deel kapot bombarderen en in stukken opdelen, zodat het in de nabije toekomst
geen kans heeft om ook nog maar enige factor van betekenis te spelen in het Midden-Oosten……..
Israël
is al een paar jaar bezig om de boel in het westen op te hitsen tegen
Iran, zie in de afgelopen tijd de tocht van de psychopathische rotschoft en Israëlische premier Netanyahu, de
Palestijnenslachter, langs de parlementen van EU lidstaten en het
EU parlement……
Terwijl
Netanyahu het ene bloedbad na het andere aanricht onder de
Palestijnen en naar goeddunken Syrische bases aanvalt (zogenaamd
vanwege bevoorrading van Hezbollah in Libanon….), wijst hij met z’n
in bloed gedrenkte armen (beter: poten) naar Iran als
grote agressor…….
Waarschijnlijk
heeft de VS nu al groepen in Iran opgezet tegen de regering en mocht
deze vaak door de VS beproefde methode niet lukken (wat alweer hoogst
waarschijnlijk niet zal gebeuren, zoals dit ook in Syrië niet lukte),
is het zeer waarschijnlijk dat de VS Iran zal aanvallen, gesteund
door de Israëlische terreurluchtmacht….
Als
dit gebeurd zullen op zeker terreurgroepen als IS en Al Qaida op de
grond vechten tegen Iraanse troepen, zij aan zij met VS troepen
gesteund door een paar NAVO landen, als Australië, Groot-Brittannië,
Polen en Hongarije……. (waar je niet hoeft op te kijken als ook Rutte 3 niet minstens haar steun aan de VS zal uitspreken….)
Overigens is dit bepaald niet de eerste vorm van agressie die de VS tegen het Iraanse volk zal gebruiken, neem de door de CIA toegegeven coup tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Mossadegh in 1953 en de smerige economische oorlogsvoering van de VS tegen dit land…….
Lees
het volgende artikel van Caitlin Johnstone, waarin zij uitlegt waarom
de VS Iran zal aanvallen.
(CJ Opinion) — I
have been saying
all year that
the 8chan
phenomenon known as “QAnon” is
bogus, and as time has gone on the evidence has become overwhelming
that it is an establishment psyop designed to herd the populist right
into accepting the narratives and agendas of the establishment
orthodoxy. Whether they’re claiming that every capitulation
the Trump administration makes to longstanding neoconservative
agendas is
actually brilliant 4-D chess strategy, or saying that Julian Assange
isn’t really trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy, QAnon enthusiasts
are constantly regurgitating talking points which just so happen to
fit in very conveniently with the interests of America’s defense
and intelligence agencies.
A
recent “Q drop” (a fancy name for an anonymous user posting text
onto a popular internet troll message board with zero
accountability) makes
this more abundantly clear than ever,
with text reading as follows:
Free
Iran!!!
Fight
Fight
Fight
Regime change.
People have
the power.
We stand with you.
Q
Once
you’re cheering for a longtime neoconservative agenda to be
accomplished in one of George W Bush’s “Axis
of Evil”
countries, you are cheering for the establishment. Or, to put it more
clearly to Q followers, you are cheering for the deep state.
So
now you have conspiracy-minded populist right wingers being
manipulated into supporting the same standard Bush administration
globalist agendas that Alex Jones built his career on attacking. The
support for regime change interventionism in Iran isn’t limited to
the QAnon crowd, having now gone fully mainstream throughout Trump’s
base, and I’d like to address a few of the arguments here that they
have been bringing to me:
“Iran
is nowhere near the same thing as Iraq, Libya or Syria!”
Please
go look at a globe and think a little harder about your position
here. Iran is a target for regime change for the exact same reasons
its neighbors Iraq and Syria have been; it occupies and extremely
strategically significant location in an oil-rich region that the
US-centralized empire wants full control of. Thinking this one is
different because its government isn’t secular is the product of
many years of Islamophobic propaganda; the plutocrats and their
allied intelligence and defense agencies don’t care what religion
sits on top of their oil, and Saudi Arabia proves it. Any argument
made against Iranian theocracy could be made even more strongly
against KSA theocracy, but you don’t see Sean Hannity advocating
the overthrow of the Saudi royals, do you?
“But
this regime change intervention would be completely different!”
No
it wouldn’t. There has never been a US-led regime change
intervention in the Middle East that wasn’t disastrous. Cheering
for regime change interventionism in Iran is cheering for all the
destabilization, chaos, terror, death, rape and slavery that always
necessarily comes with such interventions. Wanting to inflict that
upon the world is monstrous.
“This
is different, though! This one is led by Trump! Look at all that he’s
accomplished in North Korea!”
Okay,
three things:
All
that Trump has done with North Korea is take the very first step in
the most rudimentary beginnings of peace talks. I fully support him
in taking that step, but you can’t legitimately treat it as an
“accomplishment” which proves that he is a strategic genius
capable of facilitating the impossible task of non-disastrous regime
change in Iran.
Even
if Trump does help bring abiding peace to the Korean Peninsula, it
won’t legitimize regime change interventionism in Iran. Hell, even
if Trump gets North Korea to denuclearize (and he won’t), it still
wouldn’t legitimize regime change interventionism in Iran. US-led
regime change interventionism is always disastrous, especially in
the easily destabilized geopolitical region of the Middle East.
Neocons
are always wrong about foreign policy. Always. There’s no reason
to believe Trump spearheading a longstanding neocon agenda would
work out any better than Bush or any other neocon.
“Well
what about the Iranians in Iran who want regime change?”
What
about them? The fact that some Iranians want their government changed
has nothing to do with you or your government. The Fox News
and Washington
Post pundits
who keep pointing out the fact that Iran, like America, contains
people who are unhappy with its current system of government are only
ever trying to galvanize the west against Tehran. There’s no good
reason for you to be acting as a pro bono CIA propagandist running
around telling westerners how great it would be if the Mullahs were
gone.
“Well
I don’t want the US to intervene, I just want the Iranians to free
themselves!”
Two
things:
This
administration is already currently engaged in regime change
interventionism in Iran in the form of escalated
CIA covert operations and
harsh economic sanctions, and its involvement
with Iranian terror cult MEKsuggests
it may run far deeper than that in a similar way to US involvement
with extremist groups in Syria, Libya and Ukraine.
Why
say anything, then? Ever stop to ask yourself why you’re always
cheering for Iranians to overthrow their government? Why constantly
cheerlead for something which requires zero western involvement?
Whom does that help? Do you think Iranians don’t already know that
America hates their government?
All
you’re doing is helping to signal boost the pro-regime change
propaganda that US defense and intelligence agencies have been
seeding into American public consciousness for many years. Your “Yay,
free Iran!” sentiments aren’t helping Iranians, they’re helping
the western propagandists target western audiences. You’re just
helping the public get more okay with any actions taken against the
Iranian government, in exactly the same way Russiagaters help
manufacture support for escalations against Russia.
Come
on, people. Think harder. This one isn’t difficult. It’s not a
random coincidence that you’re all being paced into supporting
regime change in the final target named seventeen years ago in
General Wesley Clark’s famous “seven
countries in five years”
list of neocon regime change agendas. The only thing that has changed
is the face on the agenda.
Iran
is not different from the other regime change targets of Iraq, Libya
or Syria. Barack Obama served George W Bush’s third and fourth
terms, and Donald Trump is serving his fifth. They were strong-armed
in different ways by America’s unelected power establishment into
advancing different regime change agendas depending on where their
political support came from and public sentiment at the time, but
it’s all been pointed at the exact same region for the exact same
reasons.
Leave
Iran alone. Leave the Iranian people alone. There is no legitimate
reason for you to be cheering for regime change in Iran, and anyone
who tells you otherwise is an evil piece of shit. Reject them.
‘Het
is (de hoogste) tijd om razend te worden over wat westerse
imperialisten Syrië hebben aangedaan’, zo luidt de kop van het
hieronder opgenomen artikel, geschreven door Caitlin Johnstone.
Johnstone
heeft alles wat betreft de illegale oorlog van de VS (en de rest van
het westen) tegen Syrie nog eens op een rij gezet en dit op basis van
feiten.
Zo
legt Johnstone uit dat de VS en haar coalitie verantwoordelijk zijn
voor de oorlog in Syrië, vanaf ‘de opstand’ die werd georganiseerd en
gefinancierd door de VS (Saoedi-Arabië, Turkije, Groot-Brittannië en nog wat
arabische staten) tot de eerste aanzet die tot een oorlog in Syrië leidde, werd
al in 2006 gedaan….. Generaal Wesley Clark stelde zelfs dat het Pentagon
al in 2001 sprak over het omverwerpen van het Syrische bewind…. De voormalige Franse minister van buitenlandse zaken, Dumas zei over deze zaak dat hij al 2 jaar voordat in 2011 de gewelddadigheden losbarstten, hij informatie kreeg waaruit bleek dat de Britten bezig waren een opstand te organiseren in Syrië…….
Vlak
nadat in 2011 de eerste gewelddadige incidenten plaatsvonden in Syrië, heeft Obama in het geheim toegestemd in het trainen en
bewapenen van extremistische (moslim) groepen, ofwel: islamitische
terreurgroepen werden getraind en bewapend door de VS met
toestemming van Nobelprijs voor de Vrede winnaar Obama (de valse
slang)…..
Het Syrische volk staat weer een gifgasaanval te wachten, zo is de verwachting van o.a. Rusland*, een aanval uitgevoerd door de ‘gematigde rebellen’ (lees: terreurgroepen die zich schuldig maken aan massamoord, verkrachtingen en het op andere manieren terroriseren van in dit geval het Syrische volk….)…. Deze terreurgroepen hebben dit eerder al meermaals gedaan, waarbij men de schuld in de schoenen van het Syrische leger ofwel Assad schoof…. Een ‘false flag’ operatie noemt men een dergelijke aanslag, de meest beruchte is wel de grote gifgasaanval in 2013, waarvoor men onmiddellijk naar Assad wees…. Onder andere een VN commissie o.l.v. Delponte vond echter geen schijn van bewijs voor de schuld van het Syrische leger en verwees naar terreurgroepen waarvan bekend was dat deze voorraden gifgas in het bezit hadden……
Intussen zijn er door westers geweld, dan wel als gevolg van westerse manipulaties dan wel ander westers optreden, meer dan 600.000 mensen vermoord in Syrië……
Johnstone
stelt volkomen terecht dat we niet moeten hopen dat Trump (en zijn
militaire adviseurs) tot zinnen komt en VS troepen zal terugtrekken,
maar van de daken moeten schreeuwen dat het westen haar moorddadige
tentakels uit dit arme, door oorlog vernietigde land moeten halen.
Voorts stelt ze dat we niet bang moeten zijn voor repressie op
openlijke protesten, maar het ware verhaal over Syrië van de daken moeten schreeuwen, zodat ook de reguliere media er niet meer omheen
kunnen…. Johnstone stelt (alweer terecht) dat er geen tijd meer is, het
westen dient zich onmiddellijk terug te trekken uit Syrië!!
Lees
dit uit het hart geschreven artikel van Caitlin Johnstone (en zegt
het voort, de hoogste tijd voor grote demonstraties tegen westerse
terreur in Syrië, tijd voor vreedzame blokkades van ambassades van landen die
meewerken aan deze terreur en de allerhoogste tijd voor het inzetten van een boycot op producten uit die landen!):
It’s
Time to Start Getting Enraged at What Western Imperialists Have Done
to Syria
(CJ Opinion) — Rumors are
again swirling of
an impending false flag chemical weapons attack in Syria, just
as they did shortly
before the highly
suspiciousDouma
case in
April. Warnings from Syrian and Russian intelligence, as well as US
war ship movements and an uptick in US funding for the Al Qaeda
propaganda firm known as the White Helmets, give these warnings a
fair bit of weight. Since the US war machine has both a known regime
change agenda in Syria and an extensive history of
using lies, propaganda and false
flags to
justify military interventionism, there’s no legitimate reason to
give it the benefit of the doubt on this one. These warnings are
worth taking seriously.
So
some people are understandably nervous. The way things are set up
now, it is technically possible for the jihadist factions inside
Syria and their allied imperialist intelligence and defense agencies
to keep targeting civilians with chemical weapons and blaming the
Assad government for them until they pull one off that is so
outrageous that it enables the mass media to manufacture public
support for a full-scale assault on Damascus. This would benefit both
the US-centralized empire which has
been plotting regime change in Syria for decades and
the violent Islamist extremists who seek control of the region. It
also creates the very real probability of a direct military
confrontation with Syria’s allies, including Russia.
But
the appropriate response to the threat of a world war erupting in
Syria is not really fear, if you think about it. The most appropriate
response to this would be unmitigated, howling rage at the western
sociopaths who created this situation in the first place.
The
United States and its allies started
the war in Syria.
The narrative that it was an organic uprising brutally attacked by
the Assad government is a lie. There is no reasonable doubt about
this. The former Prime Minister of Qatar said
on television that
the US and its allies were involved in the Syrian conflict from the
very beginning. A WikiLeaks
cable and
a declassified
CIA memo both
show the US government plotting to provoke an uprising in Syria
exactly as it occurred, years before it happened. Former Foreign
Minister of France Roland
Dumas stated that
he was informed that the UK was engineering an uprising in Syria two
years before the violence erupted in 2011, and General
Wesley Clark stated that
there were Pentagon plans to take out the Syrian government in 2001.
Shortly after the violence started President Obama
secretly authorized
the arming and training of
violent extremist factions for the overthrow of Assad in a CIA
program code named Timber Sycamore, which along with Saudi finances
has wound up aiding
some of the most evil terror groups ever
to exist.
Six
hundred thousand Syrians have lost their lives as a result of this
regime change intervention, many of those lives ending in the most
horrific ways imaginable at the hands of depraved jihadists. It was
planned, and the people who planned it have names and addresses. They
deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law for what they
did. We should all be loudly demanding war crimes tribunals and life
imprisonment for these vicious criminals.
We
need a major adjustment of our emotional posture on this issue. We
shouldn’t be sitting around nervously hoping Trump pulls US troops
out and western-backed terror groups don’t stage another chemical
attack, we should be screaming at these bastards to get their
murderous tentacles out of that poor war-torn country immediately. We
shouldn’t be meekly trying to justify our skepticism of the
establishment Syria narrative while snide Guardian op-eds
inform us that we are not permitted to think such things. We know
that we are right. We know what these evil monsters did. We should be
shouting the imperialists down, not the other way around.
The
same depraved sociopaths who raped Iraq are presently raping Iraq’s
next-door neighbor Syria for the exact same reasons. They were wrong
then. They are wrong now. We should be much more angry and aggressive
in pushing back on their pernicious pro-interventionism narratives.
There is no excuse for any faction of the western empire to be
anywhere inside of that nation’s borders. Out. Now.
Much
like medicine, anger can do more harm than good when used improperly.
Channeled in a wholesome, conscious direction, however, it can be an
indispensable tool for driving out the toxic influence of
manipulators and exploiters.
The
social engineers who manufacture the narratives which are dispensed
to the mass media and repeated as fact to unsuspecting audiences rely
heavily on the tactic of generating sympathy.
Sympathy
opens people up and allows narratives to be imbued with the power of
belief in a way that bypasses skepticism and critical thinking. This
is why the users and abusers you have known in your personal life are
always telling stories about how much wrong has been done to them, or
even going out of their way to make themselves look helpless and
pathetic; if they can suck you in with sympathy, they can get you to
buy into the other stories they need you to believe about who they
are, who you are, what your relationship to them is, and how much
money/resources/affection/sex/forgiveness you should give them.
This, right here, is the real reason anyone hates @georgegalloway. Not because he has been wrong, but because he has been completely, loudly, unapologetically right. Be George Galloway.
The propagandists understand this dynamic all too well. They used people’s emotional reaction to 9/11 to manufacture support for not one but two full-scale ground invasions. They circulate pictures of dead children whenever their deaths can be blamed on a longtime target of western imperialism, but never when their deaths are caused by western imperialism. Today the narratives most prolifically circulated by proponents of regime change interventionism in Syria are almost entirely emotional in nature, consisting of nothing more than constant repetition of nonsensical talking points about civilians being brutalized by a sadistic dictator in various ways for no apparent reason. This is all to generate sympathy in order to bypass people’s skepticism of pro-interventionist narratives.
Anger
is sympathy poison. It kills the sympathy you are feeling toward the
narratives being promoted by those you are angry with, thus allowing
you to see things clearly and eject them like the parasites they are.
This is a very useful tool for dealing with the manipulators and
exploiters in your personal life, and it is equally useful for the
manipulators and exploiters who control western society with money,
media manipulation, intelligence agency operations and brute military
force. Creating momentum for widespread rage at those who unleashed
the horrors inflicted upon the Syrian people immunizes the public
from toxic war propaganda narratives by that much.
Six
hundred thousand human lives. The chaotic violence which ended them
was planned, orchestrated and overseen by the same multinational
power establishment whose media propaganda machine has been singing
us a seven-year lullaby keeping us from questioning the ongoing
military presence and interventionism in that nation and steering us
away from seeking justice for those responsible for all that death.
If anyone is deserving of our loud, lullaby-shattering howling rage,
it is these people.
And
of course we will be fought tooth and claw on this by the
US-centralized power establishment; no one is going to give us
permission to do this. They will do everything they can to maintain
control of the narrative and the veil of government opacity which
shrouds those responsible for their Syria atrocities. But we will be
attacking, which means that they will be forced to defend against
those attacks. Rather than playing defensive and trying to justify
our right to be skeptical while praying that there isn’t a
devastating false flag attack in the illegally-occupied nation of
Syria, we should be putting them on the back foot with rage and loud
demands for justice. Righteous anger can severely hobble the
propaganda machine they intend to use for further interventionism in
that nation.
You
cannot argue with the rage of someone who is certain that an
unforgivable evil has been perpetrated. You simply cannot manipulate
and narrative-spin your way around that; it plants an unbreakable,
immovable object in the gears of the propaganda machine. By getting
unapologetically furious, loud and aggressive and letting the wisdom
of our anger guide our response to the situation in Syria, we can
shift the zeitgeist of anti-imperialist sentiment from a meek “Oh
gosh darn I sure hope the people who decimated Iraq do the right
thing in Syria” to a thunderous “FUCK YOU. OUT. NOW.”
Which
is where it should be.
A
world in which war crimes tribunals are actually carried out for the
imperialists responsible for the evils inflicted upon the Syrian
people will look very different from the world that we are in now.
But shoving angrily and aggressively against the establishment
structures which made it possible and screaming for justice and
vengeance is the first step toward creating that world.
Let’s
not play defense and reaction anymore. Let’s stop waiting for
something to go wrong and start forcing things to be right. It’s
time to go on the offensive with this thing. Get angry and let it
roar through you.
Volgens Reuters heeft de VS afgelopen zondag een luchtaanval uitgevoerd op al-Shabaab in Somalië. Regeringswoordvoerders van de VS gingen niet specifiek in op wat voor soort aanval het ging, een aanval met drones, of een ‘normaal luchtbombardement’.
Zoals gewoonlijk berichtten de reguliere media over deze zaak*, zonder ook maar te hebben gevraagd naar het waarom en hoe (zoals gezegd). (en vaak zonder te vragen naar het aantal onverdachte slachtoffers, onverdacht daar de VS zich het recht voorbehoudt mensen die zij verdenken, met drones standrechtelijk, dus zonder enige rechtspraak, te vermoorden)
Vreemd genoeg is de invloed van al-Shabaab in Somalië bijna tot nul gereduceerd, ook heeft deze islamitische terreurgroep nooit enig westers doel aangevallen…….
Reuters sprak over al-Shabaab als zijnde gelinkt aan Al Qaida. Als zodanig zou al-Shabaab een doelwit zijn van de VS, dit vanwege de aanslagen van 911 in 2001. Echter in 2001 bestond al-Shabaab niet eens!!
Vreemd genoeg, volgens een artikel van Shahtahmasebi op Anti-Media, zijn alle terreurgroepen in Syrië geen doel van de VS, hoewel ze allen zijn gelinkt aan Al Qaida, behalve één dan: IS………
De VS verdedigt haar terroristische aanslagen (middels drones, luchtbombardementen en/of terreur via troepen op de grond) altijd met het argument, dat men deze uitvoert vanwege zelfverdediging, echter de VS troepen lopen alleen gevaar als ze weer eens illegaal een land binnenvallen (= extreme terreur!), waar ze niets te zoeken hebben, dan wel militair foute regimes steunen.
Saoedi-Arabië heeft de corrupte Somalische regering omgekocht en voor 50 miljoen dollar heeft deze regering de banden met Iran verbroken en assisteert S-A bij haar genocide op de sjiitische bevolking in Jemen……. Ook de VS biedt S-A hulp bij deze genocide, met drone aanvallen (die het ook al vanaf Obama op Somalië uitvoert), raketbeschietingen, bombardementen en geheime militaire acties op de grond…….
Shahtahmasebi maakt één kapitale fout in zijn artikel, volgens hem is Somalië een tussenstation voor wapenleveranties uit Iran voor de (sjiitische) Houthi rebellen. Ten eerste is dat in tegenspraak met zijn eerder genoemde deal tussen S-A en de Somalische regering en ten tweede zijn er nooit bewijzen geleverd voor deze wapenleveranties, al houden de westerse afhankelijke massamedia en het merendeel van de westerse politici vol dat dit wel zo is………
Somalië is strategisch uiterst belangrijk gelegen, één van de hoofdoorzaken voor het geweld van de VS en haar terreurpartner S-A…… Hetzelfde geldt overigens voor Jemen.
Lees dit verder prima artikel van Shahtahmasebi, waarin hij verder spreekt over een groot aantal militaire bases van de VS op Afrikaans grondgebied:
What
You Aren’t Being Told About The US’ War in Somalia
(ANTIMEDIA)—On
Sunday, the U.S. military carried out an airstrike in Somalia against al-Qaeda-linked terror group al-Shabaab, U.S. officials said on
Monday, as reportedby Reuters.
Officials
did not specify whether it was a drone strike, and the Pentagon has
not disclosed any additional information about the strike. The U.S.
has been drone-strikingSomalia
for some time now, a policy Barack Obama escalated.
As
is usually the case, the media reportsthese
developments without questioning the underlying narrative, and
millions of ordinary Americans go about their day without so much as
batting an eyelid. Just another day in Africa, right?
However,
even Reuters acknowledged
that al-Shabaab has been pushed out of Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital
city, and has lost control of most of the country’s cities and
towns. Further, according to
the Guardian, al-Shabaab
has never been implicated in any plots to strike the U.S. or Europe.
So
why is this group a concern for the United States? Is it simply
because they are aligned with al-Qaeda?
Consider
this passage from
the Intercept’s Glenn
Greenwald from March of last year:
“Since
2001, the U.S. government has legally justified
its we-bomb-wherever-we-wantapproach
by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF), enacted by Congress in the wake of 9/11 to authorize the
targeting of al Qaeda and ‘affiliated’ forces. But al Shabaab did
not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, the group
has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as the New
York Times’ Charlie
Savage notedin
2011, ‘is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.’ As a
result, reported Savage, even ‘the [Obama] administration does not
consider the United States to be at war with every member of the
Shabaab.’”
While
we are on the topic, try conducting a Google search on any
of the rebel groups currently
being supported – and not targeted – by the United States and its
allies in Syria. Try to find one that isn’t aligned with al-Qaeda.
It’s almost impossible.
The only major group in Syria that is currently not backed by
al-Qaeda in some way, shape, or form is ISIS.
Somalia
was one of the seven countries four-star General Wesley
Clark identified years
ago as a target of American military intervention following the
September 11 attacks in 2001. It is also one of the countries that
made it onto Trump’s infamously revised
travel ban,
which is now being enforced courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although
under Barack Obama the U.S. was waging
a covert war in
Somalia rife with drone strikes and Special Forces on the ground,
Donald Trump has ramped
up this operation alongside
a number of other conflicts, particularly in Iraq and Syria. Trump
has also approved the deployment of regular U.S. troops to Somalia
for the first time since 1994. One of these troops has already
been killed in
a clash with the terror group.
To
put it simply, these American troops are not just advising and
training local troops, they are also directly
involved in
combat missions. As these clashes intensify, expect more American
deaths to come, and expect further deployments.
Such
deployments will also likely lead increased air strikes because the
U.S. argues that such strikes are
needed
to defend their troops from Islamic militants. However, even the New
York Times, an
establishment media outlet, can see right
through this
circular reasoning:
“In
its public announcements, the Pentagon sometimes characterizes the
operations as ‘self-defense strikes,’ though some analysts have
said this rationale has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It
is only because American forces are now being deployed on the front
lines in Somalia that they face imminent threats from the
Shabab.” [emphasis
added]
To
recap, the United States essentially identified a group that poses no
threat to the United States or Europe and targeted it with drone
strikes over the course of Obama’s presidency. As we have seen
across the globe, drone strikes actually help turn small insurgent
groups into a very formidable forces due
to the instability these strikes create and the innocent lives they
take. In some instances, drone strikes targeting and eradicating a
group’s leaders can actually cause a more violent
person to
rise up and take control.
Did
America’s representatives of so-called democracy ever debate this
war in Somalia? What do ordinary Americans even know about Somalia or
al-Shabaab? Most Americans probably aren’t even aware that although
there is a central government of sorts, the country has been widely
regarded as a lawless, failed
state.
Can the average American point to Somalia on a map?
Indeed,
locating Somalia on a world map would aid the reader in understanding
the geostrategic importance of such a country. As Geopolitical
Futures has explained:
“Somalia’s
northern coast borders the Gulf of Aden, which leads to Bab
el-Mandeb, a narrow chokepoint through which all maritime traffic
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean must pass. Avoiding
this strait would take all goods from the Persian Gulf – including
oil – around the entire African continent to reach European and
American markets. It is also a valuable staging ground for navies to
project power on to the Arabian Peninsula.”
Somalia
is so important that Saudi Arabia offered $50
million to its government to break ties with Iran. Not surprisingly,
Somalia is now one of the countries assisting Saudi
Arabia in its invasion of Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab
world.
That
being said, Somalia is allegedly a transit point in a
supposed weapons route from
Iran to Yemen that supplies the Yemeni opposition with weaponry to
combat Saudi-led forces in the war-torn country. If the U.S.-backed
Saudi-led coalition is unsuccessful in crushing the Yemeni
resistance, and if a government is established in Yemen that aligns
itself with Tehran, the U.S. could slowly begin to lose strategic
maritime position and influence in this vital region.
In
this context, Somalia’s proximity to Yemen means the North African
nation is one of those strategic maritime areas the U.S. cannot
afford to lose.
Somalia’s
recently elected president, who was chosen in an election paid for
by the U.S. and the E.U., is supportive of
American military assistance even though his people are, in most
cases, banned from visiting the United States.
Further,
as Truthout observes,
Somalia is just one of many African locations in which the U.S.
military has asserted itself:
“The
US Africa Command oversees a vast array of ‘outposts’ —
categorized in Pentagon-speak as ‘consisting of two forward
operating sites [including the one official base in Djibouti], 13
cooperative security locations, and 31 contingency locations.’
Secret documents in 2015 listed thirty-six outposts ‘scattered
across 24 African countries. These include low-profile
locations — from Kenya to South Sudan to a shadowy Libyan airfield
— that have never previously been mentioned in published reports.
Today, according to an AFRICOM spokesperson, the number of
these sites has actually swelled to 46, including ’15 enduring
locations.’’”
The
problem with this region, from the perspective of America’s
warmongering class, is the underlying power struggle between the
United States and China. China is investing heavily in Africa and has
also signaled its intention to build
military bases in
Africa’s strategic areas. In turn, the U.S. needs to assert itself
as much as possible to counter the rise of the Chinese presence in
Africa. China has invested over
$200 billion in Africa to date, and Somalia regards China
as a “vital ally.”
In
another example, China is already using large investments
to squeeze the
U.S. out of Pakistan, a former U.S. client state. While there is much
to be made of China’s intentions and its actions, there is a
noticeable difference in that currently, China opts for alternative
ways of spreading its influence — as opposed to relentlessly
bombing nations into submission.
To
some countries, China might be a breath of fresh air in comparison to
its American counterpart.
De ex-president van Rusland, of beter gezegd de Sovjet-Unie, Gorbatsjov, liet afgelopen januari weten, dat de wereld zich opmaakt voor oorlog. De redactie van Anti-Media zocht daar aanwijzingen voor en vond er 5, die op 1 maart jl. werden gepubliceerd:
5
Signs We’re Headed Toward a Major War
5 Signs We’re Headed Toward a Major War
(ANTIMEDIA) In
January of this year, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail
Gorbachev warned that
the whole world is preparing for war. There are many indicators that
back up Gorbachev’s assertion, but to discuss them in their
entirety would take a dissertation or two. Instead, we have put
together a list of the five most obvious signs of impending war
currently being overlooked by the media. As a result of these
oversights, the public is also missing them.
1.
Travel Ban
The
Trump administration’s travel ban, which targeted seven
majority-Muslim nations, makes little sense in the context of
fighting international terrorism. A Department of Homeland
Security report already
found no evidence of any extra threat posed by the nations on the
travel ban.
Conversely, a Saudi official has admitted Saudi
Arabia’s longstanding practice of supporting terrorism as a
political tool, yet Saudi Arabia managed to escape the list. So did
Turkey, a country that has extensively
aided ISIS fighters;
Qatar, which has spent immense
amounts of
money arming fanatical jihadists; the United
Arab Emirates (where
the majority of the funding for the 9/11 attacks passed through), and
the list goes on.
Instead,
the travel ban was purely
political.
With help
from the anti-Trump media establishment,
the ban worked wonders separating the American public between those
who oppose Trump’s every move and those who support him
wholeheartedly in his quest to “make America great again.” But
little attention was paid to the reality of the ban.
Six
of the seven countries on Trump’s travel ban were featured in a
memo that was adopted shortly after 9/11 that detailed how the U.S.
was going to topple the governments of seven countries, as exposed by
four-star General Wesley Clark. The countries featured on Clark’s
list were Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.
Including
Iran in the travel ban — despite the fact Iran is not currently
embroiled in a major civil conflict of its own, is not currently
bombing any other countries, and is one of the major
partners in the fight against ISIS —
demonstrates something more sinister at play than mere concerns
regarding international terrorism.
2.
Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric
The
Obama administration, having successfully taken out Libya in 2011,
was tasked with finishing the job in Syria and toppling the Assad
regime. Overwhelming
support for
Syrian rebels battling the Syrian government was replaced
by urgent calls to intervene directly in 2013,
but Obama failed to gain international and public support for
airstrikes on the Syrian government. Russia diplomatically put its
hand up to offer a different proposal altogether, also warning that
“[they]
have [their] plans”
should the American military decide to strike Syria as Obama
intended. Any speculation that the real focus of the Syrian war was
aimed at Iran was proven to be not just mere conjecture; Obama
immediately thereafter warned Iran
that just because the U.S. did not attack Syria did not mean the U.S.
wouldn’t still strike Iran over its alleged nuclear program.
The
Russian military intervened overtly in Syria in 2015, which only
further foiled Washington’s plans for regime change in the country,
as admitted by former Secretary of State John Kerry in a leaked
audio recording.
As
such, the Trump administration has appeared to move the focus away
from Syria and directly back to Iran, in line George
W. Bush’s approach
when he was in office.
Trump
has assembled a
team that is “obsessed with Iran” and has accused Iran
of being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Theresa May, the
prime minister of the United Kingdom, also stated that
pushing back on “Iran’s
aggressive efforts” to
increase its “arc
of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean” was
a “priority.” Trump
was likely thrilled by these statements, as May
successfully secured 100
percent support for NATO from Trump the next day.
Following
an Iranian missile launch, the Trump administration officially
put “Iran
on notice.” The U.S. government wanted to make sure the
Iranians “understood
we are not going to sit by and not act on their actions.”
Just
this past month, Trump warned in a tweet that
Iran was “playing with fire,” and he vowed he would not be
anywhere near as “kind” as his predecessor was to Iran. This is
important because Trump has accused Iran of breaching its obligations
under the nuclear agreement, though the nuclear agreement does
not prohibit non-nuclear tests.
The
nuclear deal reached in 2015 was viewed as one of Obama’s greatest
diplomatic achievements, but in reality, it was doomed to fail right
from the start. In the same way Libya was coaxed out of rapidly
advancing its weapons programs before
being bombed back
into the Middle Ages in 2011, it may be the case that this diplomatic
approach to Iran was always a smokescreen to give the United States
more ‘reasoned’ leverage when attempting to convince the
international arena that a strike on Iran was justified.
As
outlined in the book “Which
Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran”:
“For
those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by
the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made
for trying this option first. Inciting regime change in Iran would be
greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their
government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what
is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only
bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario
in this case would be that the United States and the international
community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that
the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime
reject it. In a similar
vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very
unpopular around the world and require the proper international
context – both to ensure the logistical support the operation would
require and to minimize the blowback from it. The
best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support
(however grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a
widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected
a superb offer – one so good that only a regime determined to
acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would
turn it down.” [emphasis
added]
By
claiming that through its missile tests Iran is violating a deal
that Trump
never supported to
begin with, he can lay the groundwork for an all-out confrontation
with Iran that could garner support from the international community,
as well as the misinformed American public.
3.
Iran dumps dollar
Currency
is a major driving factor behind the wars of our generation. Iraq
reportedly gave up
the U.S. dollar in 2000 for the euro and netted a “handsome profit”
for doing so. The U.S. military invaded in 2003 and
immediately switched oil sales in
Iraq from the euro back to the dollar. Iraq was also under heavy U.S.
sanctions that spanned
the course of at least a decade prior
to the invasion.
Comparatively,
in response to Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric and the travel ban, Iran
officially dumped the
U.S. dollar. Iran has also been on the receiving
end of sanctions since
the Bush administration, and Trump has slapped fresh
sanctions on Iran over the missile tests.
In
the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, our television sets
were rife with
an unprecedented amount of disinformation regarding Iraq’s nuclear
program and the threat it posed to the world. Conversely, Israel
has been crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear program for
at least two decades, yet no actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear
weapons program has been produced.
The
Trump administration also accused Iran
of attacking a U.S. navy vessel – an attack that never took place.
Make
no mistake. The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for a
war with Iran by sowing the anti-Iranian seeds necessary to take the
American public into another dangerous war in the Middle East.
4.
Syria
While
Trump appeared at first to have heralded
a new approach to the Syrian conflict,
namely that Assad should be left alone and the real focus of American
foreign policy should be on defeating ISIS, the Trump administration
is stepping up its Syria operation behind the curtains. Trump is
reportedly planning to
send troops to Syria, and he is not the only external power doing so.
Iran’s regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia, which has incessantly
accused Tehran of backing rebels in neighboring Yemen without
producing any real evidence,
is also reportedly sending
troops into Syria.
Iranian-backed
regime troops will not look favorably on any foreign invading force,
particularly Saudi troops. Saudi Arabia has already made it clear
that it intends to liberate areas of Syria from ISIS and will be on
the ground to ensure that “liberated areas [do] not fall
under the control of Hizballah, Iran or the regime.”
How
far will they go to ensure this? Not to mention, how can one country
go into another and say that they want to ensure that the land does
not fall back into the hands of the people governing that country?
5.
Military drills and military alliances
The
United States and the United
Kingdom have
already begun military drills that simulate a potential conflict with
Iran. As reported by Russian-state owned news site RT,
Iran has staged a
“massive” military drill of its own, spanning 2 million square
kilometers.
This
preparation for war can be seen across the globe. Russia is
also holding
military drills as NATO
troops and tanks encroach upon
its border. Iran is seeking even closer military relations with
Russia and North
Korea.
The Baltic states that border Russia are running
drills,
too, supposedly out of fear that the Kremlin will invade. Russia’s
longstanding ally, China,
is also currently running drills for its own geostrategic
purposes.
Germany
is reportedly seeking to increase
its troop numbers to
200,000 troops even though such a move may put its neighbors on edge.
The Philippines, having decided to give the political middle finger
to the United States and instead forge closer relations with Russia
and China, welcomed
Russian warships to
its shores in January of this year.
Looking
at these military drills and alliances in the context of the above
developments paints a very grim picture for where humanity is headed.
***
War
with Iran: too unthinkable?
The
only rational criticism pundits have given
regarding Anti-Media’s previous
warnings of war is that because a war with Iran would be so
unthinkable, the Trump administration would never be so reckless as
to pursue it. Critics who hold such a view always neglect two very
important points: firstly, the United States under the Obama
administration was vehemently
opposed to the Assad regime in Syria.
The previous U.S. administration resorted
to directly targeting Syrian troops in
the middle of what was supposed to be a peace process, all with full
knowledge that the Assad regime is bound to Iran by a mutual defense
agreement. Secondly, America’s Middle Eastern power, Israel, has
also attacked Syria multiple
times since 2011,
targeting Iranian military personnel and their proxies.
Those
who think a war with Iran is unthinkable cannot answer the question:
what if Iran were to respond directly?
Think
of it like the current
to and fro between
Floyd Mayweather and UFC champion Conor McGregor. The two sides talk
tough and
attempt to provoke each other to set the mood for the current
conflict. Plenty of speculation occurs about whether one side is
bluffing and whether
or not the fight could possibly occur in the near future.
There is even the idea that such a fight would be so disastrous for
one of the sides (or both) that there is nothing to gain from
pursuing it.
But
all it takes is one wrong move; one reckless, cowardly, ill-advised
decision from either side and the entire Middle Eastern powder
keg could explode.
Trump
ordered a raid on Yemen that even war hawk Barack Obama disapproved
of because it was deemed too risky, and the raid
was an instant failure that
killed multiple civilians. This is the same president who turns down
dinners because he cannot face the torment of the liberal media and
instead forms
his opinions from Fox
News before
taking to Twitter.
Las vorige week woensdag op Information Clearing House (ICH) een artikel, waarin o.a. werd gemeld, dat de ex-president van Servië, Slobodan Milošević, onterecht is veroordeeld door het Joegoslavië Tribunaal. Met andere woorden, de man zat voor niets in de Scheveningse gevangenis en is daar in 2006 zelfs overleden…….
Het wordt nog gekker mensen: Milošević werd een hartoperatie geweigerd, een operatie die wellicht zijn leven had gered!! De VS hield m.n. toezicht op de gezondheid van Milošević…….
Milošević was een tegenstander van Karadžić en was tegen de etnische zuiveringen, zo bleek bij de postume vrijspraak van Milošević…….
Het Joegoslavië-tribunaal wordt op ICH afgeschilderd als een door de VS geïnitieerd tribunaal, dat er vooral op gericht was, de enorme bloedbaden die de NAVO onder aanvoering van de VS aanrichtte in Joegoslavië, onder tafel te houden……. Gezien de vervolgingen door dit tribunaal en de manier waarop e.e.a. zich voltrok, is daar weinig of niets tegen in te brengen……. Del Ponte, vanaf 1999 hoofdaanklager bij het Joegoslavië-tribunaal, erkende later dat ze onder druk werd gezet, vooral geen NAVO oorlogsmisdaden te onderzoeken……
De ellende in Kosovo, die voor NAVO ingrijpen zorgde, was één grote leugen en de massagraven, waar de Serviërs, de door hen omgebrachte etnische Albanezen zouden hebben begraven, werden nooit gevonden…… Net zo min als de 225.000 Albanese doden, die destijds (en vaak nog tot op de dag van vandaag) door de westerse politici en de reguliere westerse media als een feit werden gepresenteerd, nou zeg maar: ‘gepropageerd…….’
Uiteindelijk werden er 2.780 doden gevonden, onder hen bevonden zich veel strijders van beide kanten en Roma….. De laatsten werden vermoord door de Albanese terreurgroep UÇK, nadat deze bepaalde gebieden hadden veroverd met hulp van de NAVO…….. Deze massamoord door het UÇK werd door deskundigen zelfs als een genocide aangeduid……. Het UÇK, u weet wel dezelfde terreurgroep die rond de 300 Serviërs vermoordde voor hun organen, zoals Del Ponte in 2003 beschreef in een boek van haar hand……
Het bod dat oorlogsmisdadiger Albright (die 500.000 dode Iraakse kinderen, de moeite van de VS boycot waard vond) aan Milošević deed, zou geen (westerse) leider hebben geaccepteerd. Een schandalig aanbod waarbij de NAVO (en daarmee de VS) het voor het zeggen zou krijgen in Servië en er in dit land een neoliberale marktpolitiek zou worden ingevoerd……..
Gevolg van deze terechte weigering door Milošević: bombardementen op voornamelijk Servische burgerdoelen (>> oorlogsmisdaden…)…… VS opperschoft generaal Wesley Clark, die destijds het opperbevel voerde over de NAVO troepen, liet zelfs clusterbommen gebruiken bij het bombarderen van Servië…… Voorts liet Clark ‘precisieraketten’ gebruiken, die volgens de reguliere westerse media de burgers ongemoeid lieten, maar in werkelijkheid juist wel burgerdoelen raakten, daarnaast werd de Chinese ambassade in Belgrado getroffen…….
De westerse reguliere pers, was destijds een geweldig instrument voor de VS en de NAVO, zoals diezelfde pers dat nog steeds is, zoals u ook in het bericht onder de volgende link kan vinden.
Hier de link naar het volledige bericht, met veel meer voorbeelden van valse berichtgeving door de reguliere afhankelijke media, met verwijzingen naar de illegale oorlogen in voormalig Joegoslavië, Afghanistan, Irak, Libie, Syrië en de belegering van Aleppo. Waar de schrijver en filmmaker John Pilger voorts waarschuwt voor het risico van een nucleaire oorlog, ofwel WOIII……
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het voorgaande, op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Belgrado, Clark en Del Ponte.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português